John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we commence I remind members and witnesses with mobile phones to turn them off or at least put them on flight mode. I welcome the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Leo Varadkar, and his officials and I thank them for their attendance. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I thank the Minister for his opening statement, which was circulated to members yesterday evening. I ask the Minister to make an opening presentation and I will then award colleagues an opportunity to raise matters and questions with him.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the committee for the invitation to be here and I look forward to working constructively with it in the months and years ahead. With me from the Department are Mr. John Conlon, Mr. Denis Moynihan, Ms Roshin Sen and Mr. Tony Crean.

As requested, my statement will be relatively short and will outline my priorities in the Department of Social Protection, particularly in a budgetary context. However, I am also very keen to listen to, and understand, the views of committee members on what they see as the key social protection issues in the years ahead.

It is useful in the first instance to outline the scope and scale of the Department’s expenditure and its importance for millions of citizens in our country. Our budgetary allocation for this year is €19.625 billion. This represents 38% of gross current Government expenditure. We also have a capital budget, but this is very small. Expenditure to the end of August was just short of €13 billion and is very close to target for the year to date. We more or less expect to come in on budget. Each week, approximately 1.37 million people, including pensioners, people with disabilities, people on sick leave, those on maternity leave - and, since this week, paternity leave - as well as carers and jobseekers, receive a payment from the Department. In addition to this, more than 625,000 families receive child benefit each month for almost 1.2 million children.

Committee members are no doubt aware there is a misconception that most welfare payments go to the unemployed. This is not the case; in fact, it is far from it. The biggest single block of expenditure in 2016 will be on pensions, which will amount to €7 billion, or 36% of overall expenditure.

Expenditure on working age income supports includes jobseeker's benefit, one-parent family payment and maternity and paternity benefit. It will account for €4 billion, or 20%, of overall expenditure. The expenditure provision for illness, disability and carers will amount to €3.5 billion, or 18%, of expenditure. The expenditure on children and families will account for 13%, or approximately €2.6 billion, of which €410 million will be spent on the family income supplement paid to low income working families. Expenditure on employment supports includes community employment schemes, Gateway, Tús, back to education, back to enterprise and all of the other various employment programmes which amounts to €1.1 billion, or 6%, of the Department's budget. Expenditure on supplement payments like rent supplement, agencies like the Money Advice & Budgeting Service, MABS, and the Citizens Information Board and miscellaneous services accounts for €867 million, or 4%, of the budget. The main supplementary payments, as Members will be aware, are rent supplement, the household benefits package, the fuel allowance and free travel.

The primary focus of the last Government was to repair the economy and save Ireland from national bankruptcy. Unemployment reached a crisis peak of over 15% but CSO data now show that the latest monthly unemployment rate is 8.3%. Long-term unemployment, that is, people who have been unemployed for more than a year, stands at 4.4% and represents a reduction of over 50,000 people in the past two years. There are now more than 2 million people in employment for the first time in almost a decade, with an additional 56,200 people in work over the past year. At the end of August, there were nearly 43,000 fewer people on the live register than the same time last year and 82,000 fewer people than this time two years ago. The live register peaked at 470,000 in mid-2011, which was shortly after the change of Government. We are on track for the live register to go below 300,000 in the next couple of months. The figure remains too high but it is worth noting that the last time the figure was below 300,000 was in December 2008, which was before the financial crisis or just as it was starting to unfold.

The ongoing fall in the live register is freeing up resources that we need to meet additional demand in other areas such as pensions, people with disabilities and carers. We estimate that we will need another €200 million in 2017 to cover the cost of an increasing number of pensioners, and that is before any increase in rates.

The question that will arise in the coming weeks is how to build a sustainable budget that will benefit all of our people, young and old, rural and urban, in the workforce and not in the workforce, and to do so in such a way that does not spread scarce resources so thinly as to not make much of a difference.

There have been a number of important developments in 2016 which I will touch on. First, I have honoured the Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael agreement and the programme for Government commitment to increase rent supplement limits. The new measure is in place since 1 July and means maximum rent limits have increased in every part of Ireland. I know that rents are back to what they were at peak or higher and so is rent supplements. They vary from county to county and from household type to household type but they have been restored, in most cases, to where they were at rent peak, or higher still. The extent of the increase reflects the rise in rents in each location for each household type. For example, there has been a 25% average increase in Laois and Roscommon; a 21% average increase in Leitrim, Cork city, Longford and Galway city; a 29% average increase in Dublin; a 19% average increase in Westmeath, Kildare and Louth; and a 15% average increase in Cavan and Donegal. This varies according to household size, as do market rents. In some cases, there are variations within counties. Kildare is a county that has two very different rental markets - one is located very close Dublin and the other is quite different.

Provision remains in place for discretionary increases on a case-by-case basis. For example, where somebody needs a higher rent supplement than the limit in order to remain in his or her house, Department officials can grant a discretionary increase. As many as 10,000 discretionary increases have been granted in total. Since the increase in rent supplements, the number of people who have come looking for a discretionary increase, and needed it, has been pretty minimal. There has been a more than 90% reduction in the need for discretionary increases. On one level that demonstrates the case that other parties may have made that rent supplement should have been increased sooner but it also indicates now that the problem is less the rent supplement limit than finding somewhere to rent. The major issue now is supply.

I am delighted that the Paternity Leave and Benefit Act was enacted over the summer. The legislation was brought through the Dáil and Seanad by my colleagues, the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, and the Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, Deputy David Stanton.

My Department starts making paternity benefit payments this month to social insurance contributors, including the self-employed. This is an example of the social insurance system adapting and responding to the changing needs and wishes of families in this country as well as changes in the labour market. My Department is currently undertaking an awareness campaign for the scheme to ensure that eligible parents take it up. I would appreciate the committee's assistance in directing anyone with queries to the Department’s website, where there is detailed information on how to apply. More information can be found at welfare.ie/paternitybenefit.

As was the case in 2014 and 2015, when the Christmas bonus was paid, there is currently no provision for a Christmas bonus in the Department’s allocation for 2016. In 2014 and 2015, the Government was ultimately in a position to pay the bonus given the continuing improvement in the State’s financial position. The State’s financial position is improving again in 2016 and I will, therefore, be seeking approval from my Government colleagues in the coming months for the payment of a Christmas bonus once again this year. Any announcement will have to be made on budget day in October.

Looking ahead, the programme for Government contains a number of commitments on social protection. These include increasing pensions and the living alone allowance, protecting free travel for pensioners and people with disabilities and a rate increase for people with disabilities and carers. The programme also outlines the Government’s commitment to the development of a new working family payment to reduce child poverty and make work pay, ensuring that no family is better off on welfare than in work. This is, of course, a five year programme and everything cannot be done in one or two budgets. However, they will be done.

The benefits and pensions that social welfare recipients receive are funded by both PRSI contributions through the Social Insurance Fund and general taxation through the Exchequer Vote. As a result, I believe we need a strong consensus across society on the importance of a comprehensive social welfare system, whereby the PRSI contributions and taxation paid by all workers, including the self-employed, provide adequate, sustainable and appropriate benefits when required. I want a welfare system and, in particular, a social insurance system which responds to life’s risks such as losing one's job, long-term illness and parenting. None of us knows when we might require the support of these schemes or the services operated by the Department. However, what we all know is that we want those supports to be available if we, or loved ones, families or friends need them.

I want to reinforce the contributory principle by strengthening the social insurance system. I want to enhance the treatments available under the treatment benefit scheme, which was significantly cut back during the austerity years. This includes dental and optical benefits. As Members will be aware, I want to extend the level of social insurance coverage available to the self-employed. This is a personal priority for me and I have requested that the Department carry out a major survey of the self-employed to find out what new benefits they would most like to receive from social insurance reforms planned in future budgets. The deadline for the survey was 31 August and there was a very good response to it. The results are currently being analysed and I will share them with the committee in the coming weeks. These plans form part of the Government’s new deal for the self-employed, which will encompass tax, welfare changes and greater supports for entrepreneurship.

I should point out that this year, for the first time in many years, the Social Insurance Fund will be in surplus, having been in deficit for a number of years. That has happened for two reasons. First, the economy has been recovering. The second reason is the reforms, some of which were unpopular but necessary, made by the previous Government and my forebearer, the then Minister, Deputy Joan Burton. Now we are in a strong economic period, it is important that we keep that fund in surplus and run surpluses so that there is a surplus available when the next recession comes, which it surely will. We need to ensure that any changes we make to social insurance are sustainable and are based on contributions because without contributions going in, nothing can come out on the other side.

The summer economic statement outlined that there will be approximately €1 billion of fiscal space available for new initiatives across all Departments in budget 2017. Roughly one third will provide for tax reductions and two thirds for additional spending. Clearly, if we were to do all that we would like to do, big Departments like mine and the Departments with responsibility for health or housing could spend it all on their own, but that would not be right or fair. Therefore, choices will have to be made; everything cannot be done in one year.

On 22 July, I hosted the Department's annual pre-budget forum, during which I listened to the views of representatives from 40 non-governmental organisations, NGOs, and advocacy and representative organisations. The forum was extremely useful and it provided me and my officials with a much greater insight into the competing priorities within the sector. Bearing this in mind, rather than a shopping list of items that cannot be purchased, what I would welcome from the committee is input on what it believes should be the two or three main priorities for me in the budget talks. I will then provide the committee with the cost of and knock-on effects in that regard. Anything that is changed in social protection has a knock-on effect somewhere else. There are things that I can take up in the budget talks and I look forward to receipt of the committee's advice in that regard.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his presentation. I am sure the Deputies offering will have questions and statements to make in regard to the budgetary process. Any information of a technical nature that the Minister does not have with him today should be circulated to the committee at a later date.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister to the committee and thank him for his presentation. There are a number of matters I would like to advert to. In regard to the self-employed, I welcome the Minister's statement that this area is a personal priority for him. It is an area Fianna Fáil has been concerned with and in respect of which it has put forward specific proposals over the past couple of years, as the Minister will be aware. The Minister mentioned that the cost to the State of providing a jobseeker's benefit scheme in respect of the self-employed would be €87 million and the cost in that regard in terms of invalidity pension would by €78 million. What is the position in relation to illness benefit? I am aware that the advisory committee dealt with the issue of long-term illness. However, people who are self-employed can become ill on a short term basis also.

On the advisory group report on tax and social welfare, I do not agree with the group's conclusions on jobseeker's benefit. However, as that is not central to what we are discussing today I do not propose to state my objections in that regard. On illness benefit, Fianna Fáil has always envisaged that any extension of social insurance to the self-employed would be done on a gradual basis, starting with people who become ill. The issue with which the advisory group wrestled is whether this could be done on a voluntary or a compulsory basis. It came down in favour of it being done on a compulsory basis because, it states, if it was done on a voluntary basis this could lead to the selection of bad risks. There is no guarantee that it would but it could lead to a selection of bad risks.

If my interpretation of the group's conclusions is correct it is also of the view that this cannot be done because it has not been done before. In other words, we never do things like this and so we cannot start now despite the fact that a wholly or partially voluntary system is in place in other developed countries of the European Union, including France, Germany, Spain, Finland, etc. If all of those countries have managed to do this on a voluntary basis, why can it not be done in Ireland? There is much talk about a system of auto-enrolment, whereby people would contribute extra to protect their State pensions, with people being opted in and also in a position to opt out if they so choose. If one can have a system of auto-enrolment for employees I do not see why it is not possible to have a system of auto-enrolment for the self-employed.

An issue raised towards the end of the Minister's contribution on the social insurance system for the self-employed is the possibility of the income limit for entitlements being raised from €38 per week to, I think, €70 per week. I fail to see the logic of that. For example, if the limit was raised to €70 it would save employers 8.5% of the difference between €38 and €70 per week, which is approximately €2.60 per week. As I said, I do not see the logic in that.

I take the Minister's point that the bulk of expenditure on the social protection side is on pensions. There is a democratic imperative here. If we decide to pay people a pension at a particular age then we have no choice but to pay them that pension when they reach that age, whether they have sufficient contributions to make it a contributory pension or whether it is a non-contributory pension.

They are entitled to it.

I note that in some reports that have been issued, some learned people have come to the conclusion that the impact of the recession has fallen least hard on pensioners. Of course, that depends on how one juggles the figures and what one takes into account. Learned reports saying that the recession has impacted pensioners less than anybody else is of cold comfort to people who are living their lives - I know many of them and I am sure that other members of the committee know them as well - in a state of abject misery because of the extra expenses they are incurring because of their growing old. There are medical expenses, heating, etc. I know people who stay in bed half the day in bad weather to save on heating. Social welfare working age payments were reduced and, admittedly, pensions were not. However, they were frozen until last year. Even with the increase last year, it is estimated that pensioners are about 5% worse off now than in 2010. They have 5% less purchasing power. That is only on the basic pension alone and does not take into account the loss of the free telephone rental allowance, the reduction in the fuel allowance, the reduction in the household benefits package and things like the abolition of the bereavement grant. There have been many changes in the overall system such as prescription charges, the introduction of property tax, water charges, restrictions on tax relief for medical expenses, the reduction in home help hours and the reduction in housing adaptability and mobility grants, all of which have particularly and disproportionately affected pensioners. I do not think that any of the bodies that compile those figures has taken that into account.

Pensioners are on a fixed income. They do not have the opportunity to get a job or to be re-educated to become nuclear physicists or something like that. They are retired people who have lived all their lives in the country contributing to it. The least we can do, now that the economy is improving, is to ensure that they can live out their declining years with some measure of dignity. That was recognised in all of the election manifestos, both our own manifesto and the Minister's party's manifesto, in which there was a commitment to increase pensions by €25 per week by 2021 on the assumption that the Government would last for five years. That is €5 a year. For people living alone, I noticed that the increase would be €30, which is €6 per year for five years, if the Government lasts five years. In its wisdom, the electorate has thrown up result which makes it less likely - if I can put it like that - that the Government will last five years. Therefore, I believe it is imperative that we begin this process immediately.

I do not want to go on for too long. We had many debates with the Minister's predecessor, particularly myself and the then Sinn Féin spokesperson, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, about the changes to the lone parent's allowance. If the Minister goes back and studies the debates, the warnings we issued at the time have unfortunately come to pass. Lone parents are now less well off when they go to work as a result of changes made in the provisions relating to them. That was cushioned to a certain extent by the introduction of a thing called the family dividend. However, I could read the Minister letters and e-mails from lone parents until 12 o'clock tonight telling me that things are beginning to bite again now because the family dividend goes down 50% at the end of the first year and it will be completely gone next year. It is only a two-year cushion that goes down by 50% after the first year. If one looks at the poverty statistics, lone parents are the highest in relation to consistent poverty, risk of poverty and deprivation. Some of the figures are truly appalling there.

I want to give other people a chance to come in and I do not want to hog the time of the committee. The Minister said that he wanted a short shopping list. His own shopping list is fairly long because I noticed in the programme for Government that every possible area is covered. However, I take his point that not everything can be done in one budget and he wants to know where we should prioritise.

The social insurance scheme for the self-employed, pensioners, lone parents - possibly carers - and those in receipt of disability benefits should be our priorities in the context of the forthcoming budget.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will afford the Minister the opportunity, if he wishes, to comment specifically on anything that has been said after each contribution.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am in the Chairman's hands. I would be very happy to respond after each intervention, but I know the time is limited.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the responses are fairly direct, we could do it that way.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister could also respond to everyone together, if he wishes. It might be more efficient if he was to let everyone else speak and then respond.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If people are happy to do that-----

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Perhaps if the spokespeople contributed, I could come in then. Whatever the Chairman thinks is best.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy John Brady.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and his officials. I commend the work of all the staff in the Department of Social Protection. They work under difficult circumstances and make difficult decisions every day of the week. I concur with Deputy O'Dea, who outlined some issues. Some of the things I see as being a priority, as does Sinn Féin, would overlap with those referred to by Deputy O'Dea. I think there may have been a veiled threat about the length of the Government term, but we will not go there.

The first area I wish to touch on is the issue of poverty. Social Justice Ireland estimates that there are more than 750,000 people throughout the State living in a constant state of poverty. However, I have yet to see a comprehensive Government policy on how the State will deal with this. The Department has had to revise its figures for the target of how many people it would remove out of poverty, particularly children. The number of those it wanted to move out of constant poverty by 2020 was 70,000 but that has been increased to 97,000. That the Department has been obliged to revise its own figures by 35% shows there is no comprehensive policy in place to deal with poverty. I mentioned the figures from Social Justice Ireland. We also have CSO figures which show that in the region of 230,000 children are living in a constant state of poverty. This is up 12,000 in a single year despite the so-called economic recovery.

This Government and its predecessors have taken measures in the context of targeting lone parents. Again, I concur with Deputy O'Dea on what he said. The cut to the lone-parent family payment and the change in the qualification in respect of the age of children from 14 years to seven years has had a detrimental impact on lone parents. We know from the evidence available that lone parents are at the biggest risk of poverty. During the summer there were some high-profile cases that showed the impact measures introduced by the previous Government have had on access to education, the back to education allowance and so on. I know the Department is in the process of bringing forward a report on the barriers to lone parents accessing education. Perhaps we can get an update on that.

I deal with people every day who are experiencing fuel poverty. It is estimated by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul that 28% of our citizens are experiencing some type of fuel poverty. We know the measures that were introduced by previous Governments, such as the cut to the fuel allowance from 32 weeks to 26 weeks, and the impacts they have had.

We have all heard the cases and the real-life stories of elderly people, in particular, having to sit in public buildings and libraries and to take train journeys to try to avail of heat. I have spoken to many people who would get on the train to Rosslare, County Wexford, from County Wicklow a couple of times a week to get some heat because they could not afford to turn on the heating in their own home. I know there was a minor adjustment in the payment from €20 up to €22.50, which was welcome, but if one has a look at the cuts that have been imposed over the course of a year, €120 was cut in terms of the loss of the week. Is that is going to be addressed in the budget? I believe it is a key area that needs to be addressed. We know that winters are, unfortunately, getting longer and temperatures are dropping. We have had that experience over the last number of years. I ask whether that is going to be addressed.

Another issue I have raised with the Minister in the Dáil is the back to school costs. It is very much a topical issue at this time of year. Again, numerous reports have been brought out, such as the annual Barnardos report and the report of the Irish League of Credit Unions. They have put the cost of going back to school at €900 for a primary school pupil and anything up to €1,500 for a secondary school pupil. We know the cuts that have been implemented and the impact that they have had on people. The Minister, as opposed to answering the questions that I put to him directly in the Dáil, used what is now regarded as a long-established Government tactic of hitting back and not answering the question. He started using some example of what is in place in the North. Again, what he said was totally incorrect. In the North, all textbooks are free, public transport is free for pupils living more than two miles away from their schools and there are school meals. We are certainly not comparing like with like. The cost of sending children back to school in this State is substantially higher.

The measures that have been introduced by previous Governments have impacted dramatically on many families and have driven them into the arms of loan sharks. I welcome the initiative taken by the Irish League of Credit Unions which is making loans available to people who otherwise might find it difficult. What is the Minister going to do to address this issue? Will he look at increasing the back to school clothing and footwear allowance? As I said, costs are escalating. Many schools are moving towards iPads and there are associated costs with that as well as schoolbooks, etc. Can I get some specific answers on that?

The Minister mentioned the paternity benefit. My party certainly welcomed and supported it. It was something that was a long time coming. However, an issue has arisen there which affects fathers. If in the unfortunate situation where the child dies - I think the period is 24 weeks - the mother is entitled to the benefit but the father is not and has to go back to work straight away. The mother is entitled to two weeks' payment but the father is precluded. There have been a couple of examples of that in the recent past. This is a serious anomaly that is forcing fathers, who should be entitled to this payment by right, back to work, leaving the mother who is entitled to the benefit for the two weeks at home. At a time like that, when the mother needs as much support as possible from the father, he should be able to stay at home. After a period of 24 weeks, if in the unfortunate situation where the child passes away, such as being stillborn at 24 weeks, the mother is entitled to the benefit but the father is not.

He has to go back to work and this is a serious flaw that needs to be addressed.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not know if paternity leave applies in the case of stillbirths. I will have to check it out.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think it applies after 24 weeks but only to the mother, not to the father. I ask the Minister to address that.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will take a look at it.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The other issue I have concerns job activation schemes. In a report from the ESRI, looking at the social impact of budgets between 2009 and 2016, it states that the greatest losses imposed by budgets between 2009 and 2016 were for single, unemployed people. The measures which were brought in attacked people under the age of 26 by reducing their social welfare payments to €100. They were discriminatory and need to be addressed. For the many people who live on their own, this is not sustainable. Will the Minister address this? There have been a number of cuts over the years for those under 26 and this needs to dealt with immediately.

The Minister made many announcements over the summer about job activation schemes and there was a lot of flag flying. A serious issue arose when an audit carried out into JobBridge identified serious issues in the scheme dating back to earlier in the year. The Minister has already said it is his intention to bring forward a replacement for JobBridge. Are we close to seeing the detail on that? My predecessor, Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh, raised serious concerns about JobBridge, as I have done. The Minister said he did not know of any concerns about the scheme and that none had been brought to his attention. The auditors carried out the audit and it is sitting somewhere. I have written to the Minister asking to see it as it is essential it is seen by all Members.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is on the website.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome that, though in his reply to my correspondence the Minister said he would let me know whether it was going to be published. It is critical that we look at what the auditor has identified before any new scheme comes forward. My party has put forward alternatives to JobBridge and whatever the Minister brings forward should not amount to an exploitation of people for a minuscule amount of money. There are real alternatives and I hope the Minister takes them on board.

In response to questions on the subject, the Minister said he would have a look at JobPath and at Turas Nua and Seetec. A review of these is now well overdue as there are serious issues, particularly regarding Turas Nua and Seetec. The Minister asked me to come back to him if I had heard of any issues about which people had been in touch with me. There are many, one of which involved a man who found a job in his own right, independently of Turas Nua and Seetec, but was hounded by Seetec, a private company, which wanted to know who his employer was.

There is a payment for operators if they have found employment for someone but Seetec hounded that man until he handed over details of his new employer. I am not sure whether Seetec was trying to claim a financial reward for finding work for the man in question but, as I understand matters, it had nothing to do with Seetec. Another man, highly qualified but out of work, was hounded by the same body to find a job. The latter is qualified as a journalist. He was told not to wait around for a dream job but to look for something "a bit beneath him", with examples of work on building sites and in warehouses cited. He was threatened with having all his payments cut if he did not take a job that was beneath him. There are many other cases which I could talk about, but will not. I ask for a commitment from the Minister that he will review these cases. Any process would need to be initiated before the budget.

The discretionary clothing allowance, which was decided on by CWOs, was cut by the previous Minister. There was a lot of debate on it and there were some suggestions that it had been used for purposes for which it was not originally intended. Many elderly people were entitled to this payment to buy clothes and would buy themselves a heavy coat with the money in January or February, or a suit for a funeral when there had was a bereavement in the family. The payment has been completely done away with and this needs to be addressed. We might not be able to bring it back in its previous form but there needs to be some allowance for elderly people. The bereavement grant was also done away with and also needs to reinstated.

Kevin Humphreys (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Everybody has been suggesting ways the Minister can increase expenditure but I will start on a positive note by suggesting a way the Minister can increase revenues for his Department. This relates to bogus self-employment, an issue on which the Department of Social Protection and the Department of Finance commissioned a report. Over the summer months I talked to many young professionals who said they were continually being offered jobs as self-employed workers, when the jobs in question were really for employees. This results in a loss of PRSI to the Department and a loss of benefits to the person who is forced into bogus self-employment. I ask the Minister to look at the report and to publish it as soon as possible. He should look at the possibilities in the report for additional sources of revenue, to ensure that funds stay in surplus and money can be paid out.

The previous speaker mentioned micro loans, which have been successful since the Minister launched them on a nationwide basis. The money involved constitutes some €100 million to tackle moneylenders and is an anti-poverty measure which I know the Minister will continue to support. It would be extremely useful to get the idea of the standard bank account across the line, and there has been a commitment from the financial institutions to support this. If people on social welfare and on low incomes had access to standard bank accounts, they would be able to pay their heating and lighting bills online and this alone would bring them an additional €500 per year.

That is a tenner a week for a fairly small measure. As part of its social dividend the financial sector gave a commitment to sponsor or put money into the pot for the standard bank account. A lot of work was done on it but it did not, unfortunately, get across the line so I ask the Minister to prioritise that area continually.

JobsPlus has been quite successful in helping people back into employment by enabling employers to take people on a little earlier. People in their late 50s are a specific case. Those who lost their job at the height of the recession are at the wrong age and employers are not anxious to take them on. Most initiatives are targeted at youth unemployment. A specific measure in JobsPlus could help a lot of older people back into the market and the Minister might have a look at that in the context of his budget priorities.

I will move now from short-term budget priorities to the long term - perhaps a period of two, three or four years. One of the major challenges for the Department of Social Protection and the Minister is pensions. I would welcome a very early engagement on pensions with a view to developing a model, and Deputy Willie O'Dea mentioned automatic enrolment in this context. As we move on from a difficult recession we need to plan for our next challenges down the road, and the biggest financial challenge the State faces is on pensions. The sooner we start plotting and planning our way through that issue, the less detrimental it will be to individuals, society and the economy.

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Most of my questions have been asked.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy could ask them again.

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to focus on one area, that of age discrimination against those under 26, particularly in respect of social welfare. As Deputy Brady said, the system is discriminatory against young people who cannot find work. They are being discriminated against because of their age and it has very serious implications. Single parents are also being discriminated against. Are there plans to continue discriminating against people on grounds of their age and their unfortunate position?

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will try to avoid wider policy issues but will focus on the budgetary issues. However, I want to comment on the costings for some of the proposals we have heard. I appreciate the quality of material we get from the Department but it would be useful to have a sense of how measures impact on consistent poverty. The Department has worked on minimum essential standards of living and it would be useful to know how our current payment rates compared with the Department's figures in that area.

A priority area that has been mentioned at some length is that of lone parents.

If we are looking at the consistent poverty targets that the Department has outlined for itself - reducing consistent poverty to 4% by this year, which is obviously not yet achieved, and to 2% by 2020 - then the fact that we have a consistent poverty rate of 22% for lone parents must be treated as a matter of urgent concern. It must be a priority. I am aware that the Department is examining this area and I urge it to ensure that resources are allocated within the budget to allow it to respond in that area.

I have two specific recommendations and I hope we will have a chance to debate this area in more detail in the future. I recommend the resourcing of a financial impact assessment and, for those who would qualify for jobseeker's transitional payment, looking at providing that somebody could be on both family income supplement and jobseeker's transitional payment, although it would be suitably means tested to ensure that it is not anomalous. That would come with a cost but it would address many concerns. The other concerns, in relation to the anomalies involving the back-to-education allowance, SUSI grants and rent supplement, are not as simple as a payment rise but, because they would increase the number of people qualifying for certain schemes, resources would need to be allocated in the budget.

I would like to highlight one particular vulnerable group. The McMahon report highlighted those in direct provision. The payment has remained the same for over a decade. It is €19.10. The McMahon report was clear on the need to increase the payment. That is something that must be on the agenda in terms of sending a clear and important signal, particularly at a time when we have seen such increased vulnerability and, indeed, increases in racism in Irish society.

The issue of those under the age of 26 has been highlighted previously by Deputy Gino Kenny. It is crucial that we look to that. We do not know yet the full impact of the changes on those under 26. We do not know what impact that has had on emigration. We know that people are leaving, often from low-paid jobs, but we also do not know to what extent the driver - the feeling that they do not have the same safety net as the rest of society - has been a consideration. It is something we need to look at. If we are to plan in the long term around pensions, it is, of course, a serious long-term cost and concern if those who are under 26 in Ireland do not feel valued. We need to look at restoration of the payments, beginning, certainly, with full payment for those who are on courses or in training. That has been recommended by the National Youth Council of Ireland.

Moving to the other end of the age spectrum, the pension system has been mentioned. I would ask the Minister to address how the proposals he might put forward or is considering, both in the longer term and also in the shorter term in terms of budget 2017, will address the pension gender gap. Ireland has a pension gender gap of 37%, which has increased from 35%. This is a core concern. We will have an opportunity to debate the proposals that we have spoken about, in terms of the long-term and future auto-enrolment scheme. Some of the proposals we have seen are merely a flat-rate increase at the top, but what I am concerned about is the fact that only 16% of those receiving the full contributory pension are women. Eighty-four per cent are men, and while the pension rate may not have been cut at the top full rate, the reduced-rate pension has been cut. It has been cut in terms of changing the qualification criteria, which has had a disproportionate impact on women. It has also been cut at the very base levels of contribution - just a flat cut. We are looking really at the fact whereby pensions for women in Ireland, in addition to all the costs the charges that were outlined by Deputy O'Dea bring to families, have been reduced. That must be a priority and we need to see that as a priority in the next steps in terms of pensions. It is a more complex issue and it needs a more complex response.

Qualification for voluntary credits is also a notable issue. We talk about contributions to the PRSI system. It has become more difficult, particularly for women returning to workplace, to make voluntary contributions. The threshold of previous contributions required has raised. That is something that can be examined.

Moving from pensions, I want to highlight a particular issue in terms of employment measures. There are proposals in relation to the long-term unemployment. It is clear that one of the core problems we have now is addressing long-term unemployment, and constructive proposals have been put forward about how we begin to address this, but we also need to look fundamentally at the question of quality of employment.

With the issues that were raised in relation to JobBridge and the issues that might be raised in relation to any review of the new Seetec schemes, the quality measure is crucial because people are finding that employment is no longer a guarantee of moving out of poverty. It is a real concern that Ireland, according to the Department's own report, has among the highest at-risk-of-poverty levels prior to social transfers within Europe. This shows us that not everybody is moving out of poverty and that many of those who are in employment are still reliant on social transfers. In terms of the long-term development of the Department, an area that will need research and resources allocated to it for research is clear measures of quality employment, looking to every lever that the Department might have, how it is using those levers rather than simply addressing the damage of short-term and precarious employment which it is doing successfully, and how it can engage with other Departments to demand stronger measures on quality employment. That is a crucial area which needs to be resourced.

In terms of risks, we have often heard the self-employed described as risk takers but I noted with interest the point in the Minister's speech that parenting is also mentioned as a risk. Of course, it should not be a risk. Parenting should be something that people can rely on and plan on, and it is calculated as a major contribution to society. It is what allows us to replicate and build and plan for the future as a society together. I welcome strongly the commitment to paternity leave, and especially the commitment to an awareness campaign to ensure that it is taken up. However, I believe there is a need for a fundamental examination of the contribution of care and how we recognise it, how we ensure that people are able to balance care and employment in the most constructive way, how we build routes back, for example, through a care credit - it is an issue I have raised previously with the Minister and I am sure we will get to debate in the future - and how a care credit might be useful not only in terms of pension equality, but also as a route of re-entry to the employment market.

Returning to the question of risks, I welcome that the Minister highlighted the importance of building a robust system which builds a surplus, which is responsive to risk in that sense and to any future instability. There may be also a need to build responsiveness to opportunities. For example, although we are not here to discuss the Apple tax case which will be discussed in other arenas today, nonetheless, in preparing for all outcomes, if in four years' time Ireland was to find itself in a position in which it had to look to accepting €13 billion, it would be important that the Department of Social Protection would have strong ambitious proposals in place to ensure that such moneys benefited the most vulnerable in society. I believe the Commission has indicated there would be flexibility if that were to be the outcome.

The Minister understands that the social protection system is not simply a safety net, but is the foundation of society. It is something everybody relies on; it is crucial. The Department of Social Protection has shown leadership in the past around thinking with the whole of society lens. I note the Department led the way, for example, in terms of looking at social impact. I urge the Department to engage. I note that the Committee on Budgetary Oversight has highlighted the Department of Social Protection as one of the core Departments which can look to engage with the equality and gender-proofing commitment around budgetary practice. The social impact assessment system and the SWITCH model, while strong, are not yet adequate in terms of addressing the equality concerns and I believe the Department could show real leadership by allocating a budget line to the delivery of the public duty on equality and human rights to planning how it can be concretely delivered, which is a requirement by all under IHREC.

I look forward to debating all of these issues further in the future.

Joe Carey (Clare, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and thank him for his presentation. I also acknowledge the work of the officials in the Department.

New politics gets a lot of criticism, but I acknowledge the fact that the Minister is here before the committee, setting out his priorities for the Department and asking for our views.

I believe that is a welcome step. The fact that the Minister has put it to the committee to outline our priorities and what they should be is welcome.

I believe priorities should be given to family carers of people with disabilities. Family carers do tremendous work up and down our State. They save the country scores of millions of euro everyday. I believe priority must given to them in the forthcoming budget. There must a recognition of the work they do and the money they save in caring for their loved ones and people with disabilities. I concur with Deputy O'Dea in relation to pensioners. I acknowledge the fact that there was an increase in the rate in the last budget and I look forward to a similar increase in reflection of the new partnership Government. I think we need to focus on pensioners and how we can improve their lot. I also welcome the priority that the Minister is giving to the self-employed. It is an issue that was raised with me on numerous occasions during the last election. I welcome the fact that a new deal will be on offer to the self-employed. I welcome the work that has been done to date and the fact that the Minister has consulted with employers. I look forward to the outcome of that survey. I believe that we need to extend social insurance to the self-employed. I welcome the fact that the Minister has given priority to that in his contribution today. Much ground has been covered by other committee members and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Maria Bailey (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like my colleagues, I welcome the Minister and his officials. I thank them for the level of detail that was given to the committee members prior to the meeting. The amount of work that has gone into it is incredible, down to the last cent so to speak, in order that we can analyse this detail properly. That our views are taken on board demonstrates a new politics and I welcome it greatly.

Many of the areas have been covered, especially regarding low-income families. Items that I would like to see retained or increased include travel passes. I welcome the introduction of the scheme for the self-employed. Anybody who is self-employed in this country is entitled to the same security and benefits as his or her employees. I also welcome the fact that our figures for self-employment since 2010 are up 5% in quarter 1 this year. We have more than 325,000 people who are self-employed. Those people are entitled to the same security as their employees. I would also like to see the extension of the dental treatment benefit and an increase in the living alone allowance. I know that this is a big shopping list and we might not get it all, but there might be increases in some of them. I very much welcome the working family payment.

I also want to mention the positives. In the first six months of this new Government, we have had announcements of measures such as microfinance loans, which will help families on small incomes to offset many of their small debts. If they have small purchases that they need to make, it keeps them away from moneylenders as well. I very much welcome the paternity benefit scheme. I would have welcomed it back in 2008. I believe every mother deserves help for two weeks from their partner. The extra sleep would also have been welcomed. It is a huge step for this Government to support families behind their hall doors. The housing assistance payment, HAP, scheme is very welcome. What is completely different about it is that the rent supplement, which was only supposed to be an interim measure, actually prohibits people from going back into the workplace, whereas the HAP scheme allows people back into the workplace. I believe we need to explore that further or carry out some kind of awareness campaign because I do not think people are that au faitwith it in certain areas. It is a welcome scheme. I know it has to be rolled out in three local authorities at the beginning of next year. They will be the final ones. I look forward to that coming to Dún Laoghaire.

I also welcome the rent supplement increase on a discretionary basis. We are obviously very aware of certain areas in the capital and in counties such as Cork where rent is extremely expensive. I welcome that it is on a discretionary and case-by-case basis and that it is now being explored to an intensive level.

I would also like to see an increase in disability benefit, which is deserved by that quiet cohort of people. I know the Minister is examining the possibility of increasing the Christmas bonus and I would welcome that. It is crucial for many people and a large volume of people attending our clinics depend on it each Christmas. There is currently a lot of interest in that matter.

What further measures are being taken to tackle long-term unemployment? Are further measures being considered to help those who have been employed for over a year? I would like a breakdown of those figures.

I hope the Minister will explore the possibility of extending the number of people who are exempt from the USC. Perhaps there is scope to include more people on low incomes. I think it currently concerns those earning up to €18,600 per annum. I welcome measures that will positively affect people at home, giving them a better quality of life, especially those on low incomes.

Catherine Ardagh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending the joint committee. This is my first committee meeting and I look forward to working with the Minister and his departmental officials over the term of this Dáil. Previous speakers have mentioned a number of issues and we can all wax lyrical about our days canvassing on the doorsteps, as well as various levels of deprivation in our constituencies. Everyone has a story about families and the elderly. I would like to see an increase in pensions. I would also like to see, as Senator Alice-Mary Higgins mentioned, bringing in carers' credits and backdating the home-makers' disregard. I would like to know what exactly the Minister is considering in terms of pension equality.

The sum of €19 per week for a person living in direct provision is scandalous in this day and age. It forces many people in direct provision to work in the black market. They may work in restaurants where they have no proper terms and conditions. It is both unfair and negligent on the part of the State.

I welcome the parental leave for fathers, which should be extended to take shared parental leave into account. I would like to see a review of the role of discretionary welfare officers. I have come across families and individuals who are experiencing hard times. The scope of the discretionary welfare officer is not as far-reaching as it used to be. It might, therefore, be an idea to consider how benefits are distributed to those in such difficult situations.

Representatives of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul will be attending this committee in due course, but I know they do a lot of the State's work as de factodiscretionary welfare officers. However, maybe they should not be taking on that burden as much as they are at present.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before calling on the Minister to reply, I have one or two brief comments. I will not go over all the comments that were made. The Minister said: "The ongoing fall in the live register is freeing up resources that we need to meet additional demand in other areas..." On a no-change basis, comparing 2016 to 2015, what additional funding would that free up, given the decline of numbers in receipt of jobseeker's allowance?

I welcome the Minister's comment on bringing the Christmas bonus forward at budget time. He might indicate what percentage rate he has in mind and if it will be the full rate.

I have a vested interest in the self-employed because I was self-employed for over 20 years before entering politics. For the past decade, I have been a director of a community enterprise centre, so I see many self-employed people. They are vulnerable and at risk. Most people who are running successful businesses today failed at first. That is the reality. The problem for them is accessing any support because they do not have that type of paperwork. They may have money in a bank account and debts to match. It is difficult for them to plead a case with any social welfare officer if they are coming from a failed business. Self-employed people are a particular niche and I am not suggesting for one moment that they should get something for free.

People are prepared to pay but at the moment they are excluded from an awful lot. Self-employed people make a significant contribution to the economy, yet they are not supported in the same way as an employee might be. It is not solely a budgetary figure. It is a question of how we develop policy over a number of years and that requires some attention.

Some members of the committee spoke about budgetary cuts affecting the elderly. The reality for older people is that reductions in the fuel allowance, electricity allowance and the removal of the telephone allowance have impacted on them. Approaching any budget, the Minister will be restricted in terms of what is available to his Department. Are there other ways of dealing with things rather than just adding an additional three, four or five euro? Does the Department have the capacity to buy electricity, gas and telephone units, thus supplying people with better value than they could obtain themselves?

We all campaigned during the winter in the previous general election and I was very taken by meeting older people living alone. Their heating bill is the same as if two people were living in the house. Such people stay in bed all day in winter because they cannot afford to heat the house. That is my abiding memory of the previous election. More commonly it was older people living alone who raised the issue. They have fewer opportunities to look after themselves and are more vulnerable as a result. I hope the Minister will take that cohort into consideration in the forthcoming budget.

The issue of direct provision needs to be addressed as well as the payment because both things go hand in hand. It has gone on for too long and it is an inappropriate system of accommodation. The payment might be the Minister's responsibility, but the Oireachtas needs to address the issue in a more substantial manner. The €19 payment has been around for as long as I can remember, so it needs to be addressed.

I thank the Minister for his attendance here today. A number of questions and issues have been raised, so the Minister will now have an opportunity to reply. He has invited the committee to make further submissions to him in advance of the budget and I expect we will do so by means of correspondence.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman and other members of the committee for their questions, comments and suggestions. At the outset, some people asked me to give specific answers on what I am going to do in the budget. I am not being evasive, but I will not answer that question because I do not yet know how much of the fiscal space is coming our way. While I have had initial discussions with the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, we have still not made our formal submission to him. The Chairman knows how budgets work. There is always a squabble at the end over a couple of hundred million euro, but we have not even got to that point. I cannot tell the committee what will be in the budget. It is not that I am evading the answer but because I do not actually know yet. Needless to say, I will obviously seek an adequate social protection package which is not just about increased payments but also about real reforms, including those for the self-employed.

As regards Deputy O'Dea's questions, we do not have a figure for what it would cost to extend illness benefit to the self-employed. That is a short-term payment, as most claims are for a couple of days or one or two weeks. It would be a tricky one to do for the self-employed because self-employment by its nature is different from employment. If an employee who is paid hourly does not attend for work, it is very different from a self-employed person. In terms of certification or being paid per job or item rather than per hour, I am not saying it could not be done but it was not examined by the Mangan report.

That report did examine the invalidity pension and jobseeker's allowance. They worked out that extending the invalidity pension to the self-employed would cost €80 million, and the jobseeker's allowance would be a further €80 million. That calculation is based on self-employed people getting it on the same basis as employees. It is also based on them claiming it on the same basis as employees. I think that, for various reasons, self-employed people would be less likely to claim those things than employees.

Moreover, they would not necessarily have to get it on the same basis because self-employed people of course do not pay the same PRSI. They are their own employer but they do not pay employer's PRSI and consequently, one can bring down those costs by changing the basis on which they can claim. One thing the Deputy said with which I agree completely is that we should bring in these changes on a phased basis. We already have brought in paternity benefit for the self-employed and I would like to bring in new protections on a phased basis. I believe one important protection is the invalidity pension for people who get injured or incapacitated in the course of their work and therefore can no longer work. It could be a farmer in a major farm accident or a taxi driver who gets beaten up and cannot work any more. It could be a professional who for some reason gets very sick and cannot keep his or her business any longer. While self-employed people do not think it will ever happen to them, it actually happens all the time, and that is a measure that was recommended by Mangan. Something also must be done in respect of jobseeker's benefit, but it would be necessary to do it on a different basis because it is not straightforward to determine when a self-employed person comes unemployed. They do not get a P45. I have spoken to Ministers from other countries about what they do in their countries and, in an interesting point I had never even thought of, the Swedish Minister told me that in order to claim a jobseeker's benefit in Sweden when one is a self-employed person, one must close one's business. People actually are incentivised to close their businesses more quickly than they would otherwise because that is the only way in which they can get the benefits. Others want to get the benefit while keeping their businesses open and therefore want to receive it while still being self-employed. One has all these complicated matters. In Austria, to prevent people from being self-employed for six months and then being in receipt of jobseeker's benefit for six months and then back for six months, one can only claim the benefit when one has been paying in for eight or ten years. This then captures people who were paying in for a long time before something perhaps went wrong. There are many different options and, to be frank, I do not believe we will get it perfect. We will make a significant start on it next year and then we may be obliged to modify it as we go along.

The Mangan report recommended against such a scheme being voluntary for lots of reasons, but it is not that voluntary is impossible. Deputy O'Dea is correct to state that some countries do it, but when they do, this tends to be limited to certain sectors and the uptake can be quite poor. If one sets up a voluntary scheme into which very few people pay, one has not really achieved one's objective because people then do not have the social protection. They will regret not paying into it, but one still is telling them they are entitled to nothing. However, there are options in this regard. One could provide some benefits, such as the one on incapacity - that is, the invalidity pension - without it being voluntary. That one could be done on a compulsory basis but a scheme in respect of a jobseeker's benefit could be done as a voluntary scheme. There are many options in the mix and it will be interesting to learn what self-employed people would like to have done when the survey is returned. That will be really important.

Deputy O'Dea mentioned the proposed change regarding income limits for contributions in the tax strategy group document from €38 per week to €70 per week. That would not save any money in the short term. It actually would cost us money in the short term because we would have reduced contributions from employers. In the long term, however, it would help to make the Social Insurance Fund more sustainable. One must ask the question of what is a contribution, as 4% of €38 is not a big contribution. I do not know precisely what it is, but presumably it is a euro and something. Ultimately, one must ask seriously what actually constitutes a contribution. I am not sure how many people earn between €38 and €70 per week but I would say the number is relatively small. However, it is not something I am pushing in particular. It is just something that was presented as an option for it by the tax strategy group. I apologise - I should correct myself on that one. It is not 4% but would be the employer's contribution of 8%, not the employee's contribution.

A few members mentioned older people, and I must agree with the comments that were made. Even though poverty rates among pensioners are lower than among other groups and are much lower than among families or lone parents, and even though the pension was not cut, many things were. Prescription charges have really had an impact on pensioners. It comes up all the time when I am doing the doors. Two or three years later, the cut to the telephone allowance still comes up, and obviously, the impact of the local property tax on somebody who is in receipt of €200 or €230 per week is highly significant. While it is a week's pay for very few people, for pensioners it often is. However, one must bear in mind that in a fiscal space of €1 billion, with €660 million going on spending and €330 million going on tax relief, that means €660 million on spending to be divided among health, education, housing, the Garda and social protection, and never mind any other Department.

For instance, a €5 increase in the pension could be achieved, but that is pretty much all that could be done. I just need to bear that in mind and to be honest about it. When we divide €660 million among health, education, housing, the Garda and social protection, we are not talking about a lot of money, quite frankly, and I need to be honest about that.

Poverty rates are very high among lone parents. However, I do not think the most effective way to bring down poverty rates among lone parents is by tweaking the benefits system or by providing an extra €3 to €5 a week but by facilitating entry to the labour market and allowing people to work. Work is not always but is generally better in terms of income than being on welfare. There are barriers to education but the main barrier is the phenomenal cost of child care. The most effective thing we could do for lone parents is in the space of child care, which does not fall into my brief but, obviously, I have to take an interest in it because it impacts significantly on my brief and my budget. We had some progress this year with the second early childhood care and education, ECCE, year, but a lot more can be done. I do not need to tell anyone here that if we compare child care costs in Ireland with those in continental European countries, the difference is phenomenal.

Deputy Brady mentioned that according to Social Justice Ireland 750,000 people are in poverty. How these things are defined is important. Social Justice Ireland states that there are 750,000 people below the poverty line. However, when they use the term "poverty line," they include those who are at risk of poverty and not just those in poverty. Of course, by definition, if one is at risk of poverty one is not in poverty. One of the interesting things that happens is that when poverty rates go down the at-risk-of-poverty rate goes up because people move from the category of being in poverty to being at risk of poverty. It is important when we use these terms that we are clear as to what they mean. However, we have plenty of consistent poverty and deprivation in Ireland - no one is denying that - and the objective is to ensure that it goes down and keeps decreasing every year. Both deprivation and consistent poverty are consistently higher than they were in 2007 and 2008. We have to aim to get back to those levels. If the economy is fully recovered and GDP is back to where it was and all of that, surely poverty rates should be back to where they were at that point. We must bear in mind that the most recent figures we have are from the survey of income and living conditions, SILC, in 2014. Therefore, when people say the poverty rate in Ireland is x, y or z, they are not correct. That is what it was in 2014. We will have the figures for 2015 in October or November and we do not have the figures for 2016 yet, so we actually do not yet know what the impact of the past two years of real economic growth and falling unemployment have had on poverty, but we will know it sooner or later.

The study on lone parents and their access to education is being led by the Department of Education and Skills and is being carried out by NUI, Maynooth. It is not yet complete but an initial presentation has been made to officials. I have not seen that yet. I hope that out of that study will come some ideas and suggestions that my Department and the Department of Education and Skills could implement to improve better access to education for lone parents.

There is often confusion about the back to education allowance, so it is important to say that the allowance is for those who are on a weekly welfare payment and go to college or back to school. The allowance allows them to keep the weekly payment while they go back to college or school because to get a jobseeker's payment a person has to be looking for a job full-time. All the back to education allowance ever is, ever was and probably ever will be is saying to someone who is already dependent on a weekly welfare payment that he or she can go back to education and keep getting the payment while in education. The aim was never that working people could give up their jobs on Thursday, take up a course the following week and get €188 a week from the State to do so. That is not practical. We could not possibly afford to allow people to just give up their jobs and the following week suddenly expect to get €188 a week for education. It would not be affordable and I am not sure it would be fair. However, I will come back to that issue another time.

To give the committee an idea of the figures, to increase the fuel allowance by €1 would cost €10 million and to extend it by another week would cost €9 million. All of these things are options, but if one were to extend it by a week and increase it by €1 it would cost €19 million, which is a lot of money.

Similarly, on back to school payments, it is always important to point out that the payment the Department of Social Protection makes is the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. There is a school book rental scheme and most schools are now availing of it. The former Minister, Ruairí Quinn, led on that. We have put more than €50 million into school meals and school breakfasts already - I hope to expand that - and school transport is heavily subsidised as well.

The Department of Education and Skills provides the back to school clothing and footwear allowance. If one looks at the clothing and footwear element of the Barnardos survey on what it costs to send a child to school, Barnardos states that the cost for a primary school pupil is approximately €150 and the cost for a secondary school pupil is €250. We pay €100 and €200, respectively, which is approximately €50 short of the actual cost of clothing and footwear.

With regard to paternity leave, I am advised by my officials that a father is entitled to paternity leave where there is a stillbirth and the child has reached 24 weeks' gestation. Obviously, one must pick a cut-off point at a certain point. The same applies for mothers. I will double-check that to ensure we are not wrong about that, because I agree there should not be an anomaly.

With regard to lower payments for young jobseekers, Deputies John Brady and Gino Kenny and Senator Alice-Mary Higgins, who raised this, stated that the €100 for the young jobseekers is discriminatory. I would point out that it does not apply to lone parents. If one is on the one-parent family payment, one gets the full amount.

We need to bear something in mind. Senator Alice-Mary Higgins correctly mentioned that we do not know the impact that this low payment may have on emigration among young people, but young people coming to Ireland get off the plane from Eastern Europe, from countries such as Poland, probably with neither good English nor good qualifications, and within a week or two they find a job. Even a job at or just above the minimum wage in Ireland pays €400 a week, and we must ask why any young person in Ireland, particularly in this economy where jobs are not that hard to find, is in a situation whereby he or she cannot find employment. Such a person may well have personal or individual issues, but he or she also may not wish to take up employment. I do not want to be the right-winger at the table here, but somebody needs to say that.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The increase in the number of people emigrating during the period of austerity is a strong indication that it is not the same. The level of emigration in previous periods when we had employment opportunities and were not in recession was not as high. I certainly do not think it is a moral failing among younger people who are choosing to emigrate or who are not finding employment. There was a reality that it was extremely hard to find consistent employment.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is true, but we are now in a situation in which we have returned to net migration. Young people whose first language is not English and whose qualifications may be limited are coming into Ireland all the time and within a few weeks they find employment and are earning €300 or €400 a week. We need to bear all those points in mind. I accept that people may have individual reasons for not being able to take up employment but we should not be so naive as to think that everyone wants to take up employment. There is a small group - it may only be 1% or 2% of society - who would rather not work. Frankly, we need to be wise to that, deal with that and be honest about it.

One point that was mentioned by a few members is whether those who take up schemes in education should be treated differently and should get some benefit or extra payment for doing that. To a certain extent, they do, but maybe not enough. If I was to make a change, it would be in that space. It would not mean giving more to those who do not take up employment but would acknowledge that those who take up schemes, education or training should be recognised.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Brady has one brief point.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard the cuts for those under the age of 26, a recent report specifically identified the impact on people in this group in terms of their housing situation. Those in that age bracket are substantially more likely to be homeless. I just want to pick up on the comment to the effect that there is no evidence of the impact that this cut is having on people. There is a real impact out there, specifically in homelessness. There is evidence that these cuts are having a detrimental impact on people, to a substantial degree, in terms of homelessness and sleeping on the streets.

I can get the Minister the facts of that report. The evidence is there that it is having a grave impact. It is a discriminatory act.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We need to bear in mind that there are individuals who will have individual problems. Perhaps they should not be on jobseeker's allowance at all. Perhaps they have disability issues, mental health issues or need help with addiction. One cannot speak about everyone in a general way. However, we do need to ask a serious question. In an economy like this in which there is a lot of employment available and in which people can enter the country and get jobs within weeks, why is it that there are people who are willing to accept €100 a week who are not taking up employment?

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is quite a generalisation.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I accept that it is a generalisation. Generalisations can be generally true. Those are things we have to look at.

Gino Kenny (Dublin Mid West, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Generalisations are generally not true.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy understands the point.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The rate of young people in unemployment is substantially higher. It is twice the national average. This cut has had a grave impact on them.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is actually the case all over the world that youth unemployment rates are double the average-----

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But to use that generalisation-----

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----and that is a function of the fact that so many young people are in education. The labour force is therefore smaller. It is not that young people are twice as likely to be unemployed. It is important to understand statistics in these things.

Touching on that note, somebody mentioned JobPath. JobPath refers people to Seetec and to Turas Nua. What we have there is something new. It has only been around for about a year. It is a placement service that supports people who are long-term unemployed to be placed in employment. There are 40,000 or 50,000 referrals so far. Of course there are going to be issues. In anything that involves 40,000 or 50,000 referrals, there are going to be issues. I want to know about them, I take them seriously and I want them to be addressed. If there are any abuses, they are going to be dealt with. To give the committee an idea of the figures, out of 51,000 referrals so far, there are 92 complaints. In anything that has referred 50,000 people, there are going to be 92 complaints or more. I meet many people who have been referred to Seetec and to Turas Nua. For many people, it works very well. They are placed in a job and are delighted to be placed in a job. For some people, quite frankly, it has come as a bit of a shock because for years they had been on a carousel of unemployment, schemes, a bit of training, back to unemployment and nobody had ever actually said to them there was a job for them and that they could go for it. It is not surprising that there is a cohort of people for whom this change in which the Government will find a job for them and place them in a job is coming as a bit of a shock. Quite frankly, not everyone can have their dream job.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I believe it is important to note that a job is not offered to everyone. The onus is put on the vast majority of people, and in some cases they are being told to get ten to 15 interviews every week. If they are not coming back having hit those targets, the threat is hanging over their heads that it will be referred back to the Department and their payments will be stopped. It is incorrect to say a job is offered to people. The onus is put back on many people to find a job themselves.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, but-----

Kevin Humphreys (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is also useful to note that the payments of the two companies involved are tied to customer satisfaction. If they decline a jobseeker, they can actually lose money. That is worth noting as well. It is interesting to see the low number of complaints.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When one gets a jobseeker's allowance, the whole point of it is that it is conditional on one seeking work and taking a job if one can. It is not a job of one's choice. For some people, this is coming as a bit of a shock to them. Instead of just being offered a cycle of training and schemes, they are now being told that there is a job there for them. However, I believe it is something that is going to work. There will be a review of it, of course, but it is early days yet to be doing reviews. We need to see the long-term analysis.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the issue of Turas Nua and the area the Minister is talking about, I am getting an increasing number of complaints from individuals. It is beginning to reach fairly alarming levels at the moment. I suspect the vast majority of the individuals who approach me did not make a complaint to the Department. Therefore, I think the statistic of 92 complaints out of 51,000 referrals is pretty meaningless. There are quite a lot of complaints. I ask the Minister to have a look at that situation because there are problems there.

I am speaking from my experience on the ground on a weekly basis. There are problems in this area, such as the types of activity mentioned by Deputy Brady. I know that people cannot always have their dream jobs, but people are being put into jobs that they have to travel to get to, the cost of which is leaving them less well off than they would be if they were on social protection benefits. Also, people are being forced to do courses that are inappropriate to their needs. As I said, there are problems developing such that this area needs to be monitored.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will do that. There will always be issues and problems arising. Some of the problems relate to communications and interactions between jobseekers and the people interviewing them. I would encourage Members and others to pass their complaints on to the Department, which will take them seriously. This is a big change. For the first time in a long time, if ever, the Government is offering those who are long-term unemployed a job rather than just participation in a scheme or training. This is a big change for people, but I am convinced it is the right thing to do.

With regard to the JobBridge audit, it is important to point out that this was an internal audit carried out by the Department. In terms of how the audit cycle works, auditors raise queries and then the person being audited responds to those queries. What probably did not come across in the media reports is that the auditors were happy with the responses to their queries. The auditors carried out the audit and raised their concerns, the Department responded and the auditors were happy with the response but I do not think that came across in the media in the way it should have.

In regard to the clothing allowance, it is still possible to get those funds under the exceptional needs payment. I recall that during my time as a general practitioner I often had to sign forms for people in respect of claims for the clothing allowance. I believe that system has since been abolished. That scheme, rather than being evidence-based, was based on the idea that a person needed additional clothing for a medical or health care reason, as opposed to a medical garment, which is a different thing entirely. People who need clothing as an exceptional need can get an exceptional needs payment from their community welfare officer for that purpose.

On the issue of bogus self-employed people, I will have to come back to the Senator on that. I agree that revenue is probably lost to the Social Insurance Fund in that regard. In addition, people are losing out on their protections. Construction, in particular, is one of the areas in which this is an issue. On standard bank accounts, which is more a matter for the Department of Finance than the Department of Social Protection, I understand that from this month banks are required by regulation to provide standard bank accounts. I expect to see those products appear on the market very soon. My Department is working with An Post in regard to its product. Having a standard bank account is important in terms of financial inclusion.

On future-proofing of pensions, given the enormous scope of the pensions issue, I think we need a dedicated session on it following the budget. My focus up until last week was on paternity benefit. It is now on the budget, the self-employed and the social welfare Bill. Pensions will form a huge part of the Department's work programme in 2017, alongside the working family payment. It would be useful for the committee to hold additional sessions on that issue.

On the assessment of the financial impact of the lone parent reforms, I agree there is a need for such an assessment, and my Department will resource it. The advice I have been given is that it is necessary to allow a little time for the impact of the changes to become evident. While in some cases the impact might be a reduction in welfare payments, the increase in the amount of work and the number of people moving on to FIS is slower. I agree with the Senator that we should do an assessment of the impact of the reforms.

Policy on direct provision is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice and Equality. The child rate was increased this year from €9.60 to €15.60. Further increases in this regard can be examined in the context of the budget. On the issue of joint payment of jobseeker's payments and family income supplement, I am not too sure how that would work. I know that some recipients of jobseeker's payments are not also eligible for FIS.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can talk about it.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to the pension gender gap, we all know that women receive less in pensions than men. This is true not only in respect of the State pension but in relation to private pensions. There are contrary gaps too, including that women live longer than men, such that over the period of their retirement they may get more in cash terms than men.

Generally speaking, women make fewer contributions both in terms of cash and years. Whereas on the one hand gender pension gaps are often raised, on the other they are never raised. I am not accusing the Senator in this regard. People see gender gaps when it suits them. They do not often see them when they work the other way.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The core of that debate is what constitutes a contribution.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. There is a debate about it. In terms of the widow's pension and survivor's pension, more women than men benefit from these pensions. The only way to fully resolve the issue is to have a separate set of rules for men and women. Some countries have different retirement ages for men and women but I would not agree with that.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is about care and contribution. Hopefully, as we further improve paternity leave we will see men taking more of a caring role as well. We can discuss the issue in the future.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Carey mentioned family carers, which is an important area. There has been a delay in processing claims for the carer's allowance and carer's benefit. I am pleased to report that the situation has improved in the past four months. Medical assessments are now being done a lot quicker but the process is still a little slow.

Deputy Brady mentioned the retention of the travel pass. The Deputy can be assured that it will be retained. On dental treatment benefit, there is a programme for Government commitment in that regard but, obviously, I cannot say whether that will be provided for in the forthcoming budget. It may be a matter for a future budget. On the working family payment, it is hoped work in that regard will be completed this year and that it will be introduced in budget 2018. I have had meetings with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Zappone, on the matter and we will continue to work closely on it and will also consult the committee on it. The key objective of the working family payment is to reduce child poverty, which is crucial, and to make work pay such that families that enter the workforce are better off for doing so.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will it replace FIS or will it work in conjunction with it?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It could replace FIS. Work on the issue carried out by the previous Government produced four or five options, including replacing FIS, retaining it and closing it off to new entrants. It is fair to say that the reason this was not progressed is because there would have been losers as well as winners. The nature of politics is such that the winners will be happy and the losers will be the people politicians will hear from.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We hear from the losers coming up to an election.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we were to have a working family payment that genuinely reduced child poverty and incentivised work over welfare there would have to be no losers and that would be expensive, but not prohibitive. That is the type of initiative we will be seeking to come up with in the early part of next year.

As I said, long-term employment is down to 4.4%. The target is to reduce that figure to below 2.5%, which would be an acceptable level. There are a lot of things happening in this space, including JobPath and initiatives to make sure work pays. Somebody made the valid point earlier that having a job is no guarantee of being out of poverty, which is true because we do have a working poor in Ireland. Part of the solution will have to be increases in the minimum wage and rising pay levels in a sustainable way over the coming years. I do not think anyone would disagree with that.

On pension equality and pension reform, as I said earlier, this is an issue to which we should probably dedicate a full session of the committee. We are moving towards - this was decided some time ago - a total contribution approach to calculating the contributory pension. Currently, a person is required to have made 520 contributions over ten years. There are very few pensions that would provide a full pension after ten years' contributions. This certainly is not the case in respect of a public sector pension. The current system also provides for an averaging of the number of weeks a person worked during the course of his or her life, which creates all sorts of anomalies and injustices, as such things always do. I am sure all members have come across people who worked for 17 years, but spread over 40 years, and were not entitled to a full pension while somebody who worked the right 11 years received a full pension. It is really messy. Once again, any changes made in this area, unless one has hundreds of millions of euro to invest, will result in winners and losers.

Any member who wishes to make a proposal in this regard should run it by us, because we hope to be to able tell them how many losers there will be, as well as how many winners, from the changes that are proposed. It will take some time but we will eventually move to a total contributions approach, whereby the number of contributions a person makes over the period of his or her working life is what matters, not when they made them. There will have to be a generous recognition of all forms of caring - not only looking after kids. We have a lot of work to do on this yet, and at the moment we are going through individual pension records and PRSI records to see what the implications will be for real individuals. More work will be done early next year, but it will be tricky, and I would be cautious about rushing into any changes without fully understanding the impact they might have.

As things stand, every time the live register drops by 1,000 it saves us €9.2 million in a full year.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was a real politician's answer.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What was the question?

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked what the total anticipated saving for next year would be on a no-change basis. The Minister gave me a figure per 1,000 drop in the live register. He did not tell me what he anticipated the unemployment level would drop to.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Chairman is asking me how much I believe the live register will fall next year, but we have not addressed that yet. We will need information from the Department of Finance and we would, of course, have to agree on the figure with that Department. The live register has been falling by approximately 40,000 per year and unemployment has halved but, as we get down to a smaller level, it is difficult to see it falling as quickly.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not mean to throw out an unfair question to the Minister, but he has invited this committee to make suggestions. He has been putting out a lot of figures; he said, for example, that if the fuel allowance were to go up by a certain figure it would yield €10 million, and mentioned that, of the fiscal space of €1 billion, €660 million would be for spending. He also said the reduction in jobseeker's allowance would yield additional funding. The committee, in trying to form a view on this, would like an estimate of the new money coming into the Department as well as the naturally occurring savings. The Minister asked for suggestions that were affordable, rather than just a shopping list, and it was in that context I asked the question. It was not an attempt to be awkward.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a fair question. As I said, with the rising number of old people it will cost an extra €200 million next year just to stand still. I did not say what savings could offset that. The live register could be one such area.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is why I asked.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Disability and carer's allowances are also rising at a faster rate than we had projected. We will give the committee what we can. I take the Chairman's point.

It is well recognised that poverty rates are higher among those living alone. The gap is not as big as I thought it was, but there is one, arising from the additional costs of running a house. An increase in the living alone allowance of €1 per week costs €10 million and I am not sure that an extra €1 would change much. It would be better than nothing, but I am not so sure how well it would be received. I have already covered direct provision.

John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister did not answer the question on JobBridge. He touched on the audit but did not go into detail. I asked a specific question. The Minister has indicated that he is going to do away with JobBridge and bring in a replacement scheme. I am sure there will be a budgetary impact and I wanted to know what the timeframe was for the new scheme. It will need to be analysed, because some of the issues raised by my party, such as the way the scheme displaced real jobs, were substantiated in the audit.

The companies made self-declarations and no one checked them. A lot of serious issues were identified in the audit going back over a considerable period of time and it is important that they be taken on board in whatever is introduced to replace JobBridge. What is the timeframe for the new proposals? If there is no budgetary impact, does it mean the figure of €52 will remain for people who signed up to JobBridge?

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I forgot to mention something that might solve the problems Senator Alice-Mary Higgins has with regard to averaging. We could put a proposal to the Minister on the question of averaging which would improve the situation for women but would not create losers. A lot can be done for relatively small amounts of money. For example, if we were to restore the provision whereby a person would qualify for lone parent allowance if their youngest child was 12 or younger, rather than seven as at present, the cost would be just €10 million because it would get rid of transitional jobseeker's allowance. I learned this from a parliamentary question I put to the Minister for Finance. We have to encourage lone parents into the workforce but we will not do that by making them less well off when they go to work. Deputy Brady referred to the back-to-school clothing and footwear allowance and I note from the Minister's own figures that doubling that would cost €35 million. If he wanted to increase it by 30% it would cost €10 million, which is not a lot of money.

On the question of the way we are treating people under the age of 26, it was, unfortunately, our Government which started that trend. Its successor took it up and ran with it, but I think it was wrong. The Minister should seriously look at raising the rates for people going back into training or education, at least to the level of somebody in receipt of the full rate. An interim payment raises the amount from €100 to €144 or €160 but it should be €188 if they go back into training.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister answer Deputy Brady's question first?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My apologies for not answering Deputy Brady's question. We will have proposals for a replacement scheme for JobBridge in the next few weeks, in October if not in September. I do not want to pre-empt decisions that have not yet been made, and the budgetary impact has to be worked out in the context of the budget. We are moving towards capping the number of work experience placements and increasing the payment a person will receive. Capping the numbers will bring down the cost but increasing the payment will increase the cost and we do not yet know what the final position will be.

I accept that there were abuses in JobBridge and that it has had a lot of bad press. However, I have been around the country and talked to staff who engage with employers and jobseekers, as well as branch managers of social welfare offices, and, by and large, they are big fans of JobBridge. They say that, unlike other schemes, people can get involved in JobBridge very quickly. One must be unemployed for only three months to qualify for JobBridge, while other schemes are only available to people who have been unemployed for much longer. They also say that people get real work experience with a private-sector employer, as opposed to what is offered in Gateway or Tús, which tend to place people with a sponsor, an NGO or a public body. These people are big advocates of JobBridge and, while I am going to replace it, I do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I would not like to take the opportunity to work for multinational companies, retailers and other companies away from people who have never had work experience or worked for a private sector employer in a normal, traditional job.

A lot of them are very good work experience placements. The conversion rate in terms of the numbers who actually go on to employment is very high. It is much higher than for schemes that get very little criticism and we must bear that in mind.

In response to Deputy O'Dea's question, if he has an averaging submission on pensions, I would ask him to give it to us as soon as possible.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we proceed with it, I will be delighted to give him full credit for it but we would need to know what it is going to cost. These things may cost more than one thinks and we would also need to know if there would be losers as well as winners. That said, if he has a proposal, we would like to see it.

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will let the Minister have a look at it.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and other parties will be producing fully-costed budget proposals-----

Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, absolutely.

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----so we will be able to see what choices they would make. I know the Deputy has done that in the past and I am sure he will do it in the next few weeks. I look forward to seeing his proposal.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope to follow up on the averaging issue at some time in the future but would ask the Minister to address the question of incorporating the Government's commitment on equality budgeting into the conduct of social impact assessments. Will the Department have a budget line around the delivery of the public duty on equality and human rights? How will that be carried forward in terms of resourcing?

Leo Varadkar (Dublin West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is something that I would like to do and want to do. It would be a very useful exercise to do equality budgeting to determine the social impacts of the budget. Unfortunately, because so many budget decisions are made so late in the day, it is hard to do that analysis. It is a flaw in the budget process that so many decisions are made so late that we only find out about their impact afterwards.

It is only worth doing if it is going to be for real. That is why we would need full engagement and buy-in from the Departments of Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform. There is no point in us just doing it, publishing a report but not having any impact on decisions. That said, changes are happening already. The tax strategy group's papers were published for the first time this year and we also have the new budget scrutiny committee which is a real step forward.

Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the leadership role the Department has played on this issue along with other Departments and would urge the Minister to ensure that it stays in that place.

John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister and his colleagues for attending today. We had a very direct, frank and informative meeting. I expect that the Minister will hear further from members of this committee in advance of budget day. The information supplied by the Minister is helpful to us. I hope that the input of members and the issues they raised will go some way towards informing some of the decisions the Minister will make. I also thank my colleagues for their attendance and contributions today.