Mr. Robin Hanan:

I thank the Senator for that and for the questions she posed.

We provide a space in which different organisations can come together and try to make an impact on poverty. We have a particular involvement with people who live on the front line. We assist in organising European meetings of those who experience poverty. We have the same type of processes at national level whereby we encourage those who are affected by policies to contribute to the policies we develop and then bring to entities such as this committee. We are part of a Europe-wide network, which has a presence in all EU member states and in a number of countries outside the Union. Together, we try to co-ordinate policy and influence across the EU.

Our funding is very small but we try to use it effectively. We have a great deal of volunteer support from our active members. At European level, most of the funding for our network comes from the European Commission. The latter supports our head office in Brussels. At national level, we receive a small Government grant under the scheme to support networks and community organisations. From time to time, we also take on specific funded educational projects, policy projects, research projects and so on. Obviously, we compete for funding in respect of these. We run a very modest office, with two part-time staff. However, we also have many volunteers from our member organisations.

On the issue of welfare rates in Ireland, it is very difficult to make direct comparisons across countries. One of the reasons we fall back on different measures of poverty and inequality is because the conditions are very different. Many European countries invest a great deal more in universal free services. In the more equal and successful countries, therefore, people have high-quality health care, high-quality and cheap transport, high-quality and cheap education, etc. In Ireland, many of these services have tended to be two-tier in nature or divided. Mr. Ginnell will be more familiar with the actual figures, etc., relating to the comparisons between welfare rates. We tend to compare ourselves with the UK as opposed to our continental European counterparts. The situations in the UK and Ireland are quite different. The UK was starting from a very strong base of a relatively well-developed welfare state in terms of both services - housing, health, etc. - and actual supports and payments. Ireland started from a much lower base a couple of decades ago. We have been gradually developing a stronger base, while - to put it in very crude terms with regard to many of the measures involved - the UK has been cutting back. If we are passing somewhere in the middle, it is not necessarily because we are moving fast. Rather, it is often because rates are falling in the UK. There are very different models in continental Europe - the Nordic model, the southern model and so on - for the way in which services and welfare are developed.

I am glad reference was made to people at work, which is probably the most important aspect. I did not cover this matter in my initial comments but reference to it is contained in our submission. One of the most shocking figures to emerge from the most recent press release from the CSO is that which shows that since 2008 the number of people at work who suffer from the relevant deprivation indicators - these are very basic things such as not being able to heat one's home, not being able to afford a warm coat, etc. - has more than doubled to 15%. This indicates that we must look closely not just at wages and conditions but also at the way in which work is organised.

As members will be aware, there has been a move towards casual work. These means that people are on-call for a couple of hours a week rather than being in a position to take on either regular part-time or full-time jobs. Many conditions which, in the past, we would have considered to have been very basic have been eroded during the recession. We must consider how to rebuild these as the most successful societies in Europe and those which have emerged best from the recession - the Scandinavian countries, Austria and so forth - have done. Those states have protected conditions and retained their competitiveness as a result of the quality of work they offer and also the quality of the training, supports and security they can provide to people in work through better conditions.

Reference was made to housing. We agree that there are many problems with regard to homelessness, particularly in terms of people living on the streets but even more so in the context of those living in inadequate accommodation. A couple of years ago many of our national member organisations - Focus Ireland, the Simon Community, etc. - would have stated that the biggest problem which arose was the transition from temporary accommodation to serious long-term and independent accommodation. Now, we are discussing street homelessness. The position with regard to accessing housing is becoming worse and this is despite the number of empty properties throughout the country.

We support the views that have been aired at this committee - they also have the support of the troika and our specialist organisations - to the effect that we should move away from the type of social housing structures which are in place at present towards a system which would be more like a modernised version of traditional council housing. Under such a system, people would be able to pay rent according to their means rather than having their rent supplement cut off when they take up employment. The latter is the cause of one of the big poverty traps because it actually prevents people from taking up employment. In a study we compiled a number of years ago, we discovered that one of the greatest obstacles to people taking up employment is the fear of losing rent supplement. There is a serious need to make the switch to which I refer. It appears technical and administrative in nature but it would make all the difference.

The fund for emergency aid is the subject of complete reconsideration at present. The proposal from the European Commission - which is before the European Parliament and in respect of which this committee has an input - suggests slight changes and these would bring about improvements to the system. We have always been slightly dubious about the idea of food aid. As someone stated, in addition to being degrading, handing someone a packet of food is not a long-term solution to poverty. However, some of our member organisations - such as the Capuchin Day Centre and others who are involved in giving out food - have indicated that the number of people seeking such services has more than trebled.

Increasingly, people are prepared to go through the indignity of looking for those services, even as they are currently structured. This is also a vital fund for our counterparts in southern Europe, in countries such as Greece. While it is not a long-term solution and people should not need this type of aid, as long as they need this support, we will certainly not take it away. We would like to see it better linked to long-term solutions. I pass over to my colleague, Mr. Paul Ginnell, to reply to some of the other questions raised.