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

I welcome the representatives of the European Anti-Poverty Network, EAPN, who will address us on their experiences in dealing with poverty in Ireland and their views on the new EU fund for food and clothing for those who are homeless and in difficulty. I welcome Mr. Robin Hanan, director of the European Anti-Poverty Network in Ireland, and Mr. Paul Ginnell, policy and support worker. I draw attention to the fact that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to the joint committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are further directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against a person, persons or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I also advise our guests that their opening statements will be published on the committee's website. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice I have just outlined. I invite Mr. Hanan to make his opening statement.

Mr. Robin Hanan:

We thank the joint committee for its invitation. We circulated a submission, but there was a slight misunderstanding in that regard. We understood our submission was to be made in the context of The Spirit Level; therefore, there are a number of references to that book, which might seem somewhat strange. However, we can explain them as we move along.

Essentially, we want to talk about the way in which the recession has affected poverty levels and impacted on equality in Ireland. The members of the European Anti-Poverty Network in Ireland are local, community-based anti-poverty groups throughout the country and national organisations dealing with issues such as homelessness and groups such as Travellers and lone parents, as well as community development projects, family resource centres and so forth. Members come together in our network to find ways of influencing policy and putting the fight against poverty at the top of the Irish and European agendas. We are very concerned that while there has been a lot of talk about the importance of protecting the most vulnerable since 2008 and the onset of the recession, in practice, according to our members and all available statistics, the issue of poverty is sliding down the agenda.
The Spirit Level, by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, talks about the importance of equality to the whole of society. It argues that more equal societies, in almost all cases, are more successful in being more cohesive and having better health outcomes, not just for people experiencing poverty but for all of society. Physical and mental health tends to be better, while levels of crime and imprisonment are much lower in more equal societies. Issues such as drug abuse are very much symptoms of unequal societies. The issue of trust is very closely linked, as one would expect, with how equal or divided a society is. Our members' experience is that these issues have a particular resonance for those living on very low incomes, suffering discrimination, living in communities with high levels of long-term unemployment and affected by poverty in different ways.

Ireland has a reputation across Europe because of a number of very important innovations introduced by various Governments during the years which have been copied in other countries. I refer specifically to strategies to fight poverty, both in targeting areas of disadvantage and in producing overall national strategies. This dates back to the poverty programmes introduced during the time of the late Deputy Frank Cluskey in the 1970s which were initiated by Ireland and taken up across Europe. This was the very first attempt to put serious money behind communities to help them to solve their own problems, as opposed to communities simply relying on services being provided for them.

The national anti-poverty strategy of the 1990s set targets and frameworks for progressively eliminating poverty and introduced the concept of poverty proofing, a concept I will be discussing this morning and which has now been taken up throughout Europe. Our concern is that while these initiatives are important in themselves and on paper, they have not been matched by the type of investment needed to secure a more equal and a more participative society.

Our handout provides some of the figures - I will not go into the details now - from the latest CSO press release on poverty. Among other forms of poverty the document refers to measuring the level of deprivation. This includes the number of people who cannot afford basic things such as heating their homes or buying a warm coat. It is shocking, although not unexpected from our experience, to see that the number of people suffering this type of deprivation has increased by half since 2008 to 25% of the population, and that one third of all children in the country are suffering from deprivation in these terms.

Groups traditionally hit by poverty tend to get less coverage in the media than new groups coming into poverty or who are experiencing poverty in severe ways for the first time. Groups traditionally affected by poverty include lone parents, the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed, Travellers and ethnic minorities. These remain the people worst hit by poverty. The progress we were beginning to make towards the end of the Celtic tiger years and in the last years before the recession have been seriously reversed in recent years.

It is not enough for the country to dust off the existing national anti-poverty strategy, which, we believe, has not been fully implemented. We need to consider seriously where the country is going in terms of the fight against poverty. The central idea of the national anti-poverty strategy, which dates back to 1997, is the idea that every area of policy should be proofed for its impact on poverty. This has become part of a broader impact assessment in terms of poverty and inequality. The idea is that the annual budget should be assessed to determine its impact on poverty and that crime strategies, housing strategies, the Finance Bill, welfare strategies, health services and so on should all be assessed in this way. The idea is that all of these should be designed to be a part of the overall fight against poverty and that there should be an all-government approach driven by the concept of poverty proofing. While poverty proofing continues as a technical exercise and much good work has been done in the Department of Social Protection in terms of trying to monitor policy, we are concerned that it is not part of the public debate about where the country is going or the debate about the jobs, services and welfare supports needed to seriously fight poverty.

Our submission includes six steps to be taken, although we will not go into the detail now. However, there will be an opportunity for Deputies and Senators who wish to take up issues to explore anything they believe to be important. The concepts of poverty proofing and impact assessment are central to everything we are concerned about, as is what is often referred to as the triangle of quality jobs, welfare supports to help people out of poverty and accessible services. We believe these services, including quality health services, quality transport services and quality education services for everyone, as opposed to the two-tier services we often see in the country, are absolutely central. The approach must involve removing poverty traps. We pointed out in our previous submission on the budget that we are concerned that some of the current and recent welfare cuts and changes to benefit eligibility have made it more difficult for people on low incomes to take up work.

The work in this area must be driven by an approach that supports community development. This is one of the strongest ideas dating back to Frank Cluskey's poverty programmes of the 1970s, which represented a significant contribution from Ireland to Europe in this area. The idea is that we put serious resources into supporting community development and into projects run by communities themselves. At the moment the entire community sector is very much under threat in terms of cuts and also in terms of the narrowing of its scope for action and the replacement of community development driven by local people with services.

Finally, we need to consider how to attack poverty. This is why we maintain decisions must involve serious investment. Serious investment involves making decisions about taxation, which, in our view, Ireland has largely dodged not only in recent years but going back decades. Traditionally Ireland has been a low-tax country. Perhaps this is something we do not feel as citizens because of the way taxes are heavily weighted in certain sections of the population, but the overall tax take, especially on the rich and on property, has been rather low and we believe the overall tax take should be brought up to European levels.

Our final message is that now is the time to think about equality and poverty because it is during recessions when the big decisions are taken. There have been few examples throughout the world of anyone building a national health service when times were good. They were built in the aftermath of war and during the great recession. There are few examples of welfare states being built when times were good. They were built during the recession of the 1930s or in the 1940s after the war. The period of emerging from a recession is when we get to think about what type of society we want to live in. This is why we are grateful to the committee for taking up this debate in its broader scope now aside from its day-to-day work, which involves monitoring individual items of legislation and individual policy proposals as they come through from day to day. This is a useful time to sit back and consider the issue.

We circulated a submission on the fund for European aid to the most deprived. I understand it is being handled separately at a different meeting but if the Chairman wishes I can comment on it now.

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

That would be good. We will make our political contribution to the European Commission shortly. Please proceed and then if members have any questions they can be addressed.

Mr. Paul Ginnell:

I imagine Deputies and Senators will be aware that the fund for European aid to the most deprived grew out of what was originally the food aid scheme dating from the time of food surpluses. It has become a broader way of distributing food surpluses and giving specific aid. This is a useful time to consider the scheme because it is being re-written at European level. Ireland has special access to the debate because our Dublin MEP, Emer Costello, is acting as rapporteur to the Bill. We had been very involved in the debate. One of our main concerns is that any new scheme coming through should not take away from long-term development. There has been a debate within the European Commission and at the European Council, especially during the budget debate, about whether the money for this fund, which is effectively an emergency aid fund for the most disadvantaged, should be taken out of the European Social Fund. As far as we are concerned it is most important that the two are dealt with separately because it does not make sense to provide food aid to people but not the long-term supports and serious solutions which can help them to move out of poverty.

We are keen for the scheme to be used in a way that allows organisations which are distributing food aid and other types of aid - the scheme is now broader than simply food aid - to see it as the beginning of a longer-term engagement with people in need. It should not simply be a matter of giving a food package to someone who is homeless. We should use it as an opportunity to talk to that person about how he can access housing and welfare and how he can begin to get his life in order in terms of education, drug abuse and so on. It is important that the aid is distributed to organisations which have the capacity to work in this way or, at least, which have thought about how to do that properly.

We believe it is important that the programme is not confined entirely to food aid. There is a scheme here, the Bia Food Bank initiative, which has made a proposal to the committee that some of the money should be used to set up an infrastructure for distributing aid but also used for what is known in Scotland, where this is done rather well, as start-up packs. This means a person does not simply get food but also the things he needs to start a new independent life. The idea is to help such a person back on the road to an independent life. The monitoring mechanisms put in place should involve organisations with a broad interest in helping people out of homelessness and poverty, as well as the Departments involved in distributing the food and the monitoring committees at local level. These are some of the concerns we have brought to the committee. Some weeks ago we sent in a submission in writing.

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

We have received the submission. We have written up a draft report but on foot of this meeting we will probably amend the draft slightly to take into account the submission and the replies to the questions from members. The broader topic of the report is meant to be poverty and the issue of income equality and the delegates have covered that topic very well. I will call on members to ask questions.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Hanan and Mr. Ginnell to the meeting. I thank them for their attendance and for making a submission on this important issue. I ask for details on the European Anti-Poverty Network's international relationships and how the organisation is funded. This is my first meeting with the delegates.

It was stated in the presentation that one third of children are deprived in some way.

Mr. Robin Hanan:

That is correct.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask Mr. Hanan to elaborate on that statistic. What type of deprivation is being experienced? How has it changed since the recession began in the past five years? The national anti-poverty strategy stipulates a requirement for poverty-proofing. I am interested in hearing the views of the delegates on how this operates. A number of measures have been introduced and it is not clear how they are being poverty-proofed. I refer in particular to the property tax which is applicable to all property, regardless of the income of the family involved. I wonder how that would pass muster with any poverty-proofing. I do not think poverty-proofing is given high priority in some of the measures which are being introduced. I ask the delegates to explain their views on the strategy.

The EAPN proposes that taxes should be increased. I ask for information on those proposals. The social welfare system is the safety net for families dealing with unemployment who do not have any other means of looking after themselves. I ask the delegates to speak about the contrast between the system here and the British system. There is a difference in the level of benefits paid. The payments are much lower in the British social welfare safety net. What are the consequences for levels of poverty here and in our nearest neighbour and in the Six Counties? I am interested in hearing further details about the types of deprivation and how these have changed.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I missed the presentation by the delegates but I read the written submission and the reports. I refer to Deputy McConalogue's question about a comparison of welfare rates in different jurisdictions. It is too simplistic to say that people here get a higher rate of social welfare payment than in another jurisdiction. One needs to take into account all the other elements that make up the total benefit. I refer, for example, to housing supports and housing grants. I have looked at the six steps to a more equal and inclusive Ireland and one step is to increase the overall tax take. It is not just a case of increasing the tax take but also how it is distributed subsequently. I ask the delegates for their views.

I note the EAPN has argued for the introduction of progressive property taxes. It is an appropriate subject for discussion because the property tax is currently in the Seanad, having been passed in the Dáil. I ask the EAPN to give us any information on how property taxes are redistributed in other jurisdictions compared to what is being proposed here. The proposal is that they will be given back to the local authorities who will decide how they are to be spent. Is that how it works in other jurisdictions? In some areas the taxes collected are ring-fenced for expenditure on education or health or put into a national pot rather than being given back to the local authorities to provide services at a local level. I ask for information on the practice in other European countries.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for their attendance. I will not repeat the points already raised by other members. The points speak for themselves and I await the answers.

I am constantly hearing that the Irish social welfare rates are very high. However, the cost of living in Ireland must be taken into consideration. The rates are lower in other countries but so too is the cost of living in other countries. One cannot have it both ways. One cannot lower the rates of social welfare while the cost of living is high. That would drive people into poverty. We have been told that any figure below €25,000 for a couple with children will drive them into poverty. In my view, €25,000 is a very low figure, especially when a mortgage has to be paid. A lot of working people in this country - not just people on social welfare - are driven into poverty now because they are unable to meet their bills and they are not entitled to any benefits. They do not qualify for any aid, such as rent supplement, simply because they are working.

It is distressing to note that food aid includes butter and rice. It reminds me of the days when people queued at local authority offices for the intervention beef. It is degrading, to say the least, for people to have to do that. I am sure there will be a different method of distribution used now. I ask the delegates to elaborate on a new, more flexible method to be introduced.

Ray Butler (Meath West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the delegates for their attendance and for making their presentation. I agree with them that budgets should be poverty-proofed. Unfortunately, this was not done in the last budget but I will definitely push for it to be done in the next budget.

Fuel poverty is a very big issue which is of concern to me. There is no regulation of the fuel industry. The four major fuel suppliers can put the prices up or down as they wish. I have argued this point on local radio and at national level. I also asked the Minister for Finance to consider reducing VAT on fuel to alleviate the suffering of people paying high fuel costs in the hard winter months. I asked if he could reduce the VAT for three to four months of the year. He replied that Europe was looking for a higher rate to cover the carbon footprint. Home heating oil currently costs €1.02 a litre. Young families are facing poverty trying to heat their homes. I will be pushing the Minister again on this issue. I will ask him for a VAT reduction during the three to four hard winter months in order to alleviate some of the pressure on people. I ask for the views of the delegates on the fuel issue.

On the issue of food aid and the use of intervention food I agree that it should not be just a parcel of food and no more. It needs to be long-term aid. I agree with Senator Moloney that a system of distribution needs to be established. We all saw the long queues in the 1980s and 1990s outside the St. Vincent de Paul offices or the local parish hall as people waited for their food parcels. It is very degrading. I agree with the suggestion of starter packs. Many people are in financial difficulties as a result of the recession. The system of social protection is very confusing. People do not know what stamp they are paying. It is very difficult to know what are one's entitlements because the information is not easily accessible. I would like to see the Department of Social Protection giving information on the grades of stamps so that people will be familiar with their entitlements.

That could be included in letters issued by the Department of Social Protection to inform people about that to which they are entitled.

Housing is a major issue. Legislation in this regard is before the Oireachtas at present. What are our guests thoughts in respect of local authority housing? In certain cases, Mystic Meg would not be able to tell someone his or her position on a local authority waiting list. The system is so confusing that one would need a crystal ball in order to discover one's position on the list. There is a need to examine the position in this regard.

I am currently fighting on behalf of one group of people who have suffered a great deal, namely, the self-employed. Since the demise of the Celtic tiger, many of these people have been living in poverty. This is because they were entitled to nothing from the State. There is no doubt that assistance is required for the self-employed.

Mr. Robin Hanan:

I will answer some of the questions and refer the remainder to Mr. Ginnell, who has a better head for figures than I. The European Anti-Poverty Network comes out of the poverty programmes to which I referred earlier and was established across Europe as a network of organisations working against poverty on the ground. Many of these would be local community initiatives, some are housing organisations and others are national organisations, such as the Simon Community, Threshold, OPEN, the lone parents group, the Irish Traveller Movement and Pavee Point. This range of organisations originally wanted to raise issues of poverty at European level together. The Irish arm of the European Anti-Poverty Network was established to assist organisations in impacting on European policy.

Most of the European policies, etc., with which we deal - whether they are the social inclusion strategies or issues relating structural funds, employment and so on - are closely linked to national policies. We now work as much on national policies as we do on European ones. We are an umbrella body and, depending on the time of year and the number of people who have paid their subscriptions, we have in or around 250 member organisations. Most of the latter are local, community-based organisations that are working against poverty and some are the larger, national organisations with which members would be familiar.

Marie Moloney (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for interrupting but I must leave the meeting to attend in the Seanad for a vote. If I do not return, I will read the transcript of proceedings in order to discover what else our guests have to say.

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.

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.

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

I will allow members to contribute and I have a couple of questions myself. At that stage we might get the witnesses to wrap up.

Jonathan O'Brien (Cork North Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the big increases in those trying to access housing is those whose marriages have broken down. Separated men with children find it almost impossible to get council housing to accommodate the needs of their children. They apply for council housing but because their children might already be housed in a council house with their mother they are not allowed to include the children as applicants on a housing list. Fathers are then forced to rent privately, which is driving them into poverty because it is difficult for separated fathers to rent a two-bedroom house or three-bedroom house to accommodate their children in addition to paying maintenance and looking after the welfare of their children. It is not possible for them to do so.

Reference has been made to poverty traps and rent allowance. Unless we deal with such issues from a policy point of view then we will never lift those individuals out of the situation. We can invest as much money as we like in housing but we are not taking into account the needs of those on the waiting list. The standard build is a two-bedroom house or a three-bedroom house. We take into account the number of people on the waiting list and the number of houses that are needed but we are not looking at the type of builds we need to put in place. There is no mixture of build types, which will be different in every local authority. The Minister of State with responsibility for housing does not appear to have a strategy in place to examine the needs of people on the housing waiting list. That is a significant issue that is not being addressed.

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?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the dynamic between the number of people who are currently homeless and on the streets and the reasons behind it? Could one categorise the problem? I accept some homeless people have issues with drug and addiction problems. Do other categories of people also become homeless? There is an allowance for unemployment and also rent supplement, which is by no means generous but it is a safety net to ensure people do not end up on the street. That does require people leading a lifestyle which is conducive to that. Are there other categories of people which also contribute to an increase in the number of homeless people?

On introducing a system of rent supplement that would be more akin to the way rent is charged for council houses, could the witnesses develop the suggestion more and outline the proposed costs? What was said makes sense. I agree that people face a poverty trap coming off social welfare. In some cases low-paid jobs are available but it can be difficult to make the jump from getting rent supplement to being in the workforce. I would like to hear the proposal fleshed out and how it might work.

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

I invite Mr. Hanan and Mr. Ginnell to reply to the questions and to make their concluding remarks.

Mr. Robin Hanan:

We will try to cover the questions between us as thoroughly and briefly as we can so as not to take too much of the committee’s time. I overlooked referring to fuel poverty to which reference was made in the first round of questions. Unless we take action fuel poverty will get worse because nobody has projected that fuel prices will drop in the medium to long term. For a number of reasons with which we are all familiar fuel prices are likely to rise substantially. While special schemes and support schemes are useful the best way to tackle fuel poverty is to increase the amount of money available to people generally rather than simply to subsidise the fuel itself. It is also important to provide schemes to reduce fuel consumption which are much more broadly available. We have a problem at the moment but many schemes are only available to people who can afford to invest quite a bit of money in the first place and get the tax relief back.

We need schemes such as those in place in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany under which people across the country can receive the advice they need on how to insulate their houses and turn them into what the Germans call energy producers rather than energy consumers through the use of a range of solar panels and various other measures. They can also receive advice on how to cut back on fuel consumption. All of these schemes must be made more generally available to those on low incomes. Many of them are available only to people who can afford to invest who get tax relief or special subsidies which account for a small proportion of the cost. That is a bigger debate, but it is another example of the reason poverty proofing is important. The climate change Bill is being discussed and it is important to poverty proof that legislation, as it is to poverty proof welfare schemes and so on to ensure they are available to everyone to create a more equal society.

We very much agree on the broader question raised of income equality. If we look at the societies in Europe and across the world that are most successful, there was a lot of detail documented in The Spirit Level in this regard. We are familiar with the fact that the Scandinavian countries, for example, which invest in social inclusion measures to a much greater extent and over a much longer period than we or many other countries in Europe do are not only the most successful in terms of all social outcomes - mental and physical health and education - they are also the countries heading the world competitiveness index. They are also the countries that have survived the recession or, as in the case of Finland which went into recession in 1990 because of special local circumstances to do with the border with Russia, that were able to come out of it relatively quickly as strong and cohesive societies. In the context of examining inclusive societies, they have a mix between taxation which is seen to be fair across the board - we have a situation where most people believe someone else is not paying his or her share of tax; the system is not seen to be fair, progressive and without major legal or illegal loopholes built into it which, as Mr. Ginnell mentioned, is particularly important - and welfare services that are seen to support people at times of unemployment.

One of the modern ideas replacing the Beveridge model across Europe which has been taken up by the ESRI and the Government in various reports is that of the active welfare state, sometimes known as "flexicurity". If we can provide people with a level of security, it makes it more possible to build a more flexible economy. We cannot restructure industries or expect people to move from lifelong dependence on one sector of the economy such as the building sector to other forms of work unless we provide adequate welfare supports, thorough training and access routes to employment, an issue I am aware the committee has been examining. The modern version of a welfare state is all about providing levels of income which make it possible for people to live a dignified life, while not preventing them from taking up work, in other words, the benefits people have when they are unemployed are not withdrawn if their income moves above a certain threshold but taper off to make it possible for them to return to work without hitting poverty traps. It is also about having access to adequate services, regardless of their level of income, the best of the medical and education systems, the best quality free transport services to get to work and so on. In other words, we should have a society that is cohesive which people believe they are contributing to and gaining from. We should not have one part of society resenting other parts because they believe people are either not contributing or are gaining too much.

We do not accept the view often expressed in the media that people on low incomes are not contributing their fair share of taxation. One of the biggest changes in recent years has been the shift towards VAT and consumption taxes which hit those on low incomes particularly hard. Those on low incomes are contributing a very high proportion of tax compared to most European countries and, as Mr. Ginnell pointed out, people on high incomes are relatively untouched by the taxation system in this country.

On the question of homelessness, there are many reasons-----

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

I am sorry to interrupt, but the Minister is waiting outside. I was hoping to conclude this session in the next few minutes. Therefore, I ask Mr. Hanan to be brief.

Mr. Robin Hanan:

On the question of homelessness, there are many reasons people become homeless. The difference in the position between now and a number of years ago is partly to do with the number losing work, but it has much more to do with the fact that accommodation is not available to meet the extra demand. Cutbacks in services have made it difficult.

The habitual residence condition makes it very difficult for people who cannot prove they have been living in the country for three years, although it depends on the particular terms and conditions applying, to access either State-supported housing or housing provided by voluntary organisations funded by the State. This means that many people who came here from abroad, worked and contributed to the social welfare and tax systems here are not eligible for housing. It also means that people who emigrated from Ireland and have returned are not eligible for housing. This has contributed seriously to the problem.

While there are many reasons people become homeless - social, economic and mental health issues - we know what the solutions are. The voluntary organisations which work with homeless persons and have learned from counterparts in other countries know what they are. What they need is money and the investment to make it happen.

In terms of restructuring the social housing system, the ideas put on the table which I understand have been presented to the committee by the homeless organisations in our membership are aimed at transforming the system from one based primarily on people receiving a supplement to pay for accommodation in the private rented sector which is often not adequate and means many landlords will not accept those in receipt of rent supplement towards one under which the council would rent housing according to people's means. It would be a modernised version of the old council housing scheme but one which would be much more flexible and adapted to meet people's needs, housing availability and the requirements of the modern market.

On the question of the housing that is appropriate, we have a concern. We are happy that a number of schemes are being put together to use empty houses and transform some of the ghost estates which have gained prominence in the media into areas in which people on low incomes can live. Part of the problem is that, unfortunately, many of these areas were designed as places where people could sleep and commute from rather than places in which they could live. We will, therefore, need to put some thought into the housing that is most appropriate.

All of this comes back to examining the policy areas mentioned in a national anti-poverty strategy and the need for poverty proofing. We must ask about the impact on equality across society. Specifically, what will be the impact on those who are suffering the most in terms of poverty of particular measures? It is not enough to measure, count and write strategies. We need to put serious amounts of money behind them.

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

A question was asked about Food Bank infrastructure.

Mr. Robin Hanan:

Yes.

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

I ask Mr. Ginnell to be very brief because the Minister is waiting outside.

Mr. Paul Ginnell:

I will make a number of points. Food Bank is a structure in Ireland which is looking at putting food banks in place. There are food banks in Dublin and Belfast which examine how food can be collected. Their proposals, the details of which they will probably send to the committee, are to look at ways we can work with food producers and companies. If there is an oversupply of food and food waste, it goes straight to the dump, for which the companies pay. They are looking to put in place a national structure to take that food - it has to be properly controlled in terms of health and safety - and create food banks in different parts of the country and redistribute the food through community infrastructure. It is not just about collecting food and distributing it; it also about how it is done.

I will make two other points.

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

Very briefly because we have gone over time and the Minister can only stay for a very short period.

Mr. Paul Ginnell:

The level of income inequality has not increased much recently. It had been reducing for a long time, but we have seen a slight increase, which is a concern.

The ESRI has assessed the past two budgets as being regressive. This has not yet been factored in to the statistics because the information has not been seen. However, an issue arises regard proofing budgets and determining how this can be done.

The community platform document on reforming taxation and having a more progressive tax system highlights that we are not behind at a European level with regard to income tax. We are behind in two areas - social insurance and local authority taxes. With regard to social insurance, the system is being eroded. People pay social insurance and see what they get back. In recent years the numbers of months for which somebody paying to the fund can receive jobseeker's benefit have been reduced to six and nine. No matter how many years one has been paying to the fund, the maximum period is nine months. This is an erosion of the social insurance system. People see that they get less back than what they have been contributing. This is an issue for the committee to examine. It is an area that needs to be built up rather than eroded.

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

I thank Mr. Ginnell for briefing us. We will take on board some of the comments he made on the EU fund and incorporate them in our draft. We will send a copy of the transcript of the debate to the Minister for Social Protection for her comments.

With regard to our political contribution to the fund for European aid, as discussed previously, is it agreed that we send the political contribution? Members have the draft. We will make some small adjustments to account for issues raised by the delegates at the meeting on the Food Bank infrastructure and using groups that have the capacity to develop a relationship with the people concerned. Is that agreed? Agreed.