Mr. Paul Ginnell:

A range of questions covering a number of areas asked. On one of the questions relating to child poverty, I do not know if members have seen the report of the survey of income and living conditions from the Central Statistics Office which was released recently. One of the statistics contained in it is that the overall material deprivation level for the population is about a quarter. Therefore, nearly 25% of the population now experience material deprivation, and 32% of children up to age of 17 experience material deprivation. If we consider this across all measurements for poverty, children experience higher levels of poverty to a great extent. With regard to the reasons for that, another report by the ESRI and the Department of Social Protection released recently examined the issue of in-work poverty and low work intensity. It was clear that poverty levels were higher among those in work within families with children. Even for some families for whom there is a certain amount of work, children experience high levels of poverty, particularly where there is a low level of work intensity. Families are greatly affected by unemployment in a household. It is clear that children also experience poverty. One of the groups that experiences the highest levels of poverty are lone-parent families. The children within those households are at greater risk of poverty. There are a number of types of household that experience high levels of poverty and, within those, families with children are at higher risk.

The importance of social welfare provision was raised, and my colleague Mr. Robin Hanan has dealt with that. It is difficult to make comparisons as there are different levels of service provision in different countries, not only with regard to the level of social welfare support but also with regard to the types of service people can access. While social welfare rates are lower to a great extent in the UK and that is an issue there, for example, in regard to health, housing and child care, it has a higher level of services in those areas, which support people in different ways. However, in Ireland social welfare levels increased significantly, particularly in the 2000s, and that played a great role in reducing poverty here. The survey of income and living conditions shows what the poverty level would be if the social welfare transfers that have been received were taken out of the equation. In 2004, the at-risk-of-poverty rate would have been nearly 40% if social welfare supports had been removed. In 2011, the rate would have been over 50%. Therefore, social welfare transfers play a very important role in reducing poverty levels. There are issues outside the area of transfers, but social welfare plays an important role in keeping down poverty rates. It is important to understand social welfare provision in that context as well.

Members may be aware of the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice, which has done considerable work in examining minimum income standards for different types of household, irrespective of the source of income, and the level of income those family types would need to receive in order to live with dignity. The partnership has shown that people would not be living with dignity if they were solely dependent on social welfare supports. Even in the case of some types of family in which a family member has work, especially if it is part-time, they would not be receiving enough income to live with dignity or up to a standard that is considered normal or good for society.

Other issues with regard to taxation were raised. Taxation is an issue, with the recent proposals to introduce water charges and property taxation and a number of increases in taxation. Ireland's overall tax take is at the bottom end compared to other member states of the EU. If we consider the type of society we want to create and look to the Scandinavian countries, which have a higher level of taxation, and how that money is redistributed - a point that was also raised during the discussion - the key to that is to raise our tax levels over time to levels that better reflect the European level of taxation. Currently we are about 10% lower in GDP terms than the average level in the EU. There is an issue in that respect, but the question is how it would be done.

The Community Platform produced a report at the end of 2011 on the introduction of a more progressive tax system. It outlined a programme on how such a tax system would be developed, examined issues such as property tax and wealth tax - which would focus not only on a person's home but also on other types of property as well as assets and savings - and how a more progressive taxation system might be put in place, taking those issues into account. Recently a number of changes have been made in regard to tax reliefs and people at the upper end of the income scale avail of tax reliefs to a greater extent. Addressing a number of those - for example, those relating to pensions - would be a way to bring more equality into the tax system. There are proposals in this respect. In the current crisis we must examine how we can do that in a way that does not create greater levels of poverty. As was said, poverty impact assessment of tax decisions is extremely important. Mr. Hanan has covered the issue of poverty impact assessments in the past. It is a question of examining how different policies are being designed and planned and the impact they will have on different groups in society in terms of their incomes and so on.

One of the areas we have raised a good deal recently, and on which the committee has produced a report, is the proposal from the Department of Social Protection to have a single working age payment. We raised a number of concerns about that. While we would be broadly supportive of it, we have a number of concerns about how it might be implemented in that it could create poverty traps for lone parents, people with disabilities and a number of other groups on whom such changes would have an impact. We fully support this committee's report on a single working age payment, which highlights that now is not the time to introduce it. If such a payment were to be introduced, we would need to examine issues of income and the services and supports groups would need if they were to move in a proper way from social welfare supports into decent work. The committee highlighted the fact that in the current context there are very few jobs available, and many services and supports are being cut. If we want to put in place an adequate system, which is needed, now is not the time to do that.

We were disappointed and concerned about the change in the age threshold for the youngest child for whom lone parents can receive the one-parent family payment, which has now come into law, and also about changes in income disregards. While the intention of those changes is probably to achieve a system that supports lone parents in accessing work, they have resulted in increased poverty levels and act as a barrier to lone parents in accessing work. Income disregards played a role in allowing lone parents to afford child care supports, as child care provision is quite expensive and there is low level of adequacy in terms of provision. The income disregard allowed lone parents to access employment while covering the cost of child care until their income achieved a certain level at which they no longer needed the income disregard. Changing elements such as the income disregards creates an extra poverty trap and a barrier to accessing employment. In regard to poverty impact assessments, those are a number of the issues to be examined in order to specifically identify the areas of policy concerned and analyse them in terms of the impact the changes will have on the group concerned.

While the intention might be positive, what is of concern is the changes in the policies and the impact they have.

In terms of the housing situation, income supports have resulted in a number of positive changes and proposals. For example, moving the housing supports to local authorities has been a positive step. The housing first strategy is supported by most of the homeless organisations and housing groups. How that is resourced is important. Currently, approximately 100,000 families are on the waiting list. The number has been increasing consistently in recent years. As the positive new strategies are being put in place the mountain is getting higher in terms of what has to be overcome. Any new strategies that have been put in place must be adequately resourced or at least there must be an examination of how the resources that are being put in place currently are being used to ensure that the problem is being addressed. Fuel poverty was another issue.