Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of question I would like to put. Reference was made in the presentation to the political contribution to the fund. It was said that the continued focus on food aid is also important but it can only be of real value to Ireland if there is also support to develop a delivery infrastructure such as a food bank, as has been proposed. Could the witnesses provide more detail on what the infrastructure might entail and the related costs? What were the problems with the previous scheme and how will the new scheme improve on it?

I agree with the notion that income equality is important in reducing poverty. Relative poverty and income equality seem to be important in terms of outcomes for society according to the book by Professor Wilkinson that was mentioned. The previous survey on income and living conditions that was published showed that the Gini co-efficient did not increase between 2010 and 2011. I understand it did not increase much since 2008. The same is the case with the quintile share of income. We must make the issue part of the debate but we must acknowledge also when things improve or do not get worse. The reality is that we will have a bigger tax take when all the changes have been implemented such as the property tax and water charges. According to the OECD our tax system has become more progressive in recent years, which is a welcome development.

There was an article in one of the British Sunday newspapers by Frank Field, a Labour MP. I have seen the issue raised by other Labour MPs as well. The article related to what social welfare has become in the United Kingdom. A similar issue arises in this country. When Beveridge introduced the notion of the welfare state it was based on the fact that one contributed to a safety net and then one got something back in that one could take advantage of it when it was needed. What Frank Field said in the article is that the system was to provide for need as opposed to what one contributed. There is an element of the system that is becoming self-perpetuating. It is very hard to get people on social welfare back to work for various reasons based on the way the system is designed. Do the witnesses have a comment on how to make a better social welfare system that would go back to the original spirit of Beveridge?