The second item is a discussion on current socio-economic developments in the context of the European Union 2020 strategy and Ireland's national reform programme. To discuss these matters with us we are joined by Fr. Seán Healy, Sr. Brigid Reynolds and Ms Sandra Mallon from Social Justice Ireland. I welcome them on behalf of the committee and invite them to address it on the EU 2020 strategy, Ireland's national reform programme and current socio-economic developments and their implications for Government policy in the short to medium term.
EU 2020 Strategy: Discussion with Social Justice Ireland
Dr. Seán Healy
I thank the Chairman and members for inviting us to appear before the committee. We appreciate the opportunity to do so. To be clear, Social Justice Ireland is an independent organisation with more than 70 member organisations. It is a stand-alone organisation which is working to build a just society in which human rights are respected, human dignity is protected, human development is facilitated and the environment is respected and protected. Membership of the organisation is open to both individuals and organisations.
We will give the committee some background information, of which members may not be aware. Social Justice Ireland is part of the Caritas Europa network which has an organisation in each of the 27 European Union countries and many other countries beyond the Union. We are engaged in a project to monitor the implementation of the European Union 2020 strategy and the national reform programmes across the Union. We have a responsibility within the network to produce a shadow report on the performance of the strategy and implementation of the national reform programmes of European Union countries. We will publish that report within a relatively short time. We are also deeply involved in producing a shadow report on this country and its performance in terms of the strategy and, in particular, on the Irish national reform programme. We will be pleased to supply members of the committee with that publication when it is ready in a few months time. We will be more than happy to re-engage with the committee at that time if members are interested. In the meantime we wish to draw their attention to a number of issues which we think are significant.
We have supplied the committee with a 29 page briefing document which, as members will be pleased to hear, we do not intend to read. One of the reasons we sought a meeting was that we were concerned about what we saw as a big gap between the rhetoric and the reality on the 2020 strategy across the European Union. It is our experience that the strategy is not being progressed across the Union, including in Ireland, at anything remotely close to the level at which it should be promoted. Because of what has happened and the difficult economic situation in which the country and the European Union find themselves, which we acknowledge fully, the country and the Union have become focused on the economic dimensions without facing up to the fact that the social dimension is critically important if the economic dimension is ever to be rectified.
Our view is that there is a false assumption underpinning much of what is happening, namely, that we must get the economy right before we can get to the social dimension and address issues such as unemployment, education and poverty. That is totally wrong. We need a good economy to produce the resources required for social services to be promoted, strengthened and delivered in the areas where they are needed. At the same time if we do not have good social services we will not have a good economy. For example, if we do not have a good education system producing high-skilled, quality graduates we will not have the people to populate the high-tech, high-spec jobs in the smart economy which is supposed to be the Ireland of the next decade. Economic development and social development are two sides of the one coin. We cannot have one without the other and if we try to emphasise one at the expense of the other, both will fall.
If we had time to give a rounded perspective we would add to that the issue of sustainability, which is the third leg of an important three-legged stool, namely, economic development, social development and sustainable development. We must have economic and social development that is sustainable but we must have an environmental dimension that is sustainable also. Our concern is that much of what is happening in Brussels and in national capitals is working under the false assumption that they will get the economy right first and then come back to the EU 2020 strategy and the national reform issues. We take issue with that.
I highlight three areas of concern for Ireland that might be of interest to the committee in terms of the targets set out in its national reform programme. We will make three recommendations, two of which are about what we believe are required as additional sub-targets on critical areas. The third is a proposal to change one of the national targets which we believe is inadequate.
To take unemployment first, we must face up to the fact that Ireland is at a critical point in terms of long-term unemployment. Four years ago we had long-term unemployment of 1.3%, up from 1.2% and 1.1% previously. Long-term unemployment refers to people unemployed for more than a year. Today, unemployment is at 14% or 15%, over half of which is long-term unemployment. This is a structural issue that has serious implications in the long-term. Nobody is suggesting that a solution to our unemployment problem will be found this year, next year or even the year after that. We will not have the level of job creation required to wipe out that long-term unemployment problem.
Tied into that are huge losses to the community. More than 300,000 people are unemployed, over half of whom are long-term unemployed, and they are lost in terms of their contribution to society, the economy and so on. They are also demoralised and are losing their skills. We propose two measures. First, a specific sub-target on reducing long-term unemployment should be included in the next consideration of the national reform programme to ensure this issue receives the priority it demands. We must set a realistic target of reducing long-term unemployment to 1.3%. We were in that position previously and we can get to that again. If we want to be very ambitious we could set a target of 1%. Long-term unemployment was at 1.3% four years ago. Irish people want to take up jobs if they are available and therefore we must set a target that aims at that.
We must think laterally to get anywhere close to that figure in current circumstances and we propose that a new programme be introduced by Government that will provide real part-time jobs for long-term unemployed people in the public sector and in the community and voluntary sector on a voluntary basis with no displacement. People would be paid the going hourly rate for the particular job and would work the number of hours required to get their social welfare payment plus €20 a week, which is the same money they would get if they were on a community employment scheme or something of that nature. They would be free for the rest of the week to take up another part-time job if they could get one and pay tax like everyone else if they got a job but they would not lose their welfare entitlements. Is that possible? This was piloted from 1994 through 1998. Sr. Brigid Reynolds and I were the directors of the programme that piloted it and therefore we have a certain interest but also a certain knowledge of it. It was mainstreamed by the then Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, in 1997 and the Minister of State in the Department at the time was Deputy Pat Rabbitte, both of whom are in the current Cabinet. We piloted it in very different areas such as Finglas, the Blanchardstown area in Dublin, Waterford city, north Kerry, on the islands off the west coast, County Laois and in four towns in south Tipperary, including Clonmel. I am conscious of the MEP present.
Ms Phil Prendergast, MEP
I thank Dr. Healy.
Just in case.
Dr. Seán Healy
The point about this is that it is a win-win situation. The economy benefits from anything people are doing in it. The participants benefit in two ways. Their own capacity, interest and involvement are maintained. They maintain their skills and therefore are job ready when the economy eventually turns around, as hopefully it will, but the community and the local area benefits enormously also. There are three or four different wins in that regard and there does not appear to be any great loss because the amount of money is small. I will not go into any more of the details but if members want more we can supply as much as they want.
The second area on which Social Justice Ireland wants to make a suggestion in terms of a sub-target is education. In many ways Ireland does well on education but we have much to learn from other countries if we were more open to learning from them because there is a good deal of experience in other countries we would want to draw attention to and from which Ireland could learn.
We could highlight several issues on education but I will focus on one. We believe there should be a sub-target within the education component of the EU 2020 strategy and the national reform programme targets Government will set on an ongoing basis. The issue would concern adult literacy. The current target in the anti-poverty strategy for adult literacy is appalling. Members may not be familiar with it but the target is that by 2016 we will reduce the number of people of working age between 16 and 64 who have literacy problems at level 1, the lowest level, to between 10% and 15% of the population. If that was to be achieved at its best by getting it down to 10% it would mean that by 2016 we will have a little over 300,000 people in the labour force with literacy problems at level 1. Level 1 means they cannot read, for example, directions, safety directions on a work site or instructions on a bottle. We believe that target is ridiculous. We must do more and learn how that might be done, and we have some ideas on that. The new sub-target should be a reduction in the proportion of the population aged 16 to 64 with restricted literacy to 5% by 2016 and 3% by 2020. We recommend that to Government because as it comes within the EU 2020 strategy and the national reform programme it is its remit to promote these issues.
Members will not be too surprised to hear that the target we believe is totally inadequate is the one on poverty. We are delighted that for the first time in a European strategy the EU 2020 strategy acknowledges that there should be a target on poverty and sets that target. We have questions about whether it is strong enough but it is tremendous to see a target on poverty reduction contained in an EU strategy document rather than an aspirational statement. We commend the target very strongly. It must be recognised that Ireland needs to make a substantial contribution towards the target. Instead, Ireland has set the exact same target it set before there was ever an EU 2020 strategy, that is, to reduce consistent poverty to 2%. We are saying there must be a much broader national target in this context.
If the broader target were in place, policies would have to be structured with it in mind. We suggest that the consistent poverty target in the strategy should be 2% and the at risk of poverty target should be 7%. We can provide details on this, if required. Members may not be aware that the other 26 member states measure poverty on the basis of risk. Ireland, however, has consistently insisted on having its own measurement based on consistent poverty. This is recognised nowhere else in the European operation and nowhere else sets targets on this basis. We have been setting targets on this basis for the past 14 years but we will not return to all the arguments in that regard.
Within the overall target of lowering the risk of poverty to 7% from the current level, 14%, we suggest sub-targets for four groups that are especially at risk: children, lone parents, jobless households and those living in social rented housing. We spell these out on page 26 of our document. We are trying to be sensible and realistic about what is possible given the current economic climate. Each of our targets is challenging but they should be. They are especially challenging in difficult times. In difficult times, however, a society, country or Government defines itself by how it treats poor and vulnerable people and those on the margins. The best way to deal with people in such circumstances is to reduce the risk dramatically. That is what we suggest.
I thank Fr. Healy, whose comments have raised quite a number of questions and challenges for us and the Government. His basic point is that there are three areas to be considered. These concern social and economic issues and sustainability. All these are included in the strategy for 2020 but it is suggested we are focusing on one, the economy, to the detriment of all others. It is a case of saying, "It's the economy, stupid." While the economy is extremely important, Fr. Healy is saying the other factors cannot be ignored. They must all be dealt with together.
Will Fr. Healy state the financial cost of meeting the targets he seeks to reach in respect of long-term unemployment, education and poverty? Has he analysed the EU multi-annual funding budgeted for the period 2014 to 2020? We will all be discussing the matter at this table in the next 12 months. To what extent will the funding adequately meet the requirements set out in the strategy for 2020?
I thank our guests for the presentation. Fr. Healy made some very interesting comments. We discussed these matters on many occasions. In the present economic climate, we need to be very careful how we spend the little money we have. We must be strategic and careful in our management and target areas that are most likely to yield to the maximum benefit. We are not in a position to spread the jam relatively thickly everywhere, as we might once have decided. It does not work like that anymore.
I agree there is much rhetoric in the aspirations for 2020. It is in the nature of strategies to be aspirational, as we know. They must be because nobody knows the extent to which we can achieve the targets we must achieve. If there is one point on which we need to agree, it is that we must use our resources as best we can to achieve the economic and social progress required as a basis for a modern society. If we can do so, we will be doing extremely well.
Fr. Healy mentioned one or two very important matters. We hear comments that unemployment is one's own fault. I hear this regularly and totally reject the notion, and I presume Fr. Healy does also. Some 400,000 people are unemployed through no fault of their own and did not wish to become unemployed. Their unemployment is a fact of life. People who should have known better allowed this set of circumstances to develop, not only in Ireland but across the globe. We are all victims in that regard. This reinforces the theory that we must focus very carefully on what we have to offer and on how we will manage expenditure.
Fr. Healy made the very important point that there is a vast difference between now and 25 years ago. First, the economic disadvantage descending upon us is much greater than it was 25 years ago. Second, the number of people now depending on private rented accommodation is a multiple of that of 25 years ago. Fr. Healy referred to this. Some 25 years ago, the local authorities provided the rented accommodation. It was a basic social cushion for the unemployed, particularly those with families. This is a significant issue because, at present, the taxpayer must support the provision of private rented accommodation. It is wrong that resentment is building over this because the people in private rented accommodation still continue to pay the equivalent of a local authority rent to a landlord. They pay this out of their own social welfare payments. Very few recognise this any more. It is very important that we address this.
Fr. Healy will recall that we had a discussion along these lines approximately 15 years ago. I was alone in predicting that housing would become a major issue in the country within 15 years. I did not expect to be so correct. I do not make this point because I was right but because the circumstances are worse than we or anybody else anticipated at the time. The moral of this story, about which I have been concerned for some considerable time, is that the more property goes into the hands of landlords, the more vulnerable the people about whom Fr. Healy spoke become. They become more dependent on factors outside their control and the taxpayer must assist them to a greater degree.
I agree entirely on the point of the smart economy but I would like people to have due regard for the stupid economy, for want of a better description. By that, I mean it is not stupid to be involved in the manufacturing sector. Countries across Europe that have forgotten the value of the manufacturing sector and of the employment afforded in all sectors of the economy, including the smart economy, will pay a much higher price than they have paid to date. Italy once had a huge workforce in the leather industry. Now, however, one receives products stating "originated in Italy". The concept may have originated in Italy but the work is not done there. Italy is now beginning to realise it was not such a great idea to offload work to the lower-wage economies.
I am sorry for speaking for so long. This is subject matter that the Chairman and I have discussed many times and to which everybody in this room will have to return time and again over the next four or five years.
I agree entirely with the point on targeting the long-term unemployed. A constituent who came to see me, and, I am sure, every other member, in recent days had the idea of paying considerably more than the suggested €20 per week. The concept is the same, it can be done and it is important that it be done. The problem at present is to get to the point at which this can be put into operation and all the other flimflam can be taken out of the way.
I agree with the points made in respect of adult literacy. I believe I have said enough, although perhaps not everyone would agree.
The Deputy has said it.
The Deputy has had a good innings.
I strongly agree with many of the concepts set out by Fr. Healy. While we have not always agreed in the past, there always is room for agreement in the future.
I welcome Fr. Healy and his team to the meeting. I have two questions, the first of which is slightly backward-looking. When this country was awash with economic wealth, it did not make the progress it should have on many of the measures discussed by Fr. Healy today. At the time, Fr. Healy was a persistent highlighter of this point. When there was, for a time, extraordinary economic wealth at the disposal of the Government, little progress was made on the measures discussed by Social Justice Ireland. This leads to my second point, which is, at a time when we are in the opposite position from a resource perspective, what must we trigger to deliver the allocation of the points discussed by Social Justice Ireland?
First, I welcome to the meeting the Rev. Fr. Dr. Seán Healy, Sr. Bridget Reynolds and Ms Sandra Mallon. I hope they make as big an impact today as did Fr. Healy at Inchydoney some years ago, when he turned Fianna Fáil into rabid socialists.
I am not sure about that.
It did not work.
We followed his inspiration so well at that time. I remember meeting Fr. Healy down there and-----
I hope the Senator is not trying to assign blame to Fr. Healy for the mess in which Fianna Fáil left us.
No, believe it or not he led us on the right road. He was quite inspirational at the time, as well as being highly persuasive.
On the issue of real part-time jobs, the point is well made and I commend Fr. Healy and Sr. Reynolds on the pilot scheme they operated in the 1990s. The community employment scheme is working very well now and communities everywhere are benefiting from it. I come from a village called Castlecoote, which has been awarded a gold medal in the Tidy Towns competition due to the operation of that scheme. However, so many people are now unemployed that I will reiterate a point I made many years ago on the strong case to be made for a peace corps structure in Ireland. For instance, the activities of the Niall Mellon Trust in South Africa, to which people travel for short periods, are highly effective. I visited Nairobi, Kenya a few years ago and was absolutely shocked by the poverty and the shanty towns there. Enormous skills are available in Ireland and one can imagine the amount of work that could be done, were we to send 25,000 or 50,000 carpenters and builders to work with the witnesses' colleagues there. I acknowledge the great impact made by the reverend sisters, priests and brothers in Africa and the tremendous effort made in Kenya. A great number of people would be needed. I expect this would be a voluntary, rather than a compulsory effort, which also would be short term in nature because it is costly to send people over there. We have a marvellous Army that could be mobilised in this regard and the leadership could come from that direction, in co-operation with the witnesses' colleagues in such countries. I make the point there is a need for something dramatic. It would give people a lift to show our capabilities and no matter how bad things are here, they pale into insignificance when compared with what is happening in these countries. I am confident the witnesses will consider such a possibility because they have been open in their approach.
Social Justice Ireland made a very good point in respect of adult literacy. However, I believe it is extremely difficult to get people to accept they do not have full literacy. How does one persuade people to avail of the facilities now provided by the vocational education committees? The latter are doing tremendous work in a most confidential manner, which is vital in this regard. My point is there may be a need for a new campaign to encourage people. It is a terrible thing to lack literacy and it is important to get across a message to such people about the service being on a confidential basis and about the potential benefits. Quite a number of people still do not really have the skill of literacy and modern technology, in the form of the Internet, telephones, texting and so on, has been a help to those with poor literacy. As the witnesses are aware, one can now send texts in which the literacy is not 100%.
Moreover, the point made about education is both obvious and right and there must be movement in that direction. While cutbacks will take place, members must ensure that education receives the priority it deserves. Everything Fr. Healy said about education clearly is both accurate and true for the future of this country. It was the mantra of education, education, education that made the success we have enjoyed to date and it again will be education that will bring us back to where we were.
I welcome Fr. Healy, Sr. Reynolds and Ms Mallon to the meeting and I note the importance of this dialogue. While my main function is to welcome the witnesses and to acknowledge the importance of this discussion, I also wish to make a contribution to it after which, unfortunately, I will be obliged to leave because I wish to participate in a debate in the Dáil Chamber on the related issue of mortgage distress. It is a huge issue that obviously is closely related to this discussion.
As for the point made by Senator Leyden on the impact of the community employment schemes both for the individuals themselves and their communities, no one can understate it. Moreover, I completely agree there are huge issues concerning people's dignity and their personal fulfilment. One persistent request that comes through my advice clinics concerns people who seek an extension of time on such a scheme or who query whether they could go back on one. Such requests are perennial because people develop new pride in themselves etc. and it undoubtedly is a wonderful experience. I agree with the witnesses regarding the targets on long-term unemployment and members should not be satisfied with the existing targets.
Within education, given the brief and perspective from which Fr. Healy is talking, I note the provision of preschooling has made a major difference. One gets an opportunity to alleviate real poverty and real social exclusion at preschool level and the early childhood care and education, ECCE, scheme, which provides children with one year of subsidised preschooling, is having a phenomenal impact. I am familiar with a number of estates in which a resource house was established, of which the community took ownership and within which preschool is being provided. Moreover, people from within the community are working on community employment schemes within the preschool. The results for those estates have been enormous and one cannot quantify what it has meant for them. In fact, estates that had experienced a lot of social difficulties and problems reflected in antisocial behaviour have seen a considerable diminution in the latter. While it obviously would be inappropriate to begin naming individual estates, this is very much the case.
I wish to ask one question, the answer to which I will be obliged to read later in the Official Report. It is a reality that the Government intends to run with the 8.6% deficit target next year and there is a debate under way on whether this will involve an adjustment of €3.64 billion or €4.4 billion. Given that this is part of the EU-IMF deal to which the Government is firmly committed, what spending would Social Justice Ireland prioritise and where would it apply our limited budgetary resources? I know there is an argument about whether austerity works but the reality is we have a target from which we cannot deviate.
Dr. Seán Healy
Social Justice Ireland would relish the opportunity to discuss the budgetary targets as set down in the EU-IMF deal. I agree with Deputy O'Reilly that the reality is that the targets must be met. We can have a discussion about whether the target is the right one or whether austerity is correct, but the Government must make a decision in the end. We have published a set of detailed proposals in this regard which we can circulate later to the committee.
On Monday, we gave the troika the same proposals. It is our understanding that the 8.6% deficit target for next year does not appear in the memorandum of understanding. That figure is from a Department of Finance document produced by the previous Government. The amount in the memorandum of understanding stands at cuts of €3.6 billion which should be the final decision. The adjustment should not be any deeper. However, that is a discussion for another day.
Within the parameters set by Deputy O'Reilly, we would change the proportionality of tax increases to cuts in public services. There should be a €2 increase in taxation, but not in income tax, for every €1 cut in services. We have set out where the additional tax measures could be introduced in our document to the troika. If this approach were followed up to the 2014 budget, Ireland would still be a low-tax economy.
Currently, Ireland's total tax take, that is all taxation, social insurance payments and local charges, is ranked with four eastern European countries in the OECD as the lowest in the western world as a percentage of GDP. EUROSTAT states a country with less than 35% of GDP as its total tax take is a low-tax economy. Ireland's rate is under 30%. The current targets and distribution ratios suggest Ireland will be far below the 35% mark at the end of 2015. Social Justice Ireland believes Ireland can increase its tax take and still be a low-tax country.
We costed in great detail the targets we set out. However, it is difficult to complete the poverty target because there are different elements besides income in it. We have proposed a scheme to provide 100,000 part-time jobs for the long-term unemployed which could be put in place in 18 months. Up to 90,000 jobs could be provided in the public sector from Departments down to a local library at a cost of €90 million. Another 10,000 places could be provided by the community and voluntary sector but would require more money, €60 million, because the sector does not have the positions or supervision capacity in place. The total cost of the scheme would be €150 million and have a dramatic effect on reducing long-term unemployment by two thirds. It would also be a dramatic statement of intent with the money spent coming back to the Exchequer through the dynamic of increased taxation and spend from the jobs created.
We are proposing an initial additional investment of €25 million on adult literacy programmes. While there are many other issues in education, it is critically important we deal with the problem of adult illiteracy, one issue that is always missed. Senator Leyden made the point of how difficult it is to get people to acknowledge they have a literacy problem. However, if it is tackled there can be dramatic outcomes. For example, recently I was invited by Frances Ward, chairperson of National Adult Literacy Agency, to launch a book written by adult literacy students. Producing a book had a dramatic impact on the people in question as well as their families and friends. This was achieved for a very small amount of money. This proposal is about prioritising and drawing attention to the issue of adult literacy.
I agree with Deputy Durkan that we have to be careful with how we spend our money. We do not have the same amounts we appeared to have ten years ago. We need to maximise the impact of how we spend our tax moneys. We agree with Deputy Durkan that people are not unemployed because of their own fault. Most Irish people would take up a job if there was one available. The long-term unemployment rate of 1.3% at the end of 2007 says it all. Irish people have an ethic of work. If there is fraud in the system, eliminate it. I do not have any time for fraud. The vast majority of Irish people would take up a job if there was one available.
There is a range of issues that members have addressed. Deputy Donohue asked about why the need to trigger now. In a way, that is why we focused as we did. We need a dramatic intervention on long-term unemployment. Nothing of substance can be done to generate market jobs in the immediate future and we have to be careful how we spend money in that context. There is a danger that if we try to travel too fast we would create enormous problems.
However, we would be positive about developing a serious investment programme. This is included in our proposals on what Government should do in the budget while at the same time reaching its target of €3.6 billion of a reduction in borrowing next year. However, we have reservations about the idea that the Government should sell off State assets for two reasons. First, it is a bad time to be selling any assets. At another level, we would not be too impressed with the record of what happened with Telecom Éireann. We remain to be convinced that selling off public utilities such as electricity or gas is the right thing to do. It would take a great deal of work to convince us in that regard.
There are other possibilities. We make some proposals in the document we produced about how to create a €1 billion fund, which is relatively small, to generate investment across a range of areas such as broadband and retrofitting housing that would have local capacity and would also generate local jobs while having a roll-on effect into the economy. Particularly on the broadband side, we should be able to ramp up our broadband capacity to the top level or else we will continue to lose some of the high-tech capacity there is in Ireland at present. The detail of that is for another day.
I would focus on the literacy issue and the long-term unemployed. If the poverty target is established along the lines to which we referred then it must become a focus of policy or else it is merely rhetoric. I take the point that by its nature there is rhetoric but what we are trying to do is match the output with the rhetoric. I do not mind the rhetoric if it is being followed by outcomes. The issue for us is the outcome.
I would also agree with Deputy Donohue that we did not make the progress we should have made in the years of plenty. As Senator Leyden stated, when I was in Inchydoney I outlined the problems that were arising on housing and on taxation, and on a number of issues that were not taken up by the then Government. Some of the other ideas, on primary care teams and on social welfare rates, were taken up but others were not. I was very happy with the ones that were taken up. Unfortunately, the entire package was not accepted and acted on. If it was, we might be in a different space. That is another day's work and we can always revisit that.
Dr. Healy is correct on that.
Dr. Seán Healy
I thank Senator Leyden.
We accept the point made earlier about preschool being crucial. We focused on adult literacy to achieve results in one area and because it is usually neglected. We did not want to make numerous proposals. The early childhood care and education programme is now recognised as an excellent programme and has guaranteed support. We would be very positive about it because it is at first level. The sooner one can get started, the better. In terms of long-term investment, the Government will have considerable bang for its buck in that context.
Dr. Healy may have missed the point I made on the peace corps idea. To add to that, there is Concern, GOAL, Trócaire and the Irish Red Cross, and we are spending money on the Third World. The point made was to try to redirect that to direct involvement. There are no more experienced than Social Justice Ireland in this field.
Dr. Seán Healy
There is value in the idea of a peace corps, even within the context in Ireland. We would have to be very careful - Senator Leyden will be well aware of how difficult the situation is in east Africa, and in west Africa too - that we were providing something that was required and sought locally. There is a bad history, as he and others will be aware, of going with the answer into situations where the answer proposed was not an answer at all. It is fair to say that Ireland has not much of that but there are some bad examples in the past of major powers which brought an answer to those kinds of countries and left mayhem behind them. What we have to do in that context is to see what could be possible to do what would be required and sought at a local level. I would be positive about supporting it.
I like the idea of the peace corps, even in Ireland. Why not make such an approach in terms of the kinds of proposals we are making on the other issues as well?
On the final round, I call Senator Healy Eames.
I start by saying well done to the Chairman for inviting in Fr. Seán Healy, Sr. Brigid Reynolds and Ms Sandra Mallon. This is one of the best presentations I have heard in a long time because it addresses a whole-of-society picture. They are not only focusing on one aspect, but are looking at the world of work, of education, which is so critical to produce the economy we need that will create employment, and at those who are vulnerable and on the margins.
Did Dr. Healy have a particular name for the part-time work scheme to which he referred? He is correct to identify that cohort of people as being a structural issue if they are not assisted soon, or otherwise they will lose all spirit, sense of dignity and everything. Does the estimate of 100,000 jobs at a cost €150 million include the cost of social protection? Fr. Healy might give an example of the types of positions he has in mind. He stated that they would cover a range of areas, including the local libraries. As a proposal it makes eminent sense.
With regard to education, I accept Fr. Healy was only picking out adult literacy but there is also early literacy, which is a big issue and which is why we have the adult literacy problem. There is also early school leaving, which I note is in Social Justice Ireland's report. Early literacy is contributing to that problem also. Literacy is the passport to learning and to life.
In 1997, the IALS study, the international measure on adult literacy in this country, stated 25% of our population was at level 1. I do not know what that percentage is now, I am not sure any of us knows. Perhaps Fr. Healy might know.
Dr. Seán Healy
It has not been measured.
I understand a study is underway. To say that we want to get the percentage at literacy level 1 down to 15% by 2016 might be ambitious because our levels of adult illiteracy are so high. I agree with Fr. Healy that 300,000 people not being able to read the direction on a medicine bottle is akin to the denial of a human right. There is a major issue here. Fr. Healy stated that an investment of €20 million would reduce the illiteracy level one percentage to the target he recommends.
I attend annually the production of a book called Voices in Galway VEC where adults who are learning to read and write publish. They even approach one in supermarkets afterwards because they are so delighted with the recognition for what they have done. It is great to see the lights come on in their eyes. They view work more positively and they have hope of getting a job, even in these times of dire unemployment. I am conscious of the issues raised by Deputy O’Reilly in regard to the budget. Has Fr. Healy considered the use of community based voluntary models for literacy? Three newly qualified teachers who are out of work, two librarians and I are currently running a free Saturday literacy hour in Galway. The course is for a duration of eight weeks and is for reluctant readers and writers who are six, seven and eight years old. The excitement is tangible. Our goal is to show them they can be literate regardless of at what stage they are. We need to do this for adults too. While the resources to do so may not be available, we should pursue this in community based ways. There are in our communities many people with the skills to provide literacy assistance. Is Fr. Healy open to that idea and would Social Justice Ireland have the means to roll it out?
On the broader issue of education, does Fr. Healy see merit - I have previously raised this issue with the Chairman - in a committee such as this examining models of education across Europe, in particular the Finnish model which consistently produces strong educational outcomes? I take it from all that Fr. Healy said that he believes a more equal society is a fairer, better and happier society. There is much evidence to support that. Education is critical to that. Everything Fr. Healy said today about long term unemployment, people being on the margins and early school leavers is underpinned by education. I am interested to hear more from him on those issues.
Does Fr. Healy brief vocational education committees, VECs?
I welcome Fr. Healy and his colleagues to the meeting and thank them for their presentation today and yesterday's briefing in Buswells Hotel on the community and voluntary sector, which I attended.
I welcome the reduction between 2002 and 2010 in the number of early school leavers, as set out in the presentation. While employment in 2002 was more plentiful there was still a reduction in the number of early school leavers. One could argue the opposite should have happened. How in Fr. Healy's view was that positive outcome achieved?
The following question might better be put to someone in the educational field. In terms of categories of early school leavers, how many come from households wherein there would be long term generational unemployment? Is there an attitude of "what is the point in education" if their fathers, grandfathers, sisters, brothers and so on are out of work? Is there any data in that regard? As regards sectors of people who do not continue in education past the junior certificate - I am aware many schools now run a transition year, which was not available when I was in school, in respect of which there are mixed reports - is there a need for mentoring of these people in regard to their attitudes and concerns towards continuing in education? I believe it is important to engage with them at that point.
The presentation also shows that the percentage for Ireland, in terms of people living in households with low work intensity, is 20%. What exactly is the definition in that regard? Is it at 20% the highest in Europe?
I thank Fr. Healy, Sr. Reynolds and their colleague for attending today's meeting. I am a long time admirer of the work of Fr. Healy, initially through the Conference of Religious of Ireland and now through Social Justice Ireland.
I have read the report, which is constructive. People from different perspectives agree with it. However, it also depresses me in terms of the targets and rhetoric contained therein at a time of forced austerity across Europe and our facing into another budget that will take billions of euro out of our economy, forcing more people on to the dole and to emigrate. Almost every conversation I have with people and small businesses each time I return to my constituency is about the impact of the current crisis. I do not presume that any Deputy or Senator is hearing anything different when they return home.
I spoke to a publican the other day whose pub has traditionally attracted younger people. Members will be aware that different pubs attract different age profiles. This man's pub always attracted young people. He told me he could name hundreds of young people who have emigrated, mostly to Australia. I have no doubt he was telling the truth. I emigrated to Chicago in the early 1990s - people simply follow the trail of others from their town. It seemed to me at that time that the entire villages of Kilkee and Kilrush in west Clare had emigrated. That story could be told of every town in the west of Ireland during the 1980s and 1990s. It is happening again as we speak.
I find hard to understand that political leaders are asking us to implement the EU 2020 Strategy while at the same time telling us they must implement austerity, pay back the bondholders of Anglo Irish Bank and pay €74 billion by 2023 in terms of promissory notes to Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society. I could not comment on this without saying we are living in an absolutely crazy world these days.
I will try now to focus on the positives. Fr. Healy has always been constructive in his analysis of poverty. His work has not been about waving placards but about finding solutions, which is what serious people always do. I am particularly interested in Fr. Healy's comments on the unemployment initiative. The fact that this project has been piloted and proven in various urban and rural settings across the State is important. As Fr. Healy said, the critical issue now is that half of those who are unemployed are long term unemployed. For these people dignity and confidence is being sapped, with devastating consequences. The beauty of what Fr. Healy has proposed is that it will keep people in the world of work, give them dignity and allow them to make a contribution to their communities. It is, in a sense, an interim measure in the hope that things will turn around. It is an important contribution at this time.
As I recall it, the back to work allowance scheme, area enterprise allowance scheme and back to education allowance scheme came about following analysis from the community and voluntary sector on the need for a path out of poverty and back into employment. We need to address adult literacy and poverty issues. This measure fits somewhere between implementation of the EU 2020 strategy and austerity. For those of us in despair about what we should be achieving and what we are being forced to live with this has the potential to plug the gap for now. It is an important contribution.
My contribution is more comment than questions and as such Fr. Healy does not need to respond. I thank the representatives for their always constructive approach. It is interesting that political parties do not criticise them because they cannot argue with facts, statistics and constructive analysis. Long may it last. I thank them for what they do. They offer a ray of hope at a time of great despair.
Dr. Seán Healy
One of the things we have a strong focus on is evidence. We listen too often to slogans and to well meaning people making proposals without having the evidence to support the costs involved or the outcomes. We will never make proposals that are not costed and that do not show where the funding might be found. We do not ever make proposals where we have not looked at serious evidence in terms of outcomes as well.
In reply to Senator Healy Eames, we piloted the part-time job opportunities programme, PTJO, and it trips off our lips because we worked at it for a long time. There were myriad types of positions. It was piloted by 162 organisations, mostly in the community and voluntary sector, with some in the public sector as well, and there were myriad types of work. Libraries were kept open in local areas. We always give libraries as a good example because they are a great resource and they should be open as much as possible. When they were in danger of closing because there was not the personnel to staff them, they could put these workers in who were getting the real rate for doing the job for the number of hours required until they got their welfare payment plus €20. It worked out well.
Classroom assistants originated in that programme. That was the first point that we had discussion with the INTO and it agreed to let them into some schools and it worked out well. The Kerry School of Music was created on the back of this.
Sr. Brigid Reynolds
There were some creative projects. The tourism season was extended in Tralee. There were some artistic people into music. One person was making fiddles and he taught others how to do the same. There was a great deal of creativity and heritage work which has lived right up to today. People did trails that later became walking tours through the country and the mountains.
Dr. Seán Healy
Slieve Bloom mountains.
Sr. Brigid Reynolds
People are creative when they are given freedom.
Has the organisation spoken to the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation on this occasion?
Dr. Seán Healy
We have not been able to meet him. We have given him and the Government the information. We are beating down doors to try to get to talk to people about this. I do not know what it is. We have talked to some officials and advisers but I do not know whether the proposals have traction. We are not getting a response. Sometimes when we make a proposal, we get a response, which is either hugely negative or gathers traction. This seemed to do neither and we are bothered about it. That is why we mentioned it in this context.
Was it set up originally in 1997?
Dr. Seán Healy
No, in 1994 and it was put into the mainstream in 1997 by Deputies Bruton and Rabbitte when they were Ministers. It did exactly what this type of programme should do. It melted away when jobs came on.
It was an interim measure.
Dr. Seán Healy
Yes, there is no danger that there will be institutional defence for it. In 1998, it was still rolling but by 1999 it had practically disappeared because the jobs had rolled in.
The programme also created full-time jobs.
Dr. Seán Healy
Yes, they became full-time paid jobs.
Sr. Brigid Reynolds
Classroom assistants and so on became part of the system. There were many health care positions.
Dr. Seán Healy
The library jobs were filled again because money was available.
Sr. Brigid Reynolds
Some people were even trained for supervision of children in the courts system.
Dr. Seán Healy
Senator Healy Eames is correct that, according to the last measure, 25% of adults have literacy problems. Despite our best endeavour, the number was never measured for more than a decade. A number of international studies were done and Ireland stayed out of them but, at long last, Ireland has become involved in the latest one. I do not know that we will have numbers that we can confirm that will stand out until 2013 but at least we are now in the system again of counting this. I take the point that it could be an ambitious target but the difference between children and adults is that adults can be taught to read and write in a short time. If literacy is given focus and priority, a year makes a massive difference in an adult's capacity. If it were given the focus and priority, things would happen. Massive amounts of money are not required and there is a load of experience available. The Chairman and other members will be well familiar with the VEC system and how it works. There is a great deal of good stuff out there. We are positive about the idea of community-based stuff as well. An adult literacy programme was part of the PTJO scheme. The capacity is there and we have no problem with that.
We share the idea that a more equal society is a better and a happier society. We are positive about the idea of learning from Finland, Sweden and other countries that have done good things in the education area. We also acknowledge fully the role education plays as a multiplier of enormous impact. Once people get a good education, they are in a much better situation.
Our presentation also shows the fall in early school leavers, which was achieved because it was given focus. People became worried about the numbers, the focus was put on it and the fall happened. One of the reasons it is not highlighted at the moment is that there is a focus on driving those numbers down further and the Minister is strong on this. That is fine but let us not forget we also need to focus on another piece, which is what we are promoting in this context.
We are positive about the role of mentoring for those at risk in second level to move beyond the junior certificate and keep them going into third level. We are impressed by a programme in Ballymun called BITE. One of the reasons we have a connection to it is that we recruited a research and policy analyst who ran the programme. Ms Michelle Murphy left the programme to join us. It is a good programme trying to target children and mentor them and keep them in the system with support from outside as long as possible so that the longer they are in the system, the more qualifications they get. They get the leaving certificate and they make it into third level and then the world changes.
Sr. Brigid Reynolds
The programme is top of the league. They all passed mathematics in the leaving certificate.
Dr. Seán Healy
That shows what can be done.
I do not wish to burst Fr. Healy's bubble but the Minister was a member of the previous Joint Committee on Education and Skills when we conducted a major study on preventing early school leaving. The figures are worse but Dr. Healy is correct that the trend is improving. However, one in six is still at risk of early school leaving, which is a considerable number.
Dr. Seán Healy
It is totally unacceptable as well. I refer to the issue of low work intensity. People living in households with low work intensity are aged up to 59 living in households where the adult has worked less than 20% of his or her total work potential in the previous year. That is how EUROSTAT works it.
Ms Sandra Mallon
We do not use that definition of "poverty" in Ireland; we use consistent poverty. However, this contextualises what the EU is doing and how it defines "poverty" for the purposes of the EU 2020 strategy.
Dr. Seán Healy
Low work intensity was added as it was going along. They were trying to decide what the target should be. They wanted to take 20 million people out of poverty. When they set it up first, they referred to 20 million people at risk of poverty and then they added this dimension because of different arguments around Europe. One of the effects was to water down the target because the population rose from 80 million to 112 million or 116 million, but it was still 20 million it was going to take out. It brought the focus on low-work intensity. The age requirement to be in the labour force is 18 to 59 as defined by EUROSTAT - it is counted in that way. If less than 20% of the work time is actually spent in employment, then that is low-work intensity; that is how it is measured.
Although Deputy Mac Lochlainn did not ask me a question, I strongly agree that the basic model of development is broken, not just in Ireland but also in Europe and across the western world. I am very concerned that the people who are fixing it do not realise it is broken. They think it just needs small repairs when it actually needs substantial change. The one item that is being ignored both internationally and here is the issue of moral hazard and the financial institutions. I predict that other people will be back here discussing the matter 20 years from now unless we deal with the moral hazard issue for the financial institutions. It is not acceptable that banks and other financial institutions can take enormous risks, gamble recklessly and still be guaranteed the taxpayer will pay them back 100%. That is fundamentally wrong and Social Justice Ireland has written extensively on it. However, that is how it has happened and it is being left that way. That addresses the numbers the Deputy mentioned.
We all agree with the last point, but we will not enter into a debate on it. We would have some reservations about all that happened, how it passed into statute and how we came to the point we have reached. I thank Dr. Healy for the excellent presentation. As the members indicated we appreciate how he laid down his principles and then presented them in a practical set of proposals that can be implemented. He costed them and showed the various steps along the way. We have all benefited from his contribution today. There have been some challenging questions thrown in, including some suggestions that might be taken on board. We will invite the witnesses to return again. We welcome the work they are doing and thank them for their contributions today.
Dr. Seán Healy
We will send our policy briefing on budget choices which sets out the fully costed proposals that were requested for the €3.6 billion.
I thank the witnesses.
The joint committee went into private session at 1.45 p.m. and adjourned at 1.55 p.m. until 10 a.m. Wednesday, 26 October 2011.