Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses. This is a very interesting topic. The Parliamentary Budget Office made a presentation this morning. I do not have many questions because I am at the stage of absorbing information. This is a vast area. During our meeting this morning, I made the point that there is both politics and policy in this. We are trying to design a policy that is the most effective, while trying to ensure the social welfare system has the broad consent and acceptance of the population. A broad mass of people should feel some sense of ownership of the system and it should not be at risk.

Many very good points have been made, including the three alternatives to means testing, which Age Action Ireland has put forward, namely, universalism, credited social insurance and targeting payments. I will make an abstract point. If we are to have a properly progressive taxation system, why should we not have payments that are universal? If people are making an extra contribution in their taxation, everyone should be able to benefit from it on a universal basis. The problem is the opportunity cost of cost of doing so; if we decided to do it, there might be other things we might not be in a position to do.

My next question is for Age Action Ireland. I am trying to imagine what representatives from the Department of Social Protection might say if they were sitting here. We in this committee probably need to take a step back from the system as it currently is. As Deputy Ó Cathasaigh said, while the system works very well in many ways, it is a bit like Johnny Cash’s car, where one piece at a time is being bolted on bit by bit. We need to step back and look at the system in a more global way. To slightly contradict what I have just said, if representatives from the Department of Social Protection were to respond as regards the increased qualified payment, I imagine they would say that while people are entitled to make a claim, most people in these circumstances are not entitled to a contributory pension. They probably would not be on the increase for a qualified adult, IQA, otherwise but they are entitled to claim a non-contributory pension in their own right. Of course, that would be subject to the means test and would likely be a relatively small amount.

I suppose the question I am asking does not relate to what Age Action Ireland is proposing. The Department of Social Protection would say that people can make a choice between the IQA and their own payment and that they are entitled to seek their own payment if they so wish. Some people might prefer the choice of the IQA. I am not sure if I have come across examples like that. Usually, when this is the case, it may be because of the ease associated with accepting that payment. There is definitely an issue there. Let us call a spade a spade; we are primarily talking about women who spent ten or 15 years at most in the workforce before raising children and never returned to the workforce because of the way the labour market and society were at the time. There is definitely an issue there. How would Age Action Ireland respond if representatives from the Department of Social Protection were here and were to say there are choices to be made and that people may make that choice if they want?

I also have an observation regarding means testing. The committee's remit is the area of social protection. Means testing is an issue across the board. The point about medical cards was very well made. I am of the view that we need to move rapidly towards a universal healthcare system. That is the direction in which we need to move and the expansion of medical cards is a step in that direction. On the means-testing regime in housing, while I accept that there has been a welcome increase in the income threshold, the method is frustrating. Someone on the housing list for eight years who exceeds the income threshold in one year before falling back under it will have to go back to the start of the process. That issue is not within the committee's remit but it is one that always frustrates me. It applies to all ages and the application cannot even be put on ice. That people have to start again at the bottom is absolutely crazy.

I do not have many questions. We are probably all absorbing what is going on because we are forever wary of unintended consequences. There is an opportunity here for us to take a step back and look at the system as a whole and how it operates. There has been an increase in the number of older people in poverty and at risk of poverty over the last two or three years.

The Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice flagged that. Things could be done to deal with that. The living alone allowance is very important. I am looking for a little feedback. I am finished. I did not ask many questions but those are some initial thoughts.