An Comhchoiste um Poist, Coimirce Shisialach agus Oideachas

Tuarascil ar an Togra maidir le hocaocht Aonair do Dhaoine in Aois Oibre

Mrta 2012

___________________________

Joint Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and Education

Report on The Single Working Age Payment Proposal

March 2012
PR Number: A12/0352

Table of Contents
Introduction 1. Background and Context 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2010 Departmental Report on the Single Working Age Payment proposal 2011 Department Consultation Report Agreement with the Troika Joint Oireachtas Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and Education meeting Preparatory Steps to Implementing the Proposal 1 2

2 4 4 5 6 7 8

2. Report Methodology 3. Consultation with Stakeholders 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 General Observations common and fundamental across groups Lone Parents People with Disabilities Carers Job Seekers Women

8 14 17 21 25 27 28 28 31 33 34 35 38 49 49 49 51 55

4. Conclusions and Recommendations 4.1 4.2 Key Findings & Recommendations Further Recommendations

5. Appendices 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Membership of the Joint Committee Terms of Reference Verbatim Debate of Committee meeting of 18 January 2012 Consultation with Stakeholders 5.4.1 Full list of those who made oral and written submissions 5.4.2 List of questions for stakeholders and Departmental Officials 5.4.3 Social Media Advertisement seeking submissions 5.5 Parliamentary Questions with Replies 6. Rapporteurs Acknowledgements

1.

Introduction

The Irish social welfare system is highly complex and cumbersome. It has evolved in a piecemeal fashion over many years. The Minister for Social Protection, Joan Burton T.D., has announced that in March 2012 her Government shall present to the Troika of the IMF, ECB and European Commission proposals that may replace existing social assistance payments with a Single Working Age Payment (SWAP). This may be considered the greatest single change to the Irish social welfare system since the foundation of the State. Such a change could move us from a contingency based system aiming to meet associated needs to an individualised activation-based model. The consequences of the Single Working Age Payment (SWAP) model, outlined by the Department of Social Protection in its 2010 Report, for the finances of many households are significant. Losses would be greatest amongst recipients of Carers Allowance, One parent Family Payment, Disability Allowance and Farm Assist. In the sections that follow, this report outlines the background and context of the proposal to introduce a SWAP including the original Department Report on the proposal published in 2010, subsequent consultation report, Agreement with the Troika, January 2012 Oireachtas Committee meeting on the matter, and steps that have already been taken to implement the proposal.

The main body of this report details the research methodology employed by the Rapporteur and outlines the findings of his consultation with stakeholders. This part is split under a series of headings: general observations which were common and fundamental across groups, concerns of lone parents, concerns of people with disabilities, concerns of carers, concerns of jobseekers, and concerns of women.

This report also includes three text boxes containing extracts of submissions received from individuals which depict reaction to the proposed reform at a human level. It concludes with the key findings and recommendations of the Committee and some proposals for further work and research.

1. Background and context

1.1 2010 Department Report on the Single Working Age Payment proposal In November 2010 the Department of Social Protection published its Report on the desirability and feasibility of introducing a single social assistance payment for people of working age hereafter referred to as the 2010 Report. The 2010 Report set out the historical context for reform of the social welfare system and the, then current, arrangements for people of working age with particular attention given to the different secondary benefits, earnings disregards and meanstesting rules that apply to the various schemes. It referenced comparable activation reforms adopted in a number of countries and those recently introduced in Britain were focused on in greater detail. The Report outlined a potential framework for the introduction of a SWAP involving the merging of all working age social assistance schemes into one payment based on the existing Jobseekers Allowance provisions. The SWAP model outlined in the 2010 Report involved three tiers, allowing for conditionality at each level in recognition of the persons individual circumstances. Each tier would require a greater or lesser requirement to seek employment as a condition of receipt of the social welfare payment. And in parallel each tier would involve a greater or lesser degree of supports and services.

The feasibility study contained in the 2010 Report detailed many of the financial losses that categories of social assistance recipients would suffer if the single payment was introduced in 2010 employing the Jobseekers Allowance rates of the time. It concluded there are losses in all categories at almost all income levels. The losses are greater for Carers Allowance, One-Parent Family Payment, Disability Allowance and Farm Assist. In certain cases entitlement to a payment would cease at significantly lower income levels than at present and in some cases entitlement to a payment would cease or be substantially reduced. (page 109) The Report concluded that any proposal for people of working age has to make work pay and this should be achieved through a combination of the social welfare payment, the availability of the required services and in-work benefits. The Report considered the question of whether carers should be included in the proposed single working age payment scheme and concluded that on balance they should not. Both the 2010 Report and its pre-cursor the National Economic and Social Council (NESC) Report The Developmental Welfare State were categorical in their

respective findings that the success of a single payment is absolutely dependent on delivery across the State of accessible and easy to navigate supports and services at community level. 1.2 2011 Department Consultation Report In July 2011 the Department hosted a consultation seminar with a range of stakeholders. According to the report of this seminar participants broadly welcomed the 2010 Report as a positive contribution to the debate on supports for people of working age. However a range of concerns were also expressed including a fear of financial losses for specific claimant and household types; scepticism about the capacity of the system to deliver appropriate services and supports and the need for the new payment to acknowledge personal circumstances and address them in different ways. As one participant put it using the current rules that apply to Jobseekers Allowance is terrifying because of the impact this would have on the payment. And the

Department was urged to examine, using different tapers, in-work supports and supports for people on low incomes. The Department has also been encouraged to consider how the integration of the tax and benefit system can provide better and quality outcomes for claimants, their families and importantly their children. 1.3 Agreement with the Troika The 2010 Report was referenced in the Agreement with the Troika of 28 April 2011 with a commitment that The Department of Social Protection will build on their recent studies on working age payments, child income supports and disability allowance with a view to producing, after consultation with stakeholders, a comprehensive programme of reforms that can better target social support to those on lower incomes, and ensure that work pays for welfare recipients. Specifically the Agreement commits the Department to produce this comprehensive programme of reforms by the end of March 2012.

It should be noted, and it is recognised by the Department, that the Troika agreement does not necessitate the introduction of a single working age payment nor does it commit Ireland to merge all or any of our social assistance schemes into the jobseekers allowance. Rather, the agreement with the Troika involves a general commitment to undertake social welfare reform and there is a large degree of flexibility as to the form this should take. The non-prescriptive nature of the commitment was re-affirmed in the updated Agreement with the Troika of 10 February 2012 (page 9 of that Agreement).

1.4 Joint Oireachtas Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and Education In December 2011 the Committee agreed to examine the single working age payment proposal as part of its work plan and appointed Aengus Snodaigh T.D. to act as Rapporteur. On the 18 of January 2012 the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Social Protection, Ms. Anne Vaughan, and her officials appeared before the Joint Committee to explain the rationale for the payment and to update members on the status of the proposal. In her opening statement the Deputy Secretary said while no decision has yet been made it is envisaged that the single payment may possibly cover the following seven payment types: i. Job Seekers Allowance; ii. Disability Allowance; iii. One Parent Family Payment; iv. Farm Assist; v. Blind Pension; vi. Widow/ers Non-Contributory Pension; and vii. Carers Allowance.

This will involve introducing a single means test, standardising the conditionality of payment and simplifying the relevant income disregards that currently apply.

In response to questions from Committee Members she confirmed that the scale of the potential efficiency gains had not yet been costed by the Department and Budget 2012 did not allocate funds for the introduction of activation measures relating to the single working age payment. Asked if it was the wrong time to introduce the single working age payment, the Deputy Secretary agreed and said it would be far preferable to try to introduce and develop this type of payment in a better economic climate. Committee Members expressed a range of further concerns including: the potentially negative consequences of introducing a single working age payment for certain groups including people with disabilities, lone parents and carers in particular; the veracity of the idea that in itself the single working age payment could bring people closer to work when what really brings people closer to work is the availability of work; and whether the system would be flexible enough to interact with the reality of modern work practices much of which is insecure, casual and part-time. The transcript of the Committee Debate including, the Deputy Secretarys opening statement, can be found in Appendix 5.3.

1.5 Preparatory Steps to Implementing the Proposal Over recent budgets, steps have been taken towards standardising the rates and criteria of different payments in what many see as preparatory steps towards the future implementation of the SWAP. This is despite the absence of specifics or agreement on how that payment would operate and to whom it would apply. In Budget 2012 further steps towards the introduction of a SWAP were announced or taken in Budget 2012 in terms of cuts to certain social welfare payments bringing them closer into line with Jobseekers Allowance rules. Examples of this include:

the, now paused, announcement raising the age for receipt of disability allowance to 18 and cutting the payment to those aged 18 to 21 years from 188 to 100 and for those aged 22 to 24 years from 188 to 144;

the abolishing of concurrent payments for lone parents and people with disabilities on Community Employment Schemes; and the phased reduction of the One Parent Family Payment (OPFP) earnings disregard, abolition of the OPFP transition payment and lowering of the OPFP cut-off age to seven.

2. Report Methodology
Due to the proximity of the Troika deadline (end March 2012) the Rapporteur commenced a high pace and time-bound consultation phase scheduling as many meetings as possible with targeted groups over a three week period. The Rapporteur e-mailed key representative groups seeking meetings and other stakeholders seeking written submissions. In all 12 meetings were held in Leinster House and one telephone consultation, each of approximately one hours duration. The meetings took the form of a semi-structured interview. The Rapporteur outlined the status of the proposals contained in the 2010 Report, the purpose of his work, the role of the Committee and invited the organisations to outline their response to the proposal to introduce a single working age payment. Their observations and concerns were then teased out. The Rapporteurs Parliamentary Assistant had a list of questions and towards the close of the meeting she put any of those that had not been adequately addressed during the preceding discussion to the representatives. The Rapporteurs Parliamentary Assistant took detailed notes during the meetings and some of the groups provided written submissions in addition. In terms of employer bodies, Irish Small and Medium Business Enterprise (ISME) provided a written submission, the chair of the Community Sector Employers Forum participated in a consultation meeting and the views of Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC) were noted from the Departments own 2011 consultation report.

An online animation advertising the Rapporteurs work and seeking views from the public was circulated via social media networks. This attracted 30 submissions from individuals and smaller groups. The Rapporteur also met officials from the Departments working group. A series of questions were addressed at this meeting, in particular those that had remained unanswered in the 2010 Report. The Departmental officials qualified their input throughout emphasising that no final decisions had been made. A full list of oral and written submissions can be found in Appendix 5.4 The first draft of this report was circulated to all those organisations that met with the Rapporteur and further feedback from them was then taken on board.

3. Consultation with stakeholders

General Observations common and fundamental across groups

3.1

There was a near universally positive, though qualified, reception to the principle of a SWAP. The qualification was that the introduction of SWAP must be preceded by putting the supports in place and ensuring that the quality jobs are there to move onto. The activation obligations would have to be realised in a way that is broad and positive including evidence informed paths to personal development or contributing to the community rather than being limited to formal education or labour market participation in a narrow sense. Progression in this holistic sense should be open to all, resourced for all and expected of all single payment recipients. There is widespread recognition that it is not in anyones interest to remain indefinitely dependent on social welfare. That being stated there were a number of other caveats to the support of various organisations for a move towards SWAP. Carers Allowance recipients are the exception to an extent. They are a category that do not fit the concept of a single working age payment as by definition they are already engaged full-time in the delivery of care work which if not carried out by

them would cost the state far in excess of the payments carers receive. That said some carers if they become aware that they are approaching the end of their time as carers may wish to avail of activation supports in preparation for returning to work in the future. The position of carers vis-a-vis a single working age payment will be dealt with in greater detail later in this section. It was also widely held that now is the wrong time to proceed with the proposal. We currently have more people who are job ready than there are jobs. The European Vacancy Monitor published in January 2012 by the DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion of the European Commission demonstrates that there is currently just one vacancy for every 50 jobseekers here. The following table extracted from the European Vacancy Monitor demonstrates that while Germany, the Netherlands and Austria are enjoying record low levels of unemployment Ireland has 300,000 jobseekers actively seeking just 6,000 vacancies. That is 50 jobseekers for every one vacancy, well above the EU23

average of 9:1. There are currently 90,267 recipients of OPFP of which the Department estimates 46% are engaged in some form of paid employment. If the remaining 48,744 OPFP recipients were to be added to the ranks of the jobseekers this would bring the ratio of jobseekers to vacancies to almost 60:1. If the 101,142 disability allowance recipients aged over 18 were to be added to this it would bring the ratio of jobseekers to vacancies to 75:1. If the 42,000 carers allowance

recipients of working age were added it would bring the ratio to 82:1. If the approximately 144,000 qualified adult dependents estimated to be of working age were required to seek work this would bring the ratio of the stock of unemployed to the stock of job vacancies to a grand total of 106:1 double the current ratio (figures extracted and estimated from parliamentary question replies in Appendix 5.5.

The Deputy Secretary of the Department of Social Protection, in her presentation to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on 18 January, stated: In order to support the activation of recipients of a single payment, the provision of the necessary supports and services to enable them to take up employment is essential. This will involve providing individuals with access to education and training supports and other secondary services such as childcare and disability supports. While this view is supported, it is also the experience and expert opinion of the groups consulted that the required supports and services are not in place for the proposal to safely proceed and that what supports are in place are operating under increased pressure with shrinking resources. There was near unanimity that the income component of the single working age payment absolutely must not go ahead in advance of sufficient supports, services and jobs coming on stream; and that nobody be less well off than their current position as a consequence.

10

The National Employment and Entitlements Services (NEES) which is currently being established do not have the capacity or the infrastructure to meet the needs of those currently on the Live Register. Adding even greater numbers to this system, including people facing a complex range of challenges, will only overburden and further stretch an already struggling system. This system is in the process of reform. Sensitive profiling, strong case management and professional development and learning for service providers are vital. Cognisance of and response to needs

ranging from health, including mental health, educational attainment, literacy, numeracy, parental responsibilities, accessibility and mobility as well as an understanding of motivation, coaching and mentoring to name just a few will be pivotal to the mutual success of the services for both users and providers. This is resource intensive, requires significant up skilling and training of the existing and required additional staff. It also requires a cultural shift across the Department which will take time. The single payment proposal cannot safely proceed unless the lack of affordable childcare and after school care is fully addressed. The role this plays as a barrier preventing parents, be they alone or in a couple, from progressing into education, training or employment cannot be overstated. Childcare costs are amongst the highest in Europe with up to 45% of average income spent on childcare. Ireland also has one of the lowest levels of out-of-school hours childcare provision. A report on the provision of out-of-school care in Ireland published by the UCD School of Social Justice in 2011 quotes the Quarterly National Household Survey conducted in 2007 which found that between 2002 and 2007 the proportion of households using nonparental childcare for pre-school children increased from 42% to 48% while the comparable proportion in relation to primary school children remained unchanged at 25%. This confirms that even during the boom years there was minimal after school provision. It was identified that demand or employer side factors must also be addressed. There does not appear to be a clear plan of concrete measures in place to tackle discrimination on the part of employers which also acts as a barrier for people with disabilities and lone parents. Early anecdotal and other evidence suggests that

since the commencement of the recession employers seem even less eager to employ or retain certain categories of workers including older people, those with

11

disabilities and those with sole parenting responsibility. In addition negative employer attitudes or perceptions of experience and qualifications arising from Community Employment (CE) have never been addressed. Evidence to date would show that the Department does not seem to have a concerted plan to tackle this in the context of its plan for a SWAP. ISME highlighted the need for employers to be involved to assist in removing some barriers. The Department should engage with ISME and others around whether a single working age payment is ultimately introduced or not.

There is fear that in the context of the Governments commitment to cut the social protection budget by 1 billion by the end of 2014, over and above what was cut by Budget 2012, reform at this time will simply amount to an income cut for groups that are already disproportionately at risk of poverty.

It was agreed that the complexity of the social welfare system and means testing in particular needs to be reformed but that the different needs and costs associated with different contingencies must continue to be recognised. Earnings disregards, secondary benefits and means or capital allowances go some way towards covering the costs associated with different contingencies particularly in the absence of services, e.g. the cost of disability or the cost of parenting alone. These complexities aid the various social assistance recipients to cross the barriers to paid employment and more importantly to social inclusion. Their removal reinstates the very poverty traps that they were designed to overcome. Unless the new system had a series of add-ons which captured the complexities and challenges of individual claimants circumstances it was felt by many that SWAP could have the effect of pushing people further into welfare dependency and poverty especially if it resulted in the removal of provisions such as earnings disregards that currently allow recipients of certain social welfare payments to engage in some work or progression. While those who are entirely dependent on social welfare for their income may not lose anything financially those who currently supplement this with income from some type of paid employment will be penalised. The SWAP could shoehorn these people out of what employment they have because it may no longer pay or may cost them too much to engage in work.

12

It was felt by many that the emphasis on full-time employment is not appropriate considering so many people simply cannot be available for these formal full-time hours whether by virtue of a disability or parenting responsibilities. It was also seen as being out of touch with the transformation that the Irish labour market is undergoing particularly in the context of the recession where increasingly the only work going is short-term, part-time or insecure. ISME was keen to highlight the need for an improved system for part-time and casual work within social welfare, and a better recognition of its importance, reflecting current trends. One positive of the current contingency based system that could potentially be lost is that it facilitates the development of particular policy responses for particular groups with common needs. This could be lost if everyone is just viewed as an individual. There is also an equality dimension to the debate that has been overlooked to an extent and requires further exploration SWAP risks treating everybody the same in an unequal world. ISME alone called for increased sanctions in association with activation. There was disappointment expressed that in the compilation of the 2010 Report the Department focused almost exclusively on Britain, which meant that reform based on the sort of universalism associated with, for example, the Nordic models of welfare was not considered. There are clear social and economic advantages to The countries that base their social

universalism that should be recognised.

protection systems on universal payments and provision are faring best in this time of financial crisis. Universal social welfare payments act as an automatic stabiliser during a financial crash. Universal payments buffer demand in the local economy thereby protecting jobs which in turn protects state revenues. Universal payments also enable a workforce to be flexible which is a key requirement of competitiveness. Positive examples of this were presented at a conference in Dublin on 25 November 2011 co-hosted by the independent Think-Tank for Action and Social Change (TASC) and the Embassies of Denmark, Finland and Norway entitled The Nordic Models: Resilience in Changing Times. (conference papers can be found at http://www.tascnet.ie/showPage.php?ID=3248).

13

Social Justice Ireland (SJI) and others have long proposed the development of a basic income model involving a universal payment for every person, with add-ons for those categories or groups with additional needs. The basic income would replace tax credits and allowances for those that are in employment and social welfare payments for those that are not. The payment would be set at a level that proofs against poverty and the associated system of taxation would ensure that there is always an incentive to take up whatever work is available and accessible. The

administrative costs of such a system would be greatly lower than our current complex and bureaucratic welfare system. The Economic Research Unit presented very tentative costings on this to a seminar hosted by TASC in Cork on 30 September 2011 entitled Incomes Instruments of Recovery (seminar papers and presentations can be found at http://www.tascnet.ie/showPage.php?ID=3240). Further consideration should be given to this and other models that would move us progressively towards a suitable model based on universalism over time. Deputy John Lyons made a submission to this Report on behalf of the Labour Party Members of the Committee. The Labour Members submission highlighted the need for the provision of essential services in conjunction with the introduction of the SWAP. In their view, the submission stated, in order to introduce a SWAP, recipients of this payment should also be entitled to access vital supports and services which will assist them in their pathway back to employment. The delivery of essential

services such as training, education, childcare and disability supports should underpin the delivery of the SWAP. Given the current budgetary constraints and the inevitable cost to the exchequer that the provision of services will result in, it is the view of the Labour Party Members that a balance needs to be struck between the availability of services, the delivery of activation measures and targets and the continued provision of income support.

3.2 Lone Parents The implementation of a single working age payment model is most advanced with regard to recipients of OPFP. The reduction of earnings disregards, abolition of concurrent and transition payments and lowering of the age of the child for cut-off all amount to a part way standardisation of OPFP with Job Seekers Allowance (JSA)

14

occurred in advance of this Committees work on the introduction of a SWAP. And these cuts were not accompanied by an activation supports dividend for example: no increase in the number of CE places; no significant increase in access to training or further education; JobBridge is still closed to OPFP recipients; and, CE which was the principle formal activation programme availed of by lone parents has become unaffordable for most. This is evidenced by the difficulties currently experienced by community crches trying to recruit for CE posts in childcare. The SWAP is proposed on the premise that it will activate people into employment and keep people close to the labour market and its dynamics. However, in terms of lone parents, if the income element of it proceeds in the absence of the services required to scale the barriers associated with parenting alone then it will have the opposite effect. That is by removing payment peculiarities that make engaging in activation and going to work affordable, many lone parents will be left with no option but to disengage from the work force and depend wholly on social welfare. It is also felt that the model is based on an assumption that lone parents are not close to the workforce. Whereas the reality is that many work. In 2004, 59% of OPFP recipients were engaged in some form of paid employment, the Department now estimates that figure at 46%. The Department admits, though, that it has no knowledge whatsoever of the work patterns of OPFP recipients so policy is being proposed in the dark. See response to Parliamentary Question numbers 164 to 167 of 15 February 2012 in Appendix 5.5 confirming that this data is not collated by the Department. The JSA working disregard which is based on days worked/not worked is not a suitable means of measurement for many lone parents who may work a couple of hours each morning for example while their child is at school or during term time only. Lone parent representative groups are not opposed to the notion of a single payment however it would require lots of childcare and lots of jobs. The recent measures in Budget 2012 to cut childcare supports does not provide a positive indication for the supports that would be necessary in the context of SWAP. There also needs to be a high level of cross Departmental co-ordination in order to provide the appropriate level of income supports. Work is seen as a very positive thing both in terms of keeping families out of poverty and tackling the isolation/exclusion that

15

many lone parents experience. The social benefits of work were emphasised by all groups advocating for or working with lone parents. Of the jobs that are available, many are poorly paid, without benefits and lacking security. Often when low wage workers become unemployed, they have to apply for welfare in order to make ends meet. Eventually, many people find paid work again. However, it is primarily low wage, insecure jobs that are available. As a result, low wage workers commonly work for a period of time, and then are laid off and in need of social assistance again. Consequently, many low income people alternate

between low wage work and social assistance. The earnings disregard component of OPFP is seen as a vital activation and social support mechanism because it enables a lone parent to work part-time it is also a huge motivational factor. Lone parents who engage in part-time work will also be better placed to take up full-time employment when their child is older or when their circumstances change, i.e. if affordable childcare is made available. The prevailing wisdom is that social welfare reform must make work pay but the removal of the earnings disregard would mean that part-time work may no longer pay. Cost of engagement in activation and work is higher for people parenting alone. Parenting responsibilities and costs cant be shared. Services including childcare, after school care, education and training would have to be guaranteed in any reform. It is worth reiterating the critical shortage of job opportunities again at this point.

Box 1
Extracts from a selection of the submissions received from individuals are reproduced hereunder with their permission:

I'm a single parent and also a carer, for my mother It would be great to do a course that would improve chances for employment at a later date. It would also enrich social life as we would be getting a break from childcare and caring responsibilities which are very strenuous at the best of times without the added strain of being on the breadline. If the government want to help us let us be able to

16

undertake a funded home learning course which we could do in our own time as each carer has different hours of free time and help us improve our chances of employment when our caring responsibilities cease. I know I won't have my mum forever, and children will grow I would love to get a qualification to improve my earning potential to try to escape being constantly on the breadline but would have to give up caring for my mum to do so which doesn't seem fair as she devoted much of her life to myself and my siblings I had lived away but moved back when my mum got sick which meant giving up my job for the move back. My intention was to get work here but as the weeks of jobseeking turned to months ended up with more responsibility in caring for mum. - A lone parent and carer.
I am a lone parent with a special needs child. I could only go so far through the court to try to get maintenance for my child. Blood from a stone. He is selfemployed or was. Would LOVE affordable accessible childcare and have upskilled TWICE since 2004 when my son was born and cannot wait to go back to work soon....my son is now finally attending 2hrs daily at an autism unit and when the day extends to 2.30 p.m. I will be out like a shot getting an IT trainer job (or something!). We do NOT want a hand-out, we WANT to work! We want to pay tax, which is more than I can say for some Irish people who shall remain nameless. Thanks to all who stand up against the unjust decisions which disproportionately impact children during these difficult times, hope there can be a change soon. a lone parent

I was six months without a fridge because I feared the cost of call-out and repair. The Department acts as if a car is a luxury rather than a necessity which it is for many. We want to stand up for all future lone parents. Its not just somebody whos pregnant now that will be a lone parent. Anybody can become a lone parent, anytime. The Qualified Child Increase of 29.80 does not feed a child. A 16 year old costs as much as an adult. So the lone parent herself is not getting the 188 to cover her costs that for example a 26 year old man with no kids gets. a series of comments from lone parents.

3.3 People with Disabilities Currently Disability Allowance (DA) recipients are not included in the Live Register because they are not deemed to be available for work. However in reality there are many people with disabilities who would love to work if the correct and flexible supports were put in place to help them access work and if suitable work and activation programmes in the broader sense existed. This also means that job

17

creation cannot be left to the open market and formal education and training must not be the only show in town. More than ever when we consider people with disabilities the broadest possible conceptualisation of activation must be employed. As noted in the 2010 Value for Money Review of Disability Allowance with reference to people with a high level of needs for whom the market workforce is never going to be a viable option activation should be about pathways to social inclusion and personal development etc. (see page 118 of the VFM Review). Working is often seen by people with disabilities and their parents as being the key to greater inclusion in the community. It allows the person to make a contribution and to educate the community about disability and shift the focus of society onto their abilities. regression. In the wake of the Budget there is a real sense amongst those representing people with disabilities that there is very little understanding at a Departmental or Government level either of the issue of capacity or of the true cost of disability. From the moment a disability, whether congenital or acquired, occurs in a household additional costs begin to accrue for the family arising from that disability. Comparing young people on DA to young people on JSA is simply not comparing like with like. For people with disabilities the cost of engagement in activation and work is higher than for those without a disability as is the cost of living and cost of social inclusion. For example if one young person with an intellectual disability wanted to go to a concert or do anything that is considered the norm for young people their age two tickets must be purchased. And the opportunities for activation are far fewer. Research in Britain showed that while 48% of people with disabilities there are in employment just 10% of people with an intellectual disability are. They commenced the programme Valuing Employment Now - real jobs for people with learning disabilities in 2009 which aims to increase the number of people with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities engaged in work. There are some lessons to be taken from this approach which should be explored prior to any roll-out of the SWAP. The For people with intellectual disabilities, in particular, having work

prevents isolation and in many cases by providing stimulation helps to prevent

18

first lesson is that its a 15 year plan. It recognises the need for radical reform in the delivery of health, social and education services from birth onwards right through to changes on the part of employment agencies and employers. Any genuine

activation plan for people with disabilities cannot be brought in overnight accompanied by a social welfare income cut. Meaningful reform requires investment and long-term commitment. The whole of Government, inter-Departmental approach that is required for the successful introduction of any SWAP model does not exist at this time. There is a sense that nobody is looking at the situation of persons with disabilities and their income needs holistically. For example, major cuts to the under 25s DA payment rates under the Department of Social Protection were announced during Budget week and one month later it was announced that the Rehabilitation Training Allowance (RTA) under the Health Service Executive (HSE) was to be cut also. Both of these cuts are now paused. The RTA cut wouldve hit some of the very same young people hit by the DA cut. The impact of the cuts to concurrent payments and to funding for CE schemes was highlighted by a number of groups and individuals during research for this Report as evidence of risks posed by the SWAP agenda to people with disabilities. CE was identified as a programme that both supports people with disabilities by delivering vital services to them and as one of very few activation routes open to people with disabilities themselves. There is a danger that if activation programmes focus only on how to get workers back to work in the market economy, then any move to a SWAP would be nothing more than a social welfare cut for many people with disabilities. The DA, its peculiar income and capital disregard rules and the secondary benefits associated with it, has evolved over time to respond to the specific needs of people with disabilities. These form a wide package of measures that go some way towards addressing the costs of disability, as well as poverty and unemployment traps particular to disability. It is vital that the value of these not be lost in any social welfare reform. The introduction of a partial capacity benefit scheme is noted but is not dealt with in this Committee report as it is a social insurance rather than assistance based

19

scheme. Consideration should be given to whether the scheme once evaluated should be extended as an option for people on DA.

Box 2 Extracts from a selection of the submissions received from individuals are reproduced hereunder with their permission: I have Spina Bifida. My education was interrupted regularly by trips to the hospital for check-ups, physiotherapy and five operations throughout my school years. As you can imagine this had a big impact on my education where I had to be kept back a few years due to long stays in hospital and missing a large part of the school year. This lead to me leaving school at 17 just after my Junior Cert to take up various courses in computers and later on I did sit my Leaving Cert. I am on Disability Allowance and any sort of physical work is out of the question. I have family

members and friends with college education and they cannot find work, my own brother who is able bodied has had to leave us to find work in Australia not because he wants to. So now the Government wants me to compete with college educated, physically fit out of work people this is not a level playing field and its not fair on people with disabilities to have to compete in this way. It's like asking a hurler to go out and play a match with an arm and leg tied behind his back with a patch over one eye. a person with a disability I am in receipt of disability allowance since 1992. Even though my disability would most likely rule me out I would jump at the chance of taking up even part-time employment. Any extra income would be most welcome because quite frankly I am really struggling financially as a result of the on-going cuts and price rises. I have looked around for suitable jobs but there are none to be had, of any description! To date I have managed to keep up with mortgage payments but any further cuts to my present income would land me in very serious difficulties. a person with a disability.

20

I am a 40 year old on disability payment. I have heart and blood disease. Had my first heart attack at 22.At my age with little education and my health problems, no employer will look at me and that is a fact. I have to tell them of my condition in case I need medical attention. My wife is in receipt of Invalidity Pension. As it is even

with social welfare assistance with Electricity Supply Board (ESB) and phone, we are struggling to survive. We cannot light a fire in the house until after five each day if we want to make it last the week. We cannot afford to socialise. We dont drink, smoke, or gamble. We have never been on holidays because we put everything we had into building our home. How are we to survive? House tax, water charges and septic tank charges.A rise in car tax and a rise in food and fuel pricesThe graveyards are filling up with desperate people who have taken their own lives. a person with a disability.

3.4 Carers As stated in the section above carers are an exceptional category and should be treated as such. The condition for receipt of CA i.e. that you must be engaged in the provision of full-time care is completely at odds with the activation/genuinely seeking and available for full-time work condition of JSA. The Gregg Report on Britain,

quoted in the 2010 Report, was emphatic that carers should be excluded from SWAP (see pages 76 and 77 of the 2010 Report). A section of the 2010 Report was devoted to exploring the pros and cons of including carers in the SWAP and it concluded that on balance carers should be excluded from the scope of a SWAP. Despite this conclusion it was made clear that CA is back on the table and is being actively considered for merger along with the rest of the working age social assistance schemes (see opening statement of Deputy Secretary of the Department of Social Protection, Ms. Ann Vaughan to the Committee Appendix 5.3). The most persuasive argument identified by the 2010 Report in favour of including carers in the SWAP was the premise that being a carer is a temporary phase and that for this reason it would be prudent to keep carers close to the workforce. But if your child is born with a disability or your parent suffers a severe stroke at age 55 can the caring responsibility that results really be called a temporary phase?

21

The entire health policy trajectory in this State, however intended or unintended, is moving towards care in the home and community. Hospital beds and nursing home beds are closing. The finances of the Exchequer and well-being of the Nation

depend increasingly on family members being available and being supported to care. The potential financial consequences of including CA in the SWAP for carers and those they care for are stark. The maximum rate of CA is currently just 16 more than that of JSA but this is a very important recognition of the unpaid work of caring. There is no clarity as to how half rate payments could coincide with a SWAP model. Two types of half rate payment currently exist associated with the CA. The first is where the carer is caring for two people, and the second is where the half rate carers payment is made on top of another principal social welfare payment for example a pension, OPFP or DA. The higher earnings disregard and secondary benefits (including Family Income Supplement, Respite Care Grant, Household Benefits Package and Travel) are also vital for many carers and go some way towards covering the many extra costs to which caring and a disability within the household give rise. That said, carers should be given the opportunity to voluntarily opt-in to the activation services including education and training and childcare and respite care opportunities that may become available in association with the SWAP. Caring can be a very isolating experience and for some it is a stage that will come to an end at which point they will likely seek to return to the workforce but may require training or education etc. in order to do so.

Box 3 Extracts from a selection of the submissions received from individuals are reproduced hereunder with their permission: Bh go maith is n raibh go holc go dt go bhfuair xxxx breoite i Meitheamh 2006. Generalized Anxiety Disorder a dradar. Iarlais a bh ann. D'athraigh an saol go hiomln. N raibh s ar a chumas dul ag obair a thuilleadh (laethanta n fhgfadh s an chathaoir is n oscldh s a bhal) Chaith s sealanna fada san oispidal. Nor

22

thinig oiread na frde d'fheabhas air cuma cn drga a chaitheadar chuige. Bhomar ag brath ar disability benefit. An uair deireanach a dheineas na sums bh thart ar 17,000 sa bhliain againn An bunlne n nl aon tsl go bhfadfainnse dul amach ag obair, agus teacht abhaile chun pl leis an mbreoiteacht sin agus le beirt leana ga a raibh an saol iompaithe bunoscionn orthu chomh maith. T 17,000 seal go maith mar at s (cuma cad a deireann daoine), m chuirtear restrictions agus bacanna i bhfeidhm air, danfar an-dhochar do dhaoine leochaileacha agus t gach seans nach n-ireodh leo tabhairt faoi shaol "normlta" ars. Nlimid ag caint ar an nduine leis an mbreoiteacht n leis an mchumas amhin, ach na daoine ar fad timpeall orthu. .. Is lir dom go gceapann daoine go bhfuil ana-shaol ag lucht an welfare agus an disability, mar nach bfhuil na figiir ar eolas acu. B'fhidir go gceapann daoine nach bhfuil sa 100 euro cin ar thithe ach 2 euro sa tseachtain (nach fidir a dhol mar sin), ach do dhaoine nach bhfuil ach thart ar 380 sa tseachtain acu (m chuireann t lintas leana do bheirt san ireamh) chun a mbill ar fad a oc, is mr an chuid dibh an 2 euro sin a bheith mbaint dobh. - A Carer I have 2 children with Autism, 1 child recovering from Brain Surgery. I myself have health problems, which most parent carers eventually end up with if we were honest.

I did work more hours and was on Family Income Supplement (FIS), but when my eldest son started to regress, I had to make the hard decision of either giving up my job or seeing if my employer would reduce my hours, with a review in 6 months to see if this was workable for my employer. I made this hard decision to enable me to be able to take care of my son's extra needs and unfortunately growing mental needs. .. if I have to go back to work full time my options are more than limited, as my son cannot be trusted without the constant supervision of an adult. What stops me from sending my son to a residential unit or medicating him to a zombie, is the fact I still can help him and have the ability to fight his corner and of course love him. This is the same with most families, its last resort. The Government can be grateful that there are these families out there as otherwise the Governments budget would be substantially worse than at present, if these carers took the Governments stand and decided that the people we care for are not worth it and let someone else sort it out. That would be easier for many families, who would immediately have a quality of life back and be able to have choice and freedom. - A Carer

23

We are exhausted as parents with no services and the huge costs involved raising kids with special needs. Will the Government pay to institutionalise my son when I have a nervous breakdown because A... Will lose house B... can't work no child minder would cope with my situation C... ill health is already getting me down from stress D... Family life is suffering E... Siblings have enough to endure with having siblings with autism etc , why should they lose their home because the Government chose to target any vulnerable people in the country - A Carer Those who receive the CA are already in effect in employment in the care of their loved ones. They do not have the choice to abandon their charges and go out to seek employment. They are already in employment 24 hours a day seven days a week. Many parents on our support group do not have the choice to work. Their children require on-going care and intervention that requires consistency. Children with Autism do not adjust well to change. The families and individuals who are reliant on Carers Allowance (CA) and Disability Allowance (DA) are not living the high life they are just getting by. They have been hit by many other cumulative cuts. They have been hit by rises in transportation, food, heating, household bills. They also have been badly hit by the moratorium on staffing levels in the HSE where access to services like occupational therapy, physiotherapy, psychology, speech and language services to name a few are very thin on the ground and in some cases there is no access What is even more frightening is a small amount of parents I have spoken to are being driven to the brink needing treatment for depression and some even contemplated suicide. This is fact .It is what is happening on the ground The Carers Allowance and Disability Allowance cannot and should not be equated with Jobseekers Allowance. - Galway Autism Partnership

24

3.5 Job Seekers It should be noted that the complexity of social welfare queries presenting to helplines and clinics is increasing since the commencement of the recession and this is a real challenge. Clarity and simplification should be one objective of social

welfare reform. There is a widely held perception amongst those with experience of the social welfare system that people need a pre-existing knowledge of what they might be entitled to before they even approach their social welfare office if they are to have any success in accessing support. There are currently approximately 300,000 recipients of JSA and there simply are not enough jobs available for them. As stated the European Commission Job

Monitor statistics published in February 2012 demonstrate that there is currently one vacancy for every 50 jobseekers. Nor are their sufficient activation opportunities for the current numbers on the live register. The new NEE) will have to be labour and resource intensive if its to be effective and there is a real danger that it would be swamped if all categories of working age social welfare recipient were to be made subject to an activation condition. Adding lone parents, people with disabilities, carers and qualified adults to those already classed as unemployed would bring the number of people requiring activation to approximately 635,000. Thats more than 100 people for every single job vacancy. The importance of frontline staff in NEES having a good understanding of and links to the local labour market must be stressed. The capacity to match people up with the right opportunity for them must be developed amongst staff. This in turn requires that frontline staff have the right skill-set to support people to make the best choices, in particular the ability to understand peoples existing skills, how transferrable they are and how best any gaps can be addressed.

Also with regard to programmes like CE better links with the wider labour market are required which NEES and other Departmental staff must develop so that real progression is feasible in particular for jobs that are not sector specific and where skills should be transferrable e.g. receptionist, office work or caretaker.

25

For the SWAP or indeed the activation agenda more generally to work there needs to be a level of cross-departmental integration that simply does not exist at this time. An example offered by one group consulted was the Joint Government Industry ICT Action Plan which was launched on 30 January by the Department of Education involving graduate skills conversion programmes to plug the ICT gaps of enterprise and in which there was no mention at all of the Department of Social Protection. Frontline staff in social welfare offices need to be part of these strategies from the start. One of the current problems in the system is that frontline social welfare staff often are not directing jobseekers to the appropriate courses or programmes when those come on stream. Matching rights with responsibilities is a key theme throughout the social welfare reform debate. But there is a sense that most of the onus is being placed on the unemployed person themselves where there should be an equivalent onus on the State to deliver the required supports and services and indeed to create jobs growth. It would also require the State to give greater recognition to recent trends in the labour market in particular with a substantial growth in part-time, temporary, flexible temporary or contact work. The SWAP model presented in the 2010 Report would make part-time work more difficult. It risks shoehorning people into an either/or scenario whereas what is really needed is to make the system more flexible. A first class flexible system that And

supports people to take up whatever opportunities are available is needed.

aside from the proposal for a SWAP a number of reforms should be made to the existing JSA scheme. The economy is a long way off meaningful growth in the number of full-time jobs and for many part-time work would be a more effective activation measure than placement in a formal activation programme. Reforms are needed to accommodate part-time work and the earnings disregard should be reformed to this end. This is the key point, the SWAP will not work if it is based on the current JSA a whole new payment has to be designed. Currently JSA is based on a particular idea of the labour market and the claimant, the SWAP would have to include people who have lost their job / been forced to reduce hours of employment/ are in part time work / have not been in work / will not be able to work.

26

3.6 Women The 2010 Report states that the SWAP and accompanying activation supports will enable women to gain more self-sufficiency, security of income and a higher standard of living. These sentiments are welcome however in the context of social welfare spending cuts and particularly the measures contained in Budget 2012 concern was expressed that the introduction of a SWAP will make income support for tens of thousands more women conditional on their being able to prove their availability for full-time work while continuing to treat them as dependent adults. There are currently a total of 193,000 qualified adult dependents in the system. The numbers that are themselves of working age are not known. Moving to a single payment provides an opportunity to individualise payments and remove limitation of entitlement. Limitation has served to discriminate against

women. There are a range of costs involved in actively seeking and being available for work, education or training. For example, when a person applies for JA the applicant is asked by the social welfare officer if they have their childcare sorted. It was suggested that if everyone is to be treated as an economic unit who must engage in activation then they should all receive a full personal payment. The SWAP model currently being considered by the Departmental working group includes Qualified Adult Dependents. With the qualification mentioned above, the Departmental officials explained for illustrative purposes that in the case of a couple on the maximum rate under this possible model the personal rate would be added to the qualified adult rate and each individual would receive 50% of the total. Both recipients would be subject to an activation requirement but a provision may be included allowing a parent to remain in the home until their youngest child reaches seven years of age. The overwhelming majority of qualified adults are believed to be women and beyond that very little is known about them. As one representative organisation put it it is neither credible nor cost effective to develop a new payments system and introduce activation for women without any information on the women with regard to their age, education and training background, employment profiles and care responsibilities. Research into this is badly and urgently needed.

27

The Rapporteur put Parliamentary Questions to the Minister seeking to ascertain the number of female qualified adults, the number of whom were of working age whether any research had been undertaken that documents a breakdown of who the qualified adults in relation to whom a payment is being made are in terms of age profile, educational qualifications and work history. The response received confirmed that the required knowledge does not exist within the Department. (see Parliamentary Questions numbers 161 to 163 of 15 February in Appendix 5.5). Many mothers, including lone parents choose, or have no choice but to, work parttime due to the high cost of child care, the need to be home when children return from school or because working part-time is the only viable way of combining their work and parenting responsibilities. Any extension or reform of the genuinely seeking work criterion must accommodate this reality.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1 Key findings and recommendations 4.1.1 The Committee calls on the Minister not to proceed with the proposal

for the SWAP at this time. The Committee approves of the principle of a SWAP but recommends that it should not be introduced at this time because the necessary supports, activation opportunities and quality jobs to move onto are not in place. In the absence of these the Committee believes that the implementation of the proposal would simply serve to cut the incomes of vulnerable groups who are already recognised to be at higher risk of poverty.

In theory, a single payment has many benefits where the necessary supports and services are in place. We welcome the forthcoming report as a starting point whereby the Government will clearly identify the supports needed in the event that a single payment arises.

28

A real and measureable commitment on both service provision and job creation should be given to the Troika (IMF, ECB and European Commission) in tandem with any proposals on the income element of social welfare reform. 4.1.2 reform. Social welfare reform must proceed in such a way that household incomes are not diminished as an outcome of the reform or during the process. The Committee agrees that the complexity of the social welfare system and means testing in particular needs to be reformed but that the different needs and costs associated with different contingencies must continue to be recognised in some way. Earnings disregards, secondary benefits and means or capital allowances go some way towards covering the costs associated with different contingencies particularly in the absence of services, e.g. the cost of disability or the cost of parenting alone. These complexities aid the various social assistance recipients to cross the barriers to paid employment and more importantly to social inclusion. 4.1.3 The Committee advises the Minister that any reform must The Committee urges the Minister to maintain the value of the existing

earnings disregards, secondary benefits and means or capital allowances in any

accommodate the up-take of part-time, short-term or casual work. Any SWAP must be a new payment with new structures and not just an amalgamation of payments. Currently JSA is based on a particular idea of the labour market and the claimant, whereas the SWAP proposes to include people who have lost their job / been forced to reduce hours of employment / are in part-time work / have not been in work / will not be able to work. In addition the Committee recognises that full-time secure employment is no longer the norm for the majority of those of working age in modern Ireland. Many contracts are based on hours rather than full days and counting two hours in a day as if a person worked a full day is no longer

29

appropriate. Reforming JSA rules to consider hours worked rather than days would be a positive move. The Committee considers that the 2006 Government Discussion Paper: Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents made an important point that is of relevance to all those of working age. It acknowledged that a full-time working week no longer reflects the atypical working patterns of many in Ireland today, particularly women. And this is increasingly the case. Accordingly it recommended that in order to meet the genuinely seeking work condition seeking work of 19 hours and over should be sufficient. The genuinely seeking work rule must be flexible enough to allow all parents to take up whatever work is available and can be balanced with their parenting duties. 4.1.4 SWAP. The Committee recommends that carers should not be included in any

In line with the Gregg Report in Britain and in line with the conclusion of the 2010 Departmental Report on the desirability and feasibility of introducing a SWAP, the Committee recommends that carers should not be included in any SWAP. Carers should however be entitled to avail of a voluntary opt-in to appropriate activation supports and services on an individual basis. Should a SWAP be introduced, the Committee also agrees with the finding of the Gregg review of the welfare system in Britain cited in the Departments 2010 Report (see page 77) which advocated for a No conditionality Group including lone parents and partners with young children, carers and most disabled people, in relation to whom there would be no requirement for any work related activity, but where support would be available for people who chose to seek it. The Committee believes that activation or progression in a holistic sense should be open to all and resourced for all working age social assistance recipients.

30

4.1.5 The Committee advises the Minister that any programme of social welfare reform must be driven by an explicit anti-poverty and gender equality objective. In this context the measurement of poverty should not be restricted to the income and deprivation measures currently employed but rather should build on the consensual budget standards method developed by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice. This seeks to establish a socially agreed upon minimum standard of living, which society agrees it is unacceptable to live below. This standard is arrived at through consensus, as focus groups of real people define, in detail, the minimum requirements for households to live at an acceptable level and participate in society.(A minimum income standard for Ireland, 2012, published by the Policy Institute at Trinity College Dublin).

4.2 Further recommendations: The Committee believes that adding greater numbers to the National Employment and Entitlements Service including people facing a complex range of challenges would overburden and further stretch a system that does not have the capacity or the infrastructure to meet the needs of those currently on the Live Register. The

Committee acknowledges that the system is in the process of reform and believes that its success depends on a range of components. Sensitive profiling, strong case management and professional development and learning for service providers are vital. Cognisance of and response to needs ranging from health, including mental health, educational attainment, literacy, numeracy, parental responsibilities,

accessibility and mobility as well as an understanding of motivation, coaching and mentoring to name just a few will be pivotal to the mutual success of the services for both users and providers. The Committee recommends that this is resource intensive, requires significant up skilling and training of the existing and required additional staff. It also requires a cultural shift across the Department which will take time.

The Committee welcomes Pathways to Work as an initiative which aims to introduce enhanced activation and training services as its stated objective. The

31

Committee also acknowledges that the success of the initiative is heavily dependent on the resourcing of NEES as has been articulated above.

Simplification and administrative savings should be sought via the introduction of a single collection of documentation for means testing (updated as required). Such a change would service all schemes to replace the current situation where applicants are forced to present their documentation multiple times giving rise to a wholly avoidable waste of the Departments resources and the applicants time. Perhaps the Business Operation Model that has commenced roll-out could be used to implement this recommendation. There is a need for further research to precede reform including quantitative and qualitative data on the profiles of those social assistances recipients being considered for any SWAP including their gender and age profiles, caring or parenting responsibilities and educational and work histories and current work patterns. Further research should be conducted by the Committee and the Department and fuller consideration should be given to the basic income model and others that would move us progressively towards a welfare State based on universalism over time. The Committee is concerned that the development of SWAP proposals and proposals for the reform of family and child income supports is proceeding in a disjointed way. The Departments 2010 Report recognised in-work benefits as a key solution in terms of making work pay. Support for housing and health costs which currently serve as poverty traps should be redesigned to facilitate the transition to employment. Following the same logic the recent Forfs report Irelands Competitiveness Challenge 2011 argued that financial supports for housing should depend on income rather than employment or unemployment status. The

Committee agrees that proposals in relation to both rent supplement and medical cards should be brought forward building on that logic. The Committee also considers that a reformed FIS, as an in-work benefit, could be part of the solution in the shorter term. Access to FIS should be speeded up and more regular adjustments of the payment facilitated. There also needs to be greater

32

clarity around the consequences for FIS in any proposal for a SWAP from the Department. Cross Departmental co-ordination is critical to the implementation of any reform, each Department would need clear targets and implementation timeframes. The Committee recommends that the current rules preventing access to activation programmes by recipients of One Parent Family Payment, Disability Allowance, Carers Allowance and Qualified Adult Dependant e.g. rules that a period of time must be spent on Job Seekers Allowance before you can be eligible to participate should be removed.

33

5. Appendices
5.1 Membership of the Joint Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and Education
Chairman: Damien English (FG) Ray Butler (FG) ine Collins (FG) Joan Collins (PBPA) Michael Conaghan (LAB) Barry Cowen (FF) Sen Crowe (SF) Damien English (FG) Tom Fleming (Ind) Brendan Griffin (FG) John Halligan (Ind) Sen Kyne (FG) Anthony Lawlor (FG) John Lyons (LAB) Nicky McFadden (FG) Mary Mitchell OConnor (FG) Willie ODea (FF) Aodhn Rordin (LAB) (Vice-Chair) Aengus Snodaigh (SF) Brendan Ryan (LAB) Brendan Smith (FF) Peadar Tibn (SF)

Deputies:

Senators

Deirdre Clune (FG) John Kelly (LAB) Michael Mullins (FG) Marie Louise ODonnell (Ind) Averil Power (FF) Feargal Quinn (Ind)

34

5.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE a. Functions of the Committee derived from Standing Orders [DSO 82A; SSO 70A]
(1) The Select Committee shall consider and report to the Dil on (a) such aspects of the expenditure, administration and policy of the relevant Government Department or Departments and associated public bodies as the Committee may select, and (b) European Union matters within the remit of the relevant Department or Departments. (2) The Select Committee may be joined with a Select Committee appointed by Seanad ireann to form a Joint Committee for the purposes of the functions set out below, other than at paragraph (3), and to report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas. Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the Select Committee shall consider, in respect of the relevant Department or Departments, such (a) Bills, (b) proposals contained in any motion, including any motion within the meaning of Standing Order 164, (c) Estimates for Public Services, and (d) other matters as shall be referred to the Select Committee by the Dil, and (e) Annual Output Statements, and (f) such Value for Money and Policy Reviews as the Select Committee may select. (4) The Joint Committee may consider the following matters in respect of the relevant Department or Departments and associated public bodies, and report thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas: (a) matters of policy for which the Minister is officially responsible, (b) public affairs administered by the Department, (c) policy issues arising from Value for Money and Policy Reviews conducted or commissioned by the Department, (d) Government policy in respect of bodies under the aegis of the Department, (e) policy issues concerning bodies which are partly or wholly funded by the State or which are established or appointed by a member of the Government or the Oireachtas, (f) the general scheme or draft heads of any Bill published by the Minister, (g) statutory instruments, including those laid or laid in draft before either House or both Houses and those made under the European Communities Acts 1972 to 2009,

(3)

35

(h) strategy statements laid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas pursuant to the Public Service Management Act 1997, (i) annual reports or annual reports and accounts, required by law, and laid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas, of the Department or bodies referred to in paragraph (4)(d) and (e) and the overall operational results, statements of strategy and corporate plans of such bodies, and (j) such other matters as may be referred to it by the Dil and/or Seanad from time to time. (5) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the Joint Committee shall consider, in respect of the relevant Department or Departments (a) EU draft legislative acts standing referred to the Select Committee under Standing Order 105, including the compliance of such acts with the principle of subsidiarity, (b) other proposals for EU legislation and related policy issues, including programmes and guidelines prepared by the European Commission as a basis of possible legislative action, (c) non-legislative documents published by any EU institution in relation to EU policy matters, and (d) matters listed for consideration on the agenda for meetings of the relevant EU Council of Ministers and the outcome of such meetings. (6) A sub-Committee stands established in respect of each Department within the remit of the Select Committee to consider the matters outlined in paragraph (3), and the following arrangements apply to such subCommittees: (a) the matters outlined in paragraph (3) which require referral to the Select Committee by the Dil may be referred directly to such subCommittees, and (b) each such sub-Committee has the powers defined in Standing Order 83(1) and (2) and may report directly to the Dil, including by way of Message under Standing Order 87. (7) The Chairman of the Joint Committee, who shall be a member of Dil ireann, shall also be the Chairman of the Select Committee and of any sub-Committee or Committees standing established in respect of the Select Committee. The following may attend meetings of the Select or Joint Committee, for the purposes of the functions set out in paragraph (5) and may take part in proceedings without having a right to vote or to move motions and amendments: (a) Members of the European Parliament elected from constituencies in Ireland, including Northern Ireland, (b) Members of the Irish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and (c) at the invitation of the Committee, other Members of the European Parliament.

(8)

36

b. Scope and Context of Activities of Committees (as derived from Standing Orders [DSO 82; SSO 70]

(1)

The Joint Committee may only consider such matters, engage in such activities, exercise such powers and discharge such functions as are specifically authorised under its orders of reference and under Standing Orders. Such matters, activities, powers and functions shall be relevant to, and shall arise only in the context of, the preparation of a report to the Dil and/or Seanad. It shall be an instruction to all Select Committees to which Bills are referred that they shall ensure that not more than two Select Committees shall meet to consider a Bill on any given day, unless the Dil, after due notice given by the Chairman of the Select Committee, waives this instruction on motion made by the Taoiseach pursuant to Dil Standing Order 26. The Chairmen of Select Committees shall have responsibility for compliance with this instruction. The Joint Committee shall not consider any matter which is being considered, or of which notice has been given of a proposal to consider, by the Committee of Public Accounts pursuant to Dil Standing Order 163 and/or the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993. The Joint Committee shall refrain from inquiring into in public session or publishing confidential information regarding any matter if so requested, for stated reasons given in writing, by (a) a member of the Government or a Minister of State, or (b) the principal office-holder of a body under the aegis of a Department or which is partly or wholly funded by the State or established or appointed by a member of the Government or by the Oireachtas: Provided that the Chairman may appeal any such request made to the Ceann Comhairle / Cathaoirleach whose decision shall be final.

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

37

5.3 Verbatim Transcript of Committee meeting of 18 January 2012

AN COMHCHOISTE UM POIST, COIMIRCE SHISIALACH AGUS OIDEACHAS JOINT COMMITTEE ON JOBS, SOCIAL PROTECTION AND EDUCATION

D Cadaoin, 18 Eanir 2012 Wednesday, 18 January 2012 The Joint Committee met at 09.30 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Deputy Ray Butler, Deputy Joan Collins, Deputy Michael Conaghan, Deputy Barry Cowen, Deputy Brendan Griffin, Deputy Sen Kyne, Deputy Anthony Lawlor, Deputy Nicky McFadden, Deputy Mary Mitchell OConnor, Deputy Aengus Snodaigh, Deputy Peadar Tibn, Senator John Kelly, Senator Michael Mullins, Senator Feargal Quinn.

DEPUTY DAMIEN ENGLISH IN THE CHAIR.

38

Single Working Age Payment: Discussion with Department of Social Protection Chairman: I welcome Ms Anne Vaughan, Deputy Secretary General of the Department of Social Protection, and her colleagues to discuss with us the plans for and the work on the single working age assistance payment. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members 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. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If a witness is directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and the witness continues to so do, the witness is entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of his or her evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and witnesses are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Ms Anne Vaughan: I thank the Chairman and the members of the joint committee for the opportunity to discuss the single working age assistance payment which I will refer to as the single payment as it is less of a mouthful. I will focus on the rationale for the payment, the work completed to date and the next steps. I emphasise that while the Department has done a good deal of work on the single payment, key elements remain to be completed and these will be further developed over the coming months prior to decisions being taken by Government on the matter. Irelands social welfare system has evolved in a somewhat ad hoc way over many decades in response to different influences and issues at different times. As a result, specific payments have been designed and implemented to meet the needs of certain groups of individuals. Examples include payments for jobseekers, people with disabilities and people parenting alone. Such an approach has allowed the social welfare system to respond in a flexible manner to the needs of specific groups. However, it has also created a complex system which treats individuals in receipt of social welfare supports differently depending on the type of payments they receive. The differences are to do with means testing, disregards, entitlement to secondary benefits, requirements to seek work and so on. Furthermore, and in spite of flexibility within the system, trends in the social welfare population of people of working age indicate persistent welfare dependency and poor outcomes for some people in spite of an earlier sustained period of economic growth. In considering the extent to which the structure of the social welfare system has contributed to this position the question must be asked as to whether a reconfigured social assistance system based on a single payment could improve the outcomes for people of working age. These considerations were informed by work carried out by the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, and reflected in its report, The Developmental Welfare State, published in 2005. That highlighted the need for greater interaction between services, income support and activation measures and saw these as developmental for families, communities and the economy. A recurring theme in the NESC report is that the current contingency based payments to people of working age can operate to confirm a persons status as someone outside of the workforce rather than as an unemployed member of it.

39

In November 2010, the Department of Social Protection published a report on the desirability and feasibility of introducing a single social assistance payment for people of working age, the link to which is welfare.ie/EN/Policy/CorporatePublications/Finance/exp_rev/Pages/WorkingAgeReport.aspx. This report addressed issues around the desirability of such a payment, its role in social welfare reform and the framework that would need to be put in place for such a payment to exist. The report paid particular attention to the design of a single payment and the associated issues that would have to be addressed were it decided to implement it. The report concluded that it is both desirable and feasible over time to move to a single payment structure. That is not saying it would be easy. The report also noted that the availability of other supports and services to recipients of the new single payment would be essential to ensure that these individuals will be in a position to avail of opportunities to move from relying on social welfare support. The introduction of the single payment would represent a fundamental overhaul of Irelands social welfare system. It is based on the principle that people are given or directed to the supports or services they need to enable them take up employment or avail of education and training opportunities. This is matched by a requirement that they avail of the support, that is, there is a right to a payment and a matching responsibility to engage. The overall objective, therefore, in introducing the single payment is to improve outcomes for people of working age from a poverty and social inclusion perspective and, in so doing, to ensure that changes to the social welfare system make work pay. It is not all about work because we recognise that it may not be feasible for everybody to be in paid employment. The restructuring of the Department, including the recent merging of the community welfare service, the employment and community services of FS and the development of the national entitlement and employment service will support the achievement of the objectives underpinned by the introduction of the single payment. The Departments feasibility report on the single payment was referenced in the agreed programme of financial support with the troika with a commitment that: The Department of Social Protection will build on their recent studies on working age payments, child income supports and disability allowance with a view to producing, after consultation with stakeholders, a comprehensive programme of reforms that can help better target social support to those on lower incomes, and ensure that work pays for welfare recipients. Specifically, the Department is to produce this comprehensive programme of reforms by the end of March this year. This commitment was reinforced at the recent meetings with the troika. The single payment aims to create a single social welfare payment that would cover all people of working age including those who would currently be classified as unemployed, sick, disabled, or parenting alone. I emphasise that while no decision has yet been made, it is envisaged that the single payment may possibly cover the following seven payment types: jobseekers allowance; disability allowance; one parent family payment; farm assist; blind pension; widowers non-contributory pension; and carers allowance. The rationale for the single payment is twofold. First, introducing it is to give effect to the policy principle that people have both rights and responsibilities - a right to a payment and a responsibility to engage as part of the activation agenda. In order to support the activation of

40

recipients of a single payment, the provision of the necessary supports and services to enable them to take up employment is essential. This will involve providing individuals with access to education and training supports and other secondary services such as child care and disability supports. Second, the single payment provides an opportunity to address the current complexity of the social welfare system by streamlining a number of payments for people of working age. This will involve introducing a single means test, standardising the conditionality of the payment and simplifying the relevant income disregards that apply. Cost and efficiency gains from simplification of administrative structures and collapsing multiple payments into a single payment are also possible. The reduction in complexity is not just an administrative nicety. The evidence is that complex systems are difficult for everybody to understand and affect peoples choices. The introduction of the single payment will, therefore, be a key development in the pursuit of a more focused and purposeful activation agenda which will be delivered under the auspices of the National Employment and Entitlements Service. In July 2011 the Department held a consultation seminar with interest groups, the social partners and other Departments. The aim of the seminar was to provide participants with an overview of the Departments report on the single payment and give people the opportunity to make a contribution towards deciding the future policy direction and, of course, hear their concerns. At the seminar Mr. John Martin of the OECD made a key address which supported the proposal but also alerted us that it would not be an easy path and as such that there would be difficulties. The stakeholders broadly welcomed the concept of introducing the single payment. However, several of them expressed concern about the possibility that certain claimants, particularly individuals in receipt of disability allowance and the one-parent family payment, might experience financial losses under the single payment scheme. Concern was also expressed about whether the system in the current economic climate could deliver the appropriate supports and services to recipients to enable them to progress to employment, education or training. These concerns have been noted by the Department. A report on the consultation process is on our website and I have made the link available to members. The Department has established a working group which has commenced work on designing the single payment. Separately, intensive engagement with other Departments is taking place on the supports and services required. The Department will develop an implementation plan for the introduction of the payment on foot of the outcome of the deliberations of the working group and its engagement with other Departments. This implementation plan and the structure of the payment will then be presented to the Government for its consideration and decision. While a significant amount of work has been done on the development of a single payment, many issues still have to be worked through and decisions made by the Government. The Department is committed to completing this work in order that, subject to the approval of the Government, an implementation plan can be submitted to the troika by the end of March. I would welcome the views of committee members. We are happy to answer any questions raised in so far as we can. Deputy Barry Cowen: I thank Ms Vaughan and her staff for coming to discuss the issue. We welcome the creation of a single welfare system which was initiated by the previous Minister, Deputy Cuv. We recognise and hope it will simplify the system, reduce the number of welfare traps and result in an individual focus being placed on labour activation measures.

41

Ms Vaughan has said cost and efficiency gains from the simplification of administrative structures and collapsing multiple payments into a single payment are also possible. Has this been costed in advance of the Departments submission in March and what figure is available in that regard? She also said the single payment would be a key development in the pursuit of a more focused and purposeful activation agenda which would be delivered under the auspices of the National Employment and Entitlements Service. Some 20 million for job activation measures was included in the budget announcement. Has funding been provided under that heading towards at least partial delivery of this measure in the forthcoming year? Will the changes result in reductions in welfare payments for recipients? Will the changes generate more confusion as recipients of payments such as disability allowance and unemployment benefit are left uncertain about their payments after the introduction of the reforms? Will labour activation measures inflict hardship by imposing what might be seen as unrealistic demands on welfare recipients - for instance, lone parents being sent a significant distance from home to work, thus increasing child care and transport costs? In general, we welcome the proposal and recognise the need for it. We understand the improvements that can be made as a result of these changes. As the proposal was instigated by the previous Administration, we support its thrust. Ms Anne Vaughan: I thank the Deputy for his comments of welcome. As I said in my opening statement, considerable work is being done. However, we have not costed the gains from the efficiencies. It seems there would be gains because there would be greater commonality in means testing which would allow for more once and done cases in reviewing people. Therefore, no is the answer to that question. The Deputy asked if any part of the figure of 20 million relates to this change. Again, no is the answer. The Deputy asked about reductions and causing more confusion and hardship. All of this is a work in progress and the report gives an example of what would happen if we ran the single payment scheme alongside jobseekers allowance and applied the jobseekers allowance regime, entitlements, disregards and means testing to all other payments. The report makes it clear that there would be losses, but no decision has been made as to where the payment would be pitched. Clearly, for illustrative purposes, the report shows reductions. As I was trying to make clear in my opening statement, the report is very strong - this is a concern of the groups we met - in emphasising income support and improvements in services, both of which go together with the overall objective of improving outcomes for people. That is the objective. I hope, therefore, it would not cause more confusion. Reduction of complexity is not just an administrative nicety; it means a lot to our client group. Our stakeholders and representative groups, as well as members of the committee, tell us schemes are far too complex for people to understand, which makes it difficult for them to figure out whether they should take up a part-time or any job. All that is in the policy development pot with the working groups which are trying to move the issue forward. Deputy Aengus Snodaigh: I do not know if the delegates are aware that I recommended that the committee take this topic on board. As I asked to be appointed rapporteur, I will be back in touch with departmental officials and I hope the authors of the report in order to make a report to the committee prior to the release of the implementation plan. This puts me on a tight timeframe because I had not expected the implementation or proposal to go to the troika in March but I believe I will be able to deliver a report by the end of February so that the committee can discuss it in time. While it is administratively attractive to go down this road I have questions, some of which arise from the report published in November 2010. It is a pity we did not have an opportunity, prior to its development to the stage it is at now, for the committee to carry out an indepth examination of it and now we are doing it in a rushed manner. Anyway, does the agreement

42

with the troika commit us to introducing the single working age payment or does it simply commit us to build on the original report? Differences have been suggested and there are other models reported and referred to in the report which might be able to deliver something similar. Social Justice Ireland has a basic income model which it espouses. Much is made in the report of a similar exercise in England which involved working towards a single working age payment. The Gregg review outlines how this was delivered in England. It raised some of the same concerns mentioned by the deputation and which stakeholders raised here during the conference about specific categories and the implications if one lumps together all the categories of those in receipt of social welfare. For instance, the deputation referred to jobseekers benefits among the list and the carers allowance in particular, whereas the Departments report stated that the carers allowance should not be included. There has been a shift in the past year. Why has that shift taken place? The British review proposed a category within a single payment framework for whom there would be no requirement to undertake work-related activity but who could do so voluntarily if they so wished. Are we looking to move down that road? Such a category would include the likes of one-parent families, carers or those with disabilities. Because of the peculiarities of everyones situation, over the years we have developed the complex system that is in place now. Whatever system we develop, even it involved a single working age payment, would still have to take account of various circumstances. Are we simply introducing a single payment with a multitude of add-ons to a system which might not work as effectively as we would wish but which delivers to a degree? The deputation alluded to another major question relating to one of the key concerns most people have. If we move down this road it is contingent upon the support and activation measures being in place. The Department may be ready to present an implementation plan to the Minister and the troika by March but will there be an implementation plan to do with job supports, activation and so on in place prior to this as an add-on or at the same time so that people can see this is where the move is taking place? Without this second part, any move towards a single working age payment would be detrimental and a backward step at the moment. Does the deputation agree that in some ways this is the wrong time to consider this change? We have been forced by the circumstances to re-examine the social protection budget but such a substantial change in a time of recession could be detrimental to those surviving on it. If there is no corresponding increase in spending on the activation measures and training and education and so on then it is doomed and destined to cause misery. I have many more questions but since there are many other Deputies here I will hold them. Perhaps afterwards I could get to speak to whoever is in charge; there is always an author in the background. I realise there are various officials involved but that would be useful for me as part of my work in the coming weeks. Ms Anne Vaughan: I am the author, not all by myself I hasten to add. I hear what Deputy Snodaigh is saying and I welcome the fact that he is the rapporteur. We will facilitate or arrange a separate briefing and whatever he wishes for. That would be helpful on all sides. It is a tight timeframe, one we were given by the troika. To clarify one point, the implementation plan is what is required by the March deadline. This will outline what we will do and, I hope, it will have timelines attached. This is all in the mix at the moment in the discussions. It was always acknowledged that this was something in the medium term, not something that could be turned on overnight. The committee will see in the report a discussion on whether it would apply to new entrants only or to existing clients. That is all up for discussion. The troika is interested in structural change of the welfare system. This ties in with the activation agenda which I spoke about and which they spoke about. I take the Deputys points

43

about other possible ways. I referred in my opening statement to the actual commitment. It states that we will build on recent studies and so on. I do not believe the troika has a specific view of what the working age payment should look like except that it should be structural change that helps the situation. As part of drafting the report in the first place we examined models in other countries and we went to the United Kingdom to study what is in place there. We would have taken note of the people referenced by Deputy Snodaigh. I will clarify a point about the carers allowance. I was keen to point out in my opening statement that no decision has been made and I emphasise that point. The Deputy is perfectly correct. In the report we put forward the pros and cons of whether a single working age payment should include the carers allowance. The report concludes that on balance it should not. Obviously, that will be a decision for Government. This is why I suggest it could possibly include the allowance. To be fair to my opening statement, I am being transparent in what I say. I take Deputy Snodaighs point and it is one we are concerned about in the discussions. Let us assume we get to a single payment. People are different and peoples needs are different and by the time one has addressed these differences the question arises of whether one is back to where one started. This was Deputy Snodaighs point about a single payment with add-ons and it is a challenge for the working group. It is not desirable to get back to where we were. The working age payment is to try to ensure that someone is not seen as unemployed or parenting alone or a person with a disability but as a member of a working age group. That is not to say such people do not have individual needs that must be met. That is the change. I have clarified that it is a medium-term plan and what is required by 2012. Is it the wrong time for this? There is no right time for things and I do not disagree with Deputy Snodaigh. It would be far preferable to try to introduce and develop this type of payment in a better economic climate. There is no argument from me about that. However, as part of the bigger activation agenda we are trying to ensure that people do not grow more distant from the labour market, which is probably something that happened previously, so that when there is a pick-up there will not be a big gap. That is what the activation agenda is trying to achieve. Chairman: We can return to Ms Vaughan at the conclusion if more questions are asked. Deputy Joan Collins: I have no questions at this point; I just wish to listen to the debate. Senator John Kelly: I welcome the departmental officials to the meeting and I thank them for their presentation. I think I know what the Department is trying to achieve but I do not really know how it is going to get there because there are many difficulties ahead. Ms Vaughan referred to the merging of the community welfare officer service and the development of a national entitlement and employment service. The community welfare officer service, as yet, does not even know what will be its role within the Department of Social Protection. Nobody has informed them. The best they have ever got is a meeting with an official from the Department who has told them that everything will be grand. There is disquiet among the community welfare officers and until such time as senior officials spell it out for them and persuade them to buy into any future changes, there could be difficulties. With regard to the types of payment, I understand the Department wishes that everyone should be considered for employment in some shape or form and this should certainly be the case with regard to jobseekers allowance. As regards persons in receipt of disability allowance, some of them are employable while many are not. I agree that in the case of recipients of lone parent allowance many of them are employable while some may not be. I cannot see how it will work with regard to recipients of the farm assist benefit, considering that their employment is farm-

44

based and it is unlikely they could take on employment at any stage in the future while farming. The same applies to recipients of the blind pensioner allowance. Some recipients may be employable and many will not. Widows certainly may be employable and many of them should be. I cannot see how carers could ever be considered as the medical assessment for a carers allowance is so severely dealt with by the Department and by the medical profession that a person would nearly want to have one foot in the grave before his or her carer will be awarded the carers allowance. To think, therefore, that such a person might be employable on top of that is more laughable than anything. I would advise the Department that over the past number of years, before money got tight and we must now worry about how it is expended, many people were awarded carers allowance who perhaps should not have got it. I suggest the concentration should be on a review of the historical applications and payments as there could be quite a significant amount of money to be saved in this regard. At the moment it seems 99% sure that anyone who applies for the carers allowance will be refused by the Department and will be sent down the route of making an appeal. I will not mention all of the cases I know about but it is laughable to think that these people could be refused a carers allowance purely on medical grounds. A doctor provides a medical assessment report with five categories of level of severity of an illness, mild, moderate, high, severe and profound. I do not understand the need for five categories because it is quite obvious that unless the person is categorised under severe or profound, he or she will not get a carers or an invalidity or disability allowance. The Department needs to clarify this situation. Why are there five categories? Chairman: This is not the subject for discussion today, Senator. Senator John Kelly: It is a question that needs to be addressed in the future. I agree with the standardisation of a means test but I do not know how the Department proposes to go about it. Every social welfare payment is means tested in different ways. For example, if the Department were to use the unemployment assistance means test then the carers and others would lose out. I have great time for carers and for the great work of the Carers Association. It would be a retrograde step if their work were to be hindered in any way. A hindering of the carers will impact on some other budget in the Department of Health, for instance. Any standardisation of means tests should not be applied retrospectively to any existing payments and may be considered for any future payments but not to affect the carers allowance. Chairman: Ms Vaughan may not be able to answer all those questions today but I invite her to answer what is relevant. Ms Anne Vaughan: I thank the Senator for those questions. Senator Kelly referred to the community welfare service. I accept there may be individual former community welfare officers or indeed, superintendents, who may not be happy or possibly do not know what is happening but I really find that difficult to understand and I certainly would not accept it as an across the board statement. At this stage, the Department has had numerous seminars and consultations with our staff. Originally, this time last year, we held about eight seminars all around the country and led by the Secretary General and myself. We invited in and met all the community welfare service staff. I am not saying that everybody is happy but the Department has made very great efforts to meet and explain the situation to all its staff. The Department has 7,000 staff and we will also have seminars with the staff who have joined us from FS. The Senator and I will have to agree to differ on that point. As regards the single payment, I agree with the Senator that we must find a solution and this will not be easy, as I said. This is the reason for the working group. I note the points made by the

45

Senator and they will be taken into account. I refer to his final point about the application of a regime. The example given in the report is the jobseekers allowance. I agree there will be monetary losses. The report refers to a way around this but no decision has been made, one way or the other and that is that it would only be applied to new entrants. This is a form of working around this issue. I hear what he says about the various components of the schemes listed. They would all be put under the umbrella of a single payment and they would all have the same conditions, eligibility and means testing. I have dealt with the carers allowance in reply to Deputy Snodaigh. I note the Senators points about carers allowance and I will relay the points about the medical side to our chief medical adviser, Dr. Leech and that is all I can say about that. Senator John Kelly: I wish to make a brief point. Chairman: It must be a brief point. Senator John Kelly: If I may, I will revert to Ms Vaughan in the near future with regard to the community welfare service on which we will agree to disagree right now. Ms Anne Vaughan: Yes, of course. I welcome that suggestion. Deputy Michael Conaghan: I thank the delegation for their attendance. Reconfiguring the social welfare system is a good idea because the system has evolved in a haphazard, piece-meal fashion. It is very unwieldy and I accept it needs to be reconfigured. There needs to be a more dynamic linkage between unemployment, training and employability rather than the deadness that currently exists and the separation within the system. This job needs to be done on its own merits. However, what I have concerns about in this report is the idea that in itself, this brings people closer to work. In my view, this is completely overstated. What brings people closer to work is the availability of work. In my area there was traditionally very high levels of structural unemployment but when work came in the past decade, people deserted the dole office in their droves. They went to work. There was talk of closing down the labour exchange in Ballyfermot at the time. The presentation suggests that somehow the availability of work is the X factor and not reconfiguring the social welfare system unless penal clauses are introduced, which I would very much oppose. The committee needs to discuss how we can make the availability of work a more real prospect in peoples lives by outlining a new generation of activation measures. We need to look at the levels of funding appropriate to delivering those into communities where people are left high and dry. Changing the colour of the labour exchange does not hold out great prospects for people. A new generation of activation measures, claiming some of the appropriate resources to fund them, is needed. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, demonstrated investment in the high end of the economy. We need to invest an equivalent proportion to create and deliver activation measures. The Department is trying to do two jobs. The presentation states that two objectives can be achieved in the single act proposed. If one thing is achieved properly that is enough. The idea that the second can be achieved is groundless and overstated. It needs a different kind of approach, one to which this committee should pay more attention. We need modern new activation measures that excite and interest people in communities. That is what brings people closer to work. Ms Anne Vaughan: I am not sure there is that much between what we are both saying. Maybe I am not explaining it well. The Department fully accepts that when work is available people should take it up. We saw that in the good times. The Deputy said he does not accept what I said about keeping people closer to the labour force. I agree with him. At the end of the day, there have to be jobs. Given what has happened in the labour market, some people will drift

46

further away and when opportunities arise they will not have the skill sets to take the jobs on offer. Supply and demand in the labour market needs to maintain some sort of connection. I do not disagree with what the Deputy said about the activation space. It is about far more than cosmetic changes and collocation. The Minister is very strong on the fact that it is a change from a passive to a more active, energetic and dynamic approach and we agree with that. If it is to work, it needs to work at local level from the bottom up, which is what the Deputy said. It will work with engagement at local level with local employers and that is something we are talking to our local office staff about. It is very much a bottom-up approach. I welcome the comments of the Deputy and we can tease the issue out more off-line, focusing on his area. Chairman: We have to have specific meetings on labour activation and pathways to work. The two run in parallel and we will make sure we do enough work on both. Deputy Anthony Lawlor: I welcome the delegation. I always believe in full and frank discussions, which Ms Vaughan has engaged in every time she comes before the committee. Unusually for me, I have to agree with Deputy Snodaigh that it may be the wrong time to introduce a measure like this. When we had full employment was the time to change the entire social welfare system in order that it could become what we need now, namely more flexible. I want to hear about the flexibility of the system. We now have a different type of workforce in that there is much more casual work. We have to be more sympathetic to people who can only get jobs for two or three hours a day and should not punish them. Is the Department working on flexibility within the system? Ms Anne Vaughan: The short answer is yes. I dealt with the wrong time when I responded to Deputy Snodaigh. On flexibility and casual workers, we need to modernise our jobseekers supports to be more in line with how the labour market operates, such as people who only work a few hours per day. The bottom line has to be that we make work pay in those situations. That is not easy for certain family sizes and types. A minority of people receive considerable social welfare payments versus what they would earn in paid employment. There is also a debate on replacement ratios. It is something that, on the policy side, we are very conscious of and need to make progress on to make work pay. I take the points. Deputy Aengus Snodaigh: Some of the speakers who came after me covered my additional points. Deputy Nicky McFadden: I apologise for being late. I have concerns about the disability allowance and one parent family payments. People who are desperately struggling as a result of the current cuts are coming into my clinics and I am concerned that a single payment would result in further cuts to payments. Ms Anne Vaughan: It is very much still a work in progress. If, as the report sets out, we apply the jobseekers regime there would be reductions. I again emphasise that it is not just about income support, it is also about services and supports. The points the Deputy made were strongly made at the consultation seminars by groups representing those to which she referred. One has to look at the data and outcomes for people parenting alone over a time of considerable growth in Ireland. The outcomes, risk of poverty and take-up of employment were poor. We have to look at the current situation and the medium term to determine the best supports for people and where we can, over time, make people less dependent on the welfare system with better outcomes. That is what is driving the rationale for the report and payment. That said, the groups at the consultation seminar were very strong on asking whether the change was just a cut. It is not and it is not being presented as such. It is well based in evidence,

47

our data and evidence from the OECD and other countries on outcomes for people. I understand that people are in receipt of a weekly payment this week and I am talking about future outcomes. One has to make that connection. The groups, especially the one-parent family groups, would say to us that many of those who are parenting alone want to work. There is evidence to support that. Many of them are working. Obviously, we want to facilitate that. Deputy Nicky McFadden: I am concerned about people with disabilities. They have no option other than to receive disability benefit because of their disabilities. My biggest concern relates to them. Ms Anne Vaughan: As one of the Deputys colleagues said earlier, those receiving these payments have a range of disabilities. It is not a case of one size fits all. That is what we talk about. We need to see what work these people are capable of. If they are seen as being totally incapable of any work, it is not fair to anybody. Deputy Nicky McFadden: No. Ms Anne Vaughan: We would not disagree on that. Chairman: I am worried that I unintentionally cut Deputy Snodaigh off. Did he wish to say something else? Deputy Aengus Snodaigh: No. I will not open up a big debate on universality and means testing, and so on. I will try to tease some of that out in my report. Chairman: I thank Ms Vaughan and her team for attending this meeting. We look forward to reading the report that will follow Deputy Snodaighs study. The committee will focus on this matter over the next couple of months. I thank Ms Vaughan for her help. Her comments will focus our minds. I do not doubt that we will be in touch again as we go along. I remind members that the select committee will meet at 11.45 a.m. this morning. The joint committee adjourned at 10.30 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 25 January 2012.

48

5.4 Consultation with Stakeholders

5.4.1 Full list of those who made Oral and Written Submissions Single Parents Acting for the Rights of our Kids (SPARK) Irish National Organisation for the Unemployed (INOU) National Womens Council of Ireland (NWCI) European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN) Barnardos Down Syndrome Ireland Dublin Branch Disability Federation Ireland (DFI) Treoir Carers Association (by telephone) Social Justice Ireland (SJI) OPEN One Family St. Vincent de Paul Community Sector Employers Forum (CSEF) Irish Small and Medium Enterprises Association (ISME) (written submission) 30 written submissions from individuals 5.4.2 List of questions for Stakeholders and the Departmental Officials

Qs for consultation meetings Questions for non-category specific groups What are the key differences between JSA and the other working age social assistance payments? In the context of a shift to JSA what are the components of the other social assistance schemes that it would be important to keep? How could the JSA and the various other schemes be improved? What are the priority activations supports required to support jobseekers and then each of the other categories into quality employment?

49

What is your view on the fairness or otherwise of applying the new scheme to new applicants only? Questions for Lone Parents representatives What are the key difference between OPFP and JSA? In the context of a shift to JSA what are the components of the OPFP scheme that it would be important to keep? How could the OPFP scheme be improved? What are the priority activation supports required to support lone parents into quality employment? What is your view on the fairness of applying to new claimants only? Questions for disability representatives What are the key difference between DA and JSA? In the context of a shift to JSA what are the components of the DA scheme that it would be important to keep? How could the DA scheme be improved? What are the priority activation supports required to support people with disabilities into quality employment? What is your view on the fairness of applying to new claimants only? Questions for carers representatives What are the key difference between CA and JSA? In the context of a shift to JSA what are the components of the CA scheme that it would be important to keep? How could the CA scheme be improved? What are the priority activation supports required to support carers? What is your view on the fairness of applying to new claimants only?

Questions for meeting with Department of Social Protection officials

Please provide an update on developments in Britain? What happens the qualified adult increase?

50

How does this interact with FIS? Have they investigated the idea of a parental allowance? Timeframe? Status of carers? Can we have updated tables? What half-rate payments now remain and what will happen with that? Should Limitation of entitlement apply in their view? Should the 3 in 6 rule apply in their view? What about a single collection point for means-tests? Will the departments of education and jobs submit plans to the Troika at the same time?

5.4.2 Social Media advertisement seeking submission can be viewed at http://youtu.be/VuCPlNYJj28

51

5.5 Parliamentary Questions with replies

Question Nos: 161, 162 & 163

Ref Nos: 8746/12 8747/12 8748/12

To the Minister for Social Protection To ask the Minister for Social Protection the number of qualified adults in relation to whom a payment is being made minus those qualified adults that are of pension age. - Aengus Snodaigh.

To ask the Minister for Social Protection the number of female qualified adults in relation to whom a payment is being made minus those qualified adults that are of pension age. - Aengus Snodaigh.

To ask the Minister for Social Protection if any recent research has been undertaken that documents a breakdown of who the qualified adults in relation to whom a payment is being made are in terms of age profile, educational qualifications and work history; and if so, the key findings of same. - Aengus Snodaigh.

For WRITTEN answer on Wednesday, 15th February, 2012.

REPLY Minister for Social Protection (Joan Burton T.D):

It is proposed to take Question numbers 161, 162 and 163 together.

The information requested by the Deputy is not routinely collated by my Department across all of its various schemes. Where possible I have included the information requested by the Deputy in full. The Department has not undertaken or commissioned research in relation to qualified adult payments. This is a matter that the Department may examine in the future as it develops policies to further reform the Social Welfare system.

At the end of December 2011 there were approximately 193,000 adult dependent allowances in payment.

52

Tabular table attached\...

Total Number of Qualified Adults
State Pension (Contributory) State Pension (Transition) State Pension (Non-Contributory) Pre-Retirement Allowance Illness Benefit Interim Illness Benefit Injury Benefit Invalidity Pension Disablement Pension Disability Allowance Blind Pension Jobseeker's Benefit Jobseeker's Allowance Back To Work Allowance Employee Back To Work Enterprise Allowance - Self Employed First Year - Self Employed Years 2 - 4 Back To Education Allowance Farm Assist Supplementary Welfare Allowance 2,216 1,885 2,322 5,213 7,906 Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available 66,609 2,572 3,012 1,233 7,894 33 95 7,728 161 8,737 127 9,771 65,480 17

Number of Qualified Adults Under 66 years of age.

18,246 2,284 3,012 Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available 7,478 Not Available 8,606 127 Not Available Not Available Not Available

Female Adult Dependents under 66 years of age

17,954 2,224 2,600 Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available 6,573 Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available Not Available

ENDS Question Nos: 164, 165, 166 & 167 No: 8751/12 8752/12 8753/12 8754/12 To the Minister for Social Protection To ask the Minister for Social Protection the total number of persons in receipt of one parent family payment; and the total number of children to which this relates. Ref

53

- Aengus Snodaigh. To ask the Minister for Social Protection the number of persons in receipt of one parent family payment who are also engaged in paid employment. - Aengus Snodaigh. To ask the Minister for Social Protection if she will provide a breakdown of the weekly hours worked by persons in receipt of an one parent family payment that is the number of recipients working five hours, ten hours, 15 hours, 20 hours, 25 hours, 30 hours and 35 hours. - Aengus Snodaigh. To ask the Minister for Social Protection if she will provide a breakdown of the days worked each week by persons in receipt of a one parent family payment that is the number of recipients working one day, two days, three days, four days and five days each week. - Aengus Snodaigh.

For WRITTEN answer on Wednesday, 15th February, 2012.

REPLY Minister for Social Protection (Joan Burton T.D):

It is proposed to take Question numbers, 164, 165, 166 and 167 together.

There were 90,267 recipients of One-parent Family Payments at the end of January 2012 with payments being made in respect of 149,196 qualified children. It is estimated that approximately 46% of the recipients are in paid employment. Information concerning the working patterns of recipients of One-Parent Family Payment is not collated by my Department.

ENDS Question No: 168 To the Minister for Social Protection Ref No: 8755-12

To ask the Minister for Social Protection if she will provide tables updating those contained on pages 96 to 108 of the report on the desirability and feasibility of introducing a single social assistance payment for persons of working age' published in November 2010 taking account of the subsequent budget cuts.

54

- Aengus Snodaigh.

For WRITTEN answer on Wednesday, 15th February, 2012.

REPLY

Minister for Social Protection (Joan Burton T.D): In November 2010, my Department published a Report on the Desirability and Feasibility of introducing a Single Payment for People of Working Age. The report concluded that it was both desirable and feasible to move to a single payment over time.

There is a commitment contained in the agreed EU/ECB/IMF Programme of Financial Support, that Ireland will present a comprehensive programme of reforms for the social welfare system to the Troika by the end of quarter 1 2012. This programme of reforms is expected to contain an implementation plan for the introduction of the single payment.

An internal working group within the Department of Social Protection has been established and has commenced work on designing the single payment. As part of its work a number of models are being developed to illustrate the various policy options regarding the single payment. These models will contain tables similar to those in the 2010 feasibility study. As all the relevant data is still being compiled these tables are not yet available.

In addition to the internal working group, an interdepartmental group has been set up in relation to the provision of the necessary supports and services to assist recipients of a single payment to progress into employment.

55

Following the work of these groups a report will be prepared for the Minister. No decisions have been made on the structure of the single payment; those will be matters for Government in due course.

Question No: 169 Ref No: 8757/12 To the Minister for Social Protection To ask the Minister for Social Protection if she will provide a breakdown of the number of recipients of one parent family payment by age. - Aengus Snodaigh.

For WRITTEN answer on Wednesday, 15th February, 2012.

REPLY Minister for Social Protection (Joan Burton T.D): At the end of January 2012 there were 90,267 people in receipt of One-parent Family Payment. I have attached a breakdown of these recipients by age.

Tabular table attached\... Carers Allowance Age Under 25 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65 & over Total Recipients 11,701 17,443 17,931 15,946 13,297 8,672 3,803 1,209 249 16 90,267

56

ENDS Question No: 170 Ref No: 8758/12 To the Minister for Social Protection To ask the Minister for Social Protection if she will provide a breakdown of the number of recipients of carers allowance by age. - Aengus Snodaigh.

For WRITTEN answer on Wednesday, 15th February, 2012.

REPLY Minister for Social Protection (Joan Burton T.D): At the end of December 2011 there were 51,666 people in receipt of Carers Allowance. I have attached a breakdown of these recipients by age.

Tabular table attached\...

Carers Allowance Age Under 25 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 39 years 40 to 44 years 45 to 49 years 50 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60 to 64 years 65 to 69 years 70 to 74 years 75 to 79 years 80 years and over ENDS Recipients 655 1,564 3,262 5,313 6,914 7,134 6,333 5,622 5,132 4,254 2,912 1,846 725

57

Question No: To the Minister for Social Protection

Ref No: 8759-12

To ask the Minister for Social Protection the number of persons in receipt of a working age social assistance payment who are also in receipt of family income supplement; and if she will provide a breakdown by social assistance scheme they are on. - Aengus Snodaigh.

For WRITTEN answer on Wednesday, 15th February, 2012.

REPLY Minister for Social Protection (Joan Burton T.D): There are currently 28,518 customers in receipt of a family income supplement payment (FIS). The following table is a summary of customers who are also in receipt of other social assistance payments.

FIS & One Parent Family (OPF) FIS & Back to Work (BTW) FIS & Disability Allowance (DA) FIS & Other ( Invalidity, Widows Pension etc)

6282 55 120 287

23.65% of the number of FIS recipients in payment are also in receipt of another DSP payment . ENDS

58

Ms. Aengus.OSnodaigh,T.D. Dil Eireann Dublin 2 14 February 2012 PQs No. 8749/12 & 8750/12

Dear Deputy,

I refer to your Parliamentary Questions 8749/12 & 8750/12 requesting the number of persons in receipt of 1/2 rate and 1 rate carers allowance.

Carer's Allowance is a social assistance payment, made to persons who are providing full time care and attention to elderly people or to people with disabilities and whose income falls below certain limits.

The total number of people receiving a 50% increase in their payment as they are caring for a second caree is 806.

There are 21,951 persons in receipt of rate Carers Allowance while receiving another payment at present. Attached chart gives the breakdown primary payments.

Yours sincerely

Mona Considine Carers Allowance 043/3335522

59

Numbers receiving other payments plus 1/2 rate Carers Payments

STATE PENSION TRANSITION/STATE PENSION CONTRIBUTORY QUALIFIED ADULT STATE PENSION TRANSITION/STATE PENSION CONTRIBUTORY STATE PENSION NON CONTRIBUTORY QUALIFIED ADULT STATE PENSION NON CONTRIBUTORY WIDOWS CONTRIBUTORY PENSION WIDOWS NON CONTRIBUTORY PENSION DESERTED WIVES BENEFIT BLIND PENSION QUALIFIED ADULT BLIND PENSION INVALIDITY PENSION QUALIFIED ADULT INVALIDITY PENSION DISABILITY ALLOWANCE QUALIFIED ADULT DISABILITY ALLOWANCE ILLNESS BENEFIT QUALIFIED ADULT ILLNESS BENEFIT INJURY BENEFIT QUALIFIED ADULT INJURY BENEFIT INCAPACITY BENEFIT QUALIFIED ADULT INCAPACITY BENEFIT PRE RETIREMENT ALLOWANCE QUALIFIED ADULT PRETA JOB BEN QUALIFIED ADULT JOB ALL QUALIFIED ADULT FARM ASSIST QUALIFIED ADULT FARM ASSIST MATERNITY BENEFIT ADOPTIVE BENEFIT Health & Safety Health & Safety QUALIFIED ADULT ONE PARENT FAMILY PAYMENT BTW QUALIFIED ADULT BACK TO EDUCATION 1/2 rate BTW S/E Other Claim TOTAL

3031 1813 1960 297 1169 80 309 16 28 1155 1146 1115 1422 1031 327 17 11 0 5 106 29 394 1318 131 99 39 1 3 3 4289 15 1 2 589 21951

60

Oifig Seirbhs Leasa Shisialaigh An Roinn Coimirce Sisiala Bthar Bhal tha na Lao Longfort Co. Longfoirt

Social Welfare Services Office Department of Social Protection Ballinalee Road Longford Telephone: (043)3335566

13 March, 2012 Mr. Aengus Snodaigh, T.D. Dil ireann Dublin 2

Dear Deputy, I refer to your Parliamentary Question, reference no. 8756/12, regarding a breakdown of the number of recipients of disability allowance by age. The requested figures are set out hereunder in tabular form. Disability Allowance - Recipients by Age - At 31 Dec 2011 Age Under 25 years 25 to 29 years 30 to 34 years 35 to 39 years 40 to 44 years 45 to 49 years 50 to 54 years 55 to 59 years 60+ years Total 11,895 8,455 9,471 9,999 10,838 11,756 11,716 12,725 16,011

Yours faithfully,

_________________ Donal Stephenson Executive Officer

61

Joan Burton (Minister, Department of Social Protection; Dublin West, Labour) 13th December 2011

I propose to take Questions Nos. 221 and 250 together.

The estimated savings arising from the measures relating to disability allowance announced in Budget 2012 is 7 million in 2012. Those measures would have affected people aged up to and including 24 years of age they would not have affected recipients aged 25 years or older.

I have provided a table which sets out the number of 16 to 25 year olds in receipt of disability allowance, broken down by age and gender as of the end of November 2011. There were 13,802 recipients aged up to and including 25 years of age and a further 88,872 aged 26 years or more, bringing the overall total to 102,674. The estimated total spend on this scheme in 2011 is 1,066m. The annual cost to the exchequer of a specific age group within a scheme is not collated by my Department.

Number of 16 to 25 year olds in receipt of Disability Allowance Age 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Total Male 395 700 798 857 915 942 871 862 903 1020 8263 Female 247 382 482 527 586 567 596 659 628 865 5539 Total 642 1082 1280 1384 1501 1509 1467 1521 1531 1885 13802

62

Thursday, 26 January 2012

Page
20

Dil ireann Debate Vol. 753 No. 1 Unrevised of 164

8. Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Social Protection if the Troika in their most recent review of the EU IMF agreement implementation or in previous reviews brought up any specific issue in relation to social protection; if they issued any specific guidance or dictates on social protection reform or reductions in expenditure; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [4385/12] 41. Deputy Aengus Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection the status of the work done to date by her on the development of the implementation plan she is committed to deliver to the Troika by the end of March 2012; if she will provide an indication of what it will contain; if she will publish it to allow for debate in Dil ireann in advance of submitting it to the Troika; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [4356/12] Deputy Joan Burton: I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 41 together.

In November 2010 the then Fianna Fail-Green Party Government negotiated an agreement with the European Union-ECB-IMF funding troika which included undertakings regarding the social protection area, each with a specific timeframe for delivery. That Government agreed a structural adjustment programme which we are now working through and which I stress is subject to a weekly, monthly and quarterly reporting process as well as ongoing discussions on all expenditure headings, including social protection. The progress made on current commitments is discussed with the troika delegation when it visits Dublin for each quarterly review, the achievement of commitments is noted where relevant, and the agreement is revised to reflect any new or follow-on commitments made in the course of the quarterly review, as appropriate. All of the commitments in the social protection area that were required to be delivered up to the present time have been delivered in full and on time. Spending on social protection in 2012 is expected to account for almost 40% of current Government expenditure. The EU, the ECB and the IMF recognise the scale of spending on social protection and have emphasised the importance of reform in this area both as a contribution to fiscal consolidation and to facilitate economic recovery. The troika has not identified any specific programmes that should be curtailed or discontinued but rather expressed overall targets to be achieved.

63

However, as Deputies will be aware, the Government announced expenditure ceilings for all Departments for 2013 and 2014 when budget 2012 was brought before the Dil last month. These provide for savings of just over 1 billion in total by the end of 2014 in the social protection area above the savings from measures introduced in budget 2012 and previously. In that context, the Government has agreed with the troika that by the end of March the Department will draw up a comprehensive programme of reforms that can help better targeting of social support to those on lower incomes, and ensure that work pays for welfare recipients. The Government has also agreed that it will take steps to strengthen activation and training policies to help jobseekers get back to work. The work done to date in respect of both of these commitments builds on policy documents published in 2010 in the areas of pensions, child income supports, payments to people of working age and payments to people with a disability. It is not intended that the reform programme would be finalised by end of March. My intention is to bring reform proposals to Government initially and then to the Oireachtas in advance of finalisation, with implementation to commence in budget 2013. Deputy amon Cuv: Will the Minister accept that we need reform of the schemes on an ongoing basis? Many of the reforms mentioned in the EU-IMF memorandum of understanding were already in train and under discussion in the Department, particularly the rationalisation of the child payments, disability payments and so on. Does she intend to proceed with the part capacity provision introduced in the budget that would allow persons on invalidity pension to work and receive a partial payment, depending on the level of disability, the objective of which would be to facilitate those with a disability to remain in the workplace on a long term basis? Is the Minister confirming today that the changes to community employment schemes, one parent family payment, child benefit and so on in the budget were not dictated by the EU-IMF and were decisions of the Government rather than the censure of the IMF? Deputy Joan Burton: In the language of high diplomacy, Deputy Cuv was the Minister in the Department and a member of the Government that negotiated the deal with the troika. The format of structural adjustment programmes around the world we are not the first country to be in such a programme is that there is enormous discussion between the people in the IMF, which is overseeing and supervising the programme and providing the loans, and the officials in the country which is in the programme. Clearly, that is what happened when the IMF came to Dublin in November 2010, though if the Deputy recalls there were some denials from some members of that Government that such a process was under way. We are in a framework. The framework that was signed up to by Fianna Fil and the Green Party includes very detailed, weekly, monthly and quarterly reporting and discussion at all appropriate intervals of what progress is being achieved. The objective of the Government is to see the country exit successfully from the adjustment programme and return to economic growth. We must have regard to the programme. The troika members are

64

exercised by issues such as activation, the cost overall of social protection and by various elements of various schemes. In the language of structural adjustment programmes they take an interest in all of these issues and, as we have heard from time to time, different parts of the troika have different views on different issues. I do not think the troika would describe itself as dictating to any particular Department. An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Aengus Snodaigh has a similar question.

Deputy Aengus Snodaigh: Will the Minister confirm that the agreement to date does not commit us to delivery or introduction of a single working age payments scheme per se but to reform of the social welfare system and more efficiency? Does she agree that prior to moving to such widescale reform such reform should be predicated by a roll-out of activation measures of training and educational opportunities and, in particular the elephant in the room jobs being available. If only one part is rolled out the only people who will suffer are those who are dependent on social welfare. Has the Minster contacted the Department of Education and Skills, which would be involved in some of the activation and educational opportunities, and the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation? Will the presentation to the troika in March-April be a combined one or will the Department of Social Protection make its presentation first? Deputy Joan Burton: I will take the last question first. The working method is to have both. Nine Departments have conversations and discussions with the troika on a continuing basis and when they come to do their reviews in Dublin, just as they report on a continuing basis. The co-ordinating Departments for dealing with the troika are the two finance Departments which oversee the process. On the single working age payment and roll-out of activation opportunities, I agree with the Deputy that there are commitments in regard to both in respect of the end of the first quarter of 2012, which were signalled when the original structure of the adjustment programme was put in place. We will meet that deadline. Obviously, the most important one is that in the context of the 1 billion, to which I referred earlier, being spent on various employment supports ranging from the two scheme to CE schemes to back to education allowances, it is important to give as many people who are unemployed as much opportunity as possible to take part in appropriate options, opportunities and training and that they are spread as widely as possible among those who are at risk of becoming long-term unemployed. In regard to the activation programme, next week I will launch with the Taoiseach, the Tnaiste and the Department of Education and Skills a programme on the options, opportunities and structures of helping people to engage with the system in terms of getting back to work, back to education and back to training. Deputy Snodaigh asked about jobs. The jobs initiative, launched by the Government in May 2011, has produced good and significant responses from employers particularly in the area of tourism from various parts of the country, including the west. I am pleased that

65

JobBridge, the national internship scheme that I launched in July 2011, has had a huge take up from employers. It is interesting that there is a significant demand from people who were not originally in the JobBridge process, such as lone parents and people with a disability, to take part in it. We are looking at that issue. A huge volume of people on the live register on job seekers allowance are very interested in engaging in opportunities and we must ensure that actually happens. The troika constantly asks questions about this area. Written Answers follow Adjournment. The Dil adjourned at 5.50 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 31 January 2012.

Rapporteurs Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the work of my Parliamentary Assistant Miriam Murphy MSocSc (Social Policy), BSocSc (Intl.) who acted as principal researcher - designing our programme of work, facilitating the consultation meetings, compiling the findings and managing the project within a tight timeframe. I would like to thank all the organisations that met with me and made written submissions as part of this consultation at short notice and the individuals who took the time to forward me their views and experiences. Finally I wish to thank the Committee Members and the Committee Secretariat for giving this important issue their time and consideration.

66