JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, PUBLIC EXPENDITURE AND REFORM debate -
Thursday, 3 Nov 2011

Budget Submissions: Discussion

Vice Chairman

I apologise to the delegates because we have much business in Leinster House today and it has proved difficult to get all members organised at a particular time. I welcome Ms Orla O'Connor, head of policy, and Ms Rachel Doyle from the National Women's Council of Ireland. I also welcome Mr. Fergus Finlay, chief executive officer of Barnardos Ireland, who is accompanied by Ms Catherine Joyce, advocacy manager. I also welcome Mr. John-Mark McCafferty, head of social justice and policy, and Ms Caroline Fahey, social policy development officer, representing the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. The format of today's meeting will be that Ms O'Connor, Mr. Finlay and Mr. McCafferty will make opening remarks, followed by a question and answer session. I remind members, witnesses and those in the public gallery at all mobile telephones must be switched off.

By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence you are to give this committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to so do, you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of your evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, you should not criticise nor make charges against any person(s) or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. 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 House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

We hope the witnesses can keep their presentations to between five and seven minutes. When we take questions and answers, the witnesses can cover some of the other topics they would like to discuss as they arise. I invite Ms O'Connor to make her presentation, followed by Mr. Finlay and Mr. McCafferty.

Ms Orla O’Connor

The National Women's Council of Ireland thanks the committee for inviting it to make this presentation on the forthcoming budget. From working with our 160 members, all of them women's organisations throughout the country, the National Women's Council of Ireland sees very clearly the severe effect of the economic recession on women. Women are at greatest risk of poverty, particularly lone parents. Each month over the past year, greater numbers of women have registered as unemployed as the areas in which women predominantly work are now being targeted for redundancies. Many families where women are the main earners are relying on the wages of women from low-paid employment for survival. Women from low to middle incomes are struggling to manage the constantly reducing household budget and simultaneously mounting debts to provide for their families. There is also clear evidence that domestic violence against women has increased.

The past three budgets have left women with significantly reduced incomes, through cuts to social welfare and child benefit, cuts to earnings and the introduction of the universal social charge. Simultaneously, women are experiencing reduced support and immunities as locally-based women's organisations, frontline services and advocacy organisations have all had to curtail their services. In many cases, they have been forced to close because of cuts to funding. This is occurring at a time when the services are needed more than ever.

The National Women's Council of Ireland believes that choices face the Government with regard to the budget. If the budget places more emphasis on expenditure cuts, women will be affected in a more negative way in comparison to men. A forthcoming gender analysis of previous budgets will show that point to be the case. Women are more reliant on social welfare and public services and this applies in particular to women with children. We believe the ratio needs to be changed in order to place the emphasis on tax increases relative to public expenditure cuts. This would be fairer and would spread the burden of the crisis more equitably. We ask the Government to make explicit the impact of the budget in terms of the effect it will have on women and men. This budget needs to protect the gains that have been made for women's equality.

We wish to highlight some key aspects of the pre-budget submission. We call for no further cuts to the income of women. With regard to social welfare payments, we ask that rates be maintained. We particularly emphasise this in respect of child benefit, which is the only payment that goes directly to mothers for their children. We call for it to be retained as a universal payment and at its current level. Child benefit has been cut in the past three budgets and is causing significant hardship to all mothers as it is the only payment that is there for all child-related costs, including child care, which is a particularly high cost in Ireland.

We also call for reform in areas of social welfare and employment policy because there is a need to modernise systems to meet the needs of the changing labour market. I refer in particular to women working on reduced hours but who are ineligible for social welfare. We also seek those reforms to consider how we can better address the needs of combining work and care responsibilities in terms of the reforms being put in train by Department of Social Protection. We are also requesting a specific gender dimension to the Government's strategy on jobs and unemployment. Unemployment has always been defined as a male phenomenon but women experience unemployment differently from men and that requires different strategies and supports to gain employment, especially in light of women's caring responsibilities.

On the issue of women's health we call on the Government to implement its commitment in the programme for Government to extend the age bracket for BreastCheck from 64 years to 69. The BreastCheck programme has clearly proved its effectiveness and success but women over 64 years have the second highest incidence of breast cancer. We are also calling for an awareness raising programme among GPs and women for the early detection of breast cancer in the 40 to 49 age group.

We want to highlight the needs of women in disadvantaged areas and the fact that women's groups really support holding those communities together. The cuts to funding for locally based women's organisations have had detrimental consequences. The women's networks throughout the country have come together successfully and pooled resources and skills in terms of providing their services. We request that funding be maintained under the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. In our pre-budget submission we highlight the needs of the most marginalised and vulnerable women, women with disabilities, women in direct provision and Traveller women.

There is clear evidence that violence against women has increased in this recession. Options for women experiencing domestic violence have dwindled as their access to financial support is further restricted by unemployment and increased poverty. The demand for services has increased by between 35% and 40%. Simultaneously, the services providing support have received significant cuts. The National Women's Council of Ireland asks that the budget, at least at a minimum, maintain the funding to services and also set a target of one refuge place per 1,000 of population, given the numbers of women and children who have been turned away in 2009 and 2010.

Women did not enter the economic recession on an equal footing to men. The inequalities that women continue to face with the overwhelming responsibility for child care, in seeking asylum and under direct provision require new resources to address them effectively. We are acutely aware of the crisis facing the country. We request that the Government, in the 2012 budget, choose at a minimum to protect the gains that have been made for women's rights and women's equality in Ireland.

Mr. Fergus Finlay

I thank the committee for the opportunity to present on behalf of Barnardos. We agree with and support everything the National Women's Council of Ireland has said and the committee will find much common ground among all of us.

I wish to make a slightly more general point as opposed to just speaking about the forthcoming budget. I see this committee as one whose task is to examine public expenditure critically and with an eye to eliminating waste. I would argue that one of the greatest wastes one will ever deal with is the waste caused by poverty and the way in which we attempt - or rather fail - to deal with it in Ireland. If we ever succeed in building Thornton Hall, the massive new prison which has been talked about for years, it will cost €1 billion to run in its first decade and in its second decade it will start to be populated by the children we are neglecting now. That, to my mind, is an extraordinary waste of public money.

By the end of this month, CSO figures will be published which will demonstrate the current number of children living in consistent poverty in Ireland. At present, the rate is about one in nine of our children, but the rate will go up to, perhaps, one in seven of our children. Children who live in consistent poverty are at much greater risk in terms of their whole life chances than children who do not and are much more likely to be a drain on the State throughout their lives.

There are 5,000 children in care in Ireland. It costs the State €80,000 per year to keep a child in residential care. It costs approximately €90,000 per year to keep a 16 year old in St. Patrick's Institution. It can cost €250,000 per year to keep a 14 year old in high secure care here or in other jurisdictions. It costs about €7,000 per year to put a decent programme of prevention and better early education in place for precisely those same children. It is an economic no-brainer that we are spending so much money on picking up the pieces after damage has been done, yet we are willing to spend so little money on prevention and early intervention. Those figures are staggering and represent an extraordinary waste of money for and by the State.

Poverty means many things. Consistent poverty is measured in many different ways. They are all hard measurements. Children who live in consistent poverty are much more likely to be cold and hungry, to live in fear and to be harassed and intimidated where they live. They are less likely to complete their education, more likely to leave school unable to read and write and, therefore, more likely to drift into anti-social behaviour, into gangs and, ultimately perhaps, into crime.

Mr. John Lonergan, who is a member of the board of Barnardos and a former governor of Mountjoy Prison, has consistently pointed to the link between early school drop-out and the population of his former prison. That is another waste of money. The State, which could have broken the cycle of intergenerational poverty during the years of the Celtic tiger, instead chose to do something probably unique in Europe. It invented a new form of poverty called drive-by poverty I do not need to mention the estates where poverty is most embedded. We all know them. Every single one of them, virtually without exception, has a decent road going around it or through it, where it is possible to turn a blind eye to poverty as one drives by at 40 miles per hour without ever incurring the risk of a penalty point. When we could have been investing in those communities, we were building ring roads around them which enabled all of us to turn a blind eye to poverty.

There is an opportunity, perhaps a once in a lifetime opportunity with commitments in the programme for Government, new structures being put in place, new legislation being promised and the promised constitutional referendum, to establish the proposed child and family support agency, on which work is taking place. This agency will not be set up with new money but with whatever money the HSE is willing to part with. I urge this and every other committee of the Oireachtas that has responsibility for public expenditure to scrutinise very carefully the starting budget for the new child and family support agency. There is huge suspicion that cuts are being made in this area within the HSE to minimise the amount that will have to be transferred to the new agency.

The new agency will have new and efficient ways of delivering services and a stronger emphasis on prevention. The people involved in the new agency are determined not to spend €20 million and €25 million per year on the legal costs, not to mention the other costs, associated with taking children away from their families, but rather to spend money on prevention. That does not involve the State trying to raise new money but in ensuring there is a smooth, orderly, honest and open transfer of resources from the HSE to the new agency in terms of personnel, resources and budget. This committee is well placed to ensure that happens in an open way because of its overview of public expenditure.

The State is spending tens of millions of euro picking up the pieces for individual children and families whose lives are blighted by poverty and disadvantage. We have been a one trick pony when it comes to tackling poverty. We have thrown good money after bad in a system that is inefficient, chaotic and sloppy. The failure to invest adequately in services infrastructure, education and health and family support or to redistribute wealth adequately through an equitable system of child income support has pushed more children into poverty. The levels of child poverty were not reduced sufficiently when we had wealth and now those levels are growing very rapidly. We have an opportunity to change how we do things. We need to look at prevention and early intervention models and better structures. We need better ways to support families in trouble and better ways to help children get the best from their education. We are looking at what savings can be made for next year. It is crucial that the State focuses on what fundamental changes can be made in how we do things in the best interest of children and our society, rather than simply on where we can make crude cuts.

Deputy Heather Humphreys took the Chair.

Mr. John-Mark McCafferty

On behalf of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, I thank the committee for inviting us to speak, the day after we launched our pre-budget submission. I will make that submission available to committee members this morning as it provides greater detail on what I will have to say here.

As the committee is well aware, we are looking at adjustments of €3.6 billion this year and further substantial adjustments in the following year and there has been debate on the mix between cuts and taxes. Our task and that of organisations like ours is to illustrate, on the basis of our services and the members we assist, the spectre of cuts, whether in income support or delivery of services, that face those we represent and assist. It is on that basis that we make our presentation here. Our overview will mention briefly the calls for assistance in our key urban regions; the experience of those, together with some pen portraits, who contact us for assistance; and some of our broad policy recommendations.

We have statistics on calls for assistance in areas like Dublin, the mid-west, Galway and Cork that look specifically at the calls that come in from people looking for help who are really struggling and looking for financial assistance or other supports. When we compare the statistics for 2009 with 2010, we see very dramatic increases. For example, in the Dublin region, we have seen an increase of 36% in the volume of calls for assistance coming through our regional office. In the mid-west or greater Limerick, there has been an increase of 23%. The increase in the Galway city area and its environs has been 36% and in Cork city and county the increase has been 45%. These are the figures provided by the regions on the number of calls from people looking for assistance, whether food vouchers or someone to speak to, etc.

With regard to the type of assistance sought, some 43% of calls for help come from one parent families, and a further 20% from couples with children. Therefore, the majority of calls come from families. Some 73% of the calls made to our centres are made by women - almost three-quarters. Approximately one out of every eight calls came from foreign nationals. Our volunteer members report people struggling due to the impact of the habitual residence condition and barriers to accessing education, particularly at third level, for people who do not satisfy the strict criteria underpinning the habitual residence condition.

Over three-quarters, or 77%, of people contacting us are on some kind of adult social welfare rate, for example, one parent family payment, disability allowance or jobseeker's allowance. This highlights the fact there is a long-term reliance on social welfare. This results in a consequent erosion of people's resources, resilience, ability to save or to make contingency arrangements for the rainy day.

When people contact us, they are looking for food vouchers and help with fuel and energy costs. We spent almost €7 million in 2010 assisting people with their energy bills, whether gas, electricity or solid fuel, in an effort to prevent disconnections. We are also asked to help with the cost of education, preschool, primary, secondary and third level and further education. People also require assistance where they face delays or difficulties in accessing social welfare payments. We also assist with housing related costs, whether in the private rented sector or with regard to mortgage arrears or rent arrears in the local authority or social housing sector.

I would like to present two examples that give a flavour of the predicaments, circumstances and challenges faced by many of the people with whom we work. The first concerns access to social welfare. We got a call from a married man on jobseeker's allowance with four children. He had accessed temporary work twice in the past year, but there were long delays in accessing social welfare payment and rent supplement after work dried up and he reapplied. In the interim, the society provided food vouchers and other supports to the family. However, the family was still struggling with the rent. The parents were afraid to apply for temporary work in the future because of their experience with the social welfare system. This is an example of how a family can become trapped by the system or by the lack of flexibility or responsiveness within the system.

The second example illustrates the dilemma faced by a family in deciding what to spend available money on - school or food in this particular case. A man contacted the society on a Friday evening when his family had only €3 to last them through until the next week. He had to pay school expenses - the so-called "voluntary" contributions - for his three children which meant the family had no money for food for the remainder of the week. The society organised an immediate visit with food vouchers so that the family could eat until their social welfare payment came through. It is not just a choice between books or food. People must also make the choice between paying for food or energy or face dilemmas such as whether to pay mortgage arrears or put food on the table. These dilemmas concentrate our minds and provide us with a broad mandate in terms of the supports we provide and the policies on which we form opinions.

Our budget submission launched yesterday put forward several recommendations and I will give the committee an idea of some of the most pressing proposals. Given our experience on the ground with the families we are assisting, we are asking that in budget 2012 the Government should protect the rates of payment for social welfare payments, including qualified child increases, family income supplement levels and eligibility for social welfare payments.

We also want the Government to make the social welfare system more responsive to atypical work. The current system of a six-day week when we know that many people work a seven-day week or on a Sunday must be addressed. There should also be supports for those who are self-employed and they should have access to PRSI benefits.

We also recommend that the Government establish a national compulsory book rental scheme at primary and secondary level. The way the school book industry has operated in the past is a waste of money and has a detrimental impact on schools and families. This needs to be rectified. Other areas requiring attention include eligibility for the medical card and the services provided under that scheme. This scheme must be protected. A large concern for many of the people we assist in the private rented sector is the rent supplement. They have worries with regard to possible increases in the tenant contribution.

I already mentioned the almost €7 million we spend on energy costs. Deputy Rabbitte mentioned that those on pay-as-you-go meters and on repayment schedules would not be disconnected over the winter. We publicly welcome that. However, we do not think that is binding from the regulator's point of view. We need the Minister to make it binding. We believe the utility companies will try to honour it to the best effect but we ask that the Minister make it binding from a regulatory point of view.

Staying on energy, the carbon tax will be doubled. There is no debate in that regard as it is part of the memorandum of understanding. What can the Government do to protect the poorest households and the fuel-poor households when that doubled tax comes into effect? We were promised by the previous Government, when the first tranche of the carbon tax was introduced a couple of years ago, that supports would be put in place, but that did not materialise in any meaningful way. We are asking for reassurances in this area.

We are working closely with the Department of Finance and other interested stakeholders in tackling financial inclusion. One in six households in Ireland does not have a bank account. Work is under way and we are asking this committee to support that work and enable policy to underpin banks moving towards an appropriately designed basic bank account which is made available through the post offices. That is a measure, at no cost to the Exchequer, that will assist in the self-sufficiency and the autonomy of low-income households.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. There is much to digest. The National Women's Council of Ireland and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul presentations referred to the need to redesign atypical work patterns when calculating unemployment benefit entitlement by basing entitlements on hours rather than days worked. Can Ms O'Connor expand on how that would take effect? Has she had any discussions with the Department in trying to bring that about? What barriers are there to bringing that about? As a public representative, I deal daily with people who are caught in this trap. Many of them are women who are working as home helps or carers. Their hours are being reduced following the cuts, and this is having an effect. There are different arrangements for other sectors of the workforce, such as taxi drivers, who are only working when the meter is running. We have not expanded that to other sections of society. I would like Ms O'Connor to expand on this because it is an important proposal that could affect a large number of people.

Ms O'Connor also argued for maintaining social welfare entitlements and people with disability. Can she tell the committee the consequences of further cuts in these areas? We have already seen cuts. In respect of retention of existing funding and increasing the specialist service for domestic violence, what would such funding do for her organisation? What has been the impact of the recession on the level of domestic violence that is occurring? How is the organisation able to respond to the increase in domestic violence?

I welcome the Barnardos submission and Mr. Finlay's contribution to the committee. I have not seen its pre-budget submission, but I would broadly agree with the content of the presentation. Has Barnardos a list of key proposals and policy priorities that it would like to see advanced in the run-up to this budget? If so, what are they? Has Mr. Finlay costings for those priorities? The conclusion to his presentation is very strong and I agree wholeheartedly that we need to put the best interests of our children first rather than make vast cuts across budgets. How do we do that according to Barnardos?

I want to focus on one issue in the Society of St. Vincent de Paul presentation, namely, the measure of fuel poverty. Mr. McCafferty mentioned that the carbon tax is coming in, but the memorandum of understanding also contains a massive amount of social welfare cuts. I am sure that Mr. McCafferty's organisation will hope that those social welfare cuts will not be made, because they will impact harshly on people who come to his organisation regularly. Leaving that aside and bearing in mind that carbon tax will be doubled, how does he believe he can offset the increase in carbon tax to those low income households? What measures need to be added to an increase in carbon tax to offset the impact on families at risk of fuel poverty? What has been the impact of the decrease in the household benefit package this year on fuel poverty and on the elderly?

Ms Orla O’Connor

I thank Deputy Doherty for his questions. Atypical working has always been an issue for women. It is interesting that what was atypical is now becoming the norm for working patterns. The critical issue is that the social welfare system is fundamentally based on a full-time working male breadwinner model, and this has been extremely slow to change. The problem with atypical working is that a person has to have lost one full day's work and be unemployed at least three days out of six. Women working in catering and retail have had their hours narrowed to the busiest time of each day, but they still have to work each day. They are on less income, but they are not entitled to a social welfare payment.

We have consistently raised this issue with the Department. We have been raising this issue for the past ten years since we launched our women's model for social welfare reform, and we have seen very little progress. We know the Department's officials are very aware of the issue and they now see it as more of a problem than they did in the past. We will be meeting them this afternoon as part of a larger group and we will be raising the issue again. The issue is not moving forward because of the cost factor: more people would be eligible for the payment. There is a major equality issue with that because it affects so many women. I cannot give a full answer on why it has not been progressed because it certainly should have moved forward. As it affects more people now, we know the Department is taking it more seriously.

This budget is about cuts to payments, but is also about cuts to services. Those two go hand in hand and in the last three budgets there have been cuts to both, particularly to carers, most of whom are women. A major impact of those cuts is isolation, because as those payments are cut, it becomes very difficult for carers to get additional supports and these are cut right back to the minimum. Prior to the recession, a cost of care allowance was requested in addition to payments to carers, and obviously that is off the table. Carers and people with disabilities - both women and men - are in an extremely difficult situation. They certainly cannot take any further level of cuts. There are cuts to both payments and to services. Even in times when the payment has been maintained, there have been cutbacks to services which have had a huge impact on living conditions.

Ms Rachel Doyle

Our members and those who work with organisations that provide direct services to women are saying that the sexual and domestic violence situation is at a crisis point. They are experiencing cuts of 35% to 40% in their funding while seeing an increase in demand of 30%. In 2010, the National Network of Women's Refuges turned away 3,000 requests for accommodation in one year by women and children. Last year, 2,500 children were accommodated or supported by domestic violence services. It is therefore it is virtually impossible to maintain services or meet the current demand. The situation is serious.

One impact of the recession has been a cut in funding to services. Another impact has been the fact that while violence against women is not directly related to poor families - it is across the board in society - when families are under increased pressure there are symptoms of it. Now, with more men at home and not out at work there is increased contact and fewer chances for women to get away. Our members also refer to increases in the level and extent of violence. These are some of the key points. We make the point that these services must at the least be maintained in the budget.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

I have a supplementary question for Ms Doyle. What increase in the level of funding would be required so that no woman or child would be turned away? Has any calculation been done?

Ms Rachel Doyle

I do not know the level in terms of required increases. Our consultation has been about trying to stop further cuts or at least to reverse the 35% to 40% cuts experienced up to now. If we manage that we would be at a point where at least the services could be maintained. However, there is a serious danger and a concern that these cuts will come about again and that the services will be cut more while increases continue. There is also an issue with regard to the visibility of the issues. We are not hearing the matter debated publicly, in the Dáil or in the media, although we welcome the "Prime Time" programme on the issue last week. There is an invisibility to this issue and the fact that there is no public outcry is problematic.

Mr. Fergus Finlay

I thank Deputy Doherty for the questions. Every year we publish what we call the children's budget. We have not done it yet this year but it will be published next week. It will contain several specific proposals but the overall message, to be absolutely honest, is to plead with the Government not to make matters worse. Like Ms Doyle, we have seen a great deal of evidence of increased domestic violence as a direct consequence of the recession. This has had terrible, traumatic effects on women but it has had terrible and, sometimes, life-long, traumatic effects on children as well. In the immediate term it raises an additional cost to the State because of the child protection concerns that must be dealt with.

The general point I seek to make is that if there are to be cuts next year then, for God's sake, let them be a little more sophisticated than some of the cuts that have happened in the past. No one here supports cuts in child benefit but the worst kind of cut is the crude slice off the top whereby no attempt is made to compensate for people on low incomes. The first time child benefit was cut some attempt to compensate was made around the child dependant's allowance, but the second and third time no attempt was made whatsoever. The impact of a cut in child benefit when it is done in that way is disproportionate on people who have little or nothing.

We know already from our experience and from the experience of everyone in the sector that the HSE is planning significant cuts next year in supports for vulnerable children and families. The rationale for these cuts is over-spending. However, there is no over-spending in supports for vulnerable children and families. There is over-spending in the HSE, which is undeniable. However, it is proposed to cut a range of services that have been chronically underfunded, under-resourced, understaffed and undermanaged for years and there is no justification for this whatsoever. When we publish our pre-budget submission we will be calling for some improvements on the education and on the social protection sides. We will considering rather modest suggestions. However, we believe the time has come for a debate about poverty and how it should be addressed and the debate should concentrate as much on services as on money.

In the past, when money was available we threw it at the problem but continued to leave services in a shambolic state. At the height of the Celtic tiger it was possible to visit schools in Ireland that were falling apart and it was possible to do so on the "fast roads" to which I referred earlier. We must try to get this right. We could spend a great deal less on child benefit and such things if every child could face into school knowing that there was not a great burden on the first day of school and if every child could access free general practitioner care when needed. If such things were in place and if we addressed the reform of services we would not need to spend as much on financially supporting children and families.

Mr. John-Mark McCafferty

I thank Deputy Doherty. I will hand over to Caroline Fahey with regard to atypical work and then I will answer the other issues.

Ms Caroline Fahey

I wish to add to what Ms O'Connor has stated. We should start to examine the type of work available to people now. The labour market has changed greatly and the type of work available may be casual or part-time. We should examine how the social welfare system can help people to maintain their connection to the labour market as far as possible rather than condemning them because they are obliged to hold on to a payment since it would mean keeping a roof over their heads and keeping their children in school and so on. It is a case of people facing impossible choices such as whether to stay in work or to have to give it up because the system does not allow them to maintain their connection to the labour market.

Mr. John-Mark McCafferty

Recently, I met the Minister, Deputy Burton, to discuss several matters. We included atypical work and the treatment of various types of self-employed work in that conversation.

Fuel poverty is a significant issue for us and we spent approximately €6.7 million on it last year. The impact of the carbon tax is relevant. We are not naïve about it and we realise there have been increases in utility charges anyway and that the carbon tax was simply one additional input but it is a substantial input that the State has levied on people. We are not fighting the whys and wherefores of the carbon tax but it is more about what measures are put in place. The most logical measure would be some type of cash payment during the winter months but we do not envisage that it should be lumped onto the fuel allowance as a solution. Let us consider people in poverty who are fuel poor. Such people are not necessarily all on the fuel allowance and not everyone on the fuel allowance is fuel poor. There is a substantial overlap but they are not the same thing.

A more intelligently designed compensatory measure should be considered. The carbon tax provides an opportunity in this regard because it is generating revenue and this is partly why we raise it. It represents new money coming into the system and although it is not ring-fenced things can be done with it. For example, let us consider retrofitting. We are concerned that in two years time no money will be left for retrofitting and that the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland will wind down the budget for it on the assumption that everyone will be able to pay as they save and that everyone will be able to take out a loan with their utility company or some financial institution and, with regard to the savings made on bills, they could pay off on any loan. That is fine for people on moderate or upper incomes but it is not fine for people on lower incomes who do not necessarily have the ability to save or the resources to repay, nor is it appropriate for tenants if any improvements are on private landlords' houses.

It is too early to detail the impact of the household benefits package but I believe there has been a psychological impact related to the fear associated with any possible cuts. Some cuts were designed bearing in mind the changes to some of the prices and certain things have become more competitive. For example, smokeless fuel is no more expensive than other fuel. There are certain reasons for the household benefit reductions that appear to make sense but there is an overall impact, especially for recipients who are older people. In our experience, it is a fear of spending money, the fear of going into debt, the fear of being cut off, which has a significant psychological impact. Older people will tend not to turn on the heating or not to turn it on as regularly and therefore there are excess winter deaths. These statistics will be published soon.

The key is the launching and funding of an affordable energy strategy. This began to be drafted about two and a half years ago but it still has not been launched. The backbone of that affordable energy strategy, along with income supports, is also a robust investment in retrofitting.

Deputy Thomas P. Broughan

I welcome the three organisations. I thank them for all the years they have provided the committee with very helpful material which informs our efforts when putting a case to Government.

Has the National Women's Council formed a response to the Minister regarding the general development of lone parent benefit? We are concerned that it will be cut back again this year. I refer to the difficulties in accessing education faced by young people who have come from a lone parent household. On a related matter, I have been involved for many years in local development and I refer to one group, the women who return to work after rearing a family. Women in that situation very often do not qualify for community employment schemes. I put this point to the Minister recently. Is there a way to assist women who wish to return to the workplace by means of the community employment or similar schemes? It is very likely the Government will announce other job support schemes in the forthcoming budget.

I refer to a proposal which I used to advocate when I was the Labour Party spokesperson on social welfare. Has the National Women's Council done any costing with regard to all qualified adults being paid the same rate? I note the council's submission on the universal pension payment which is funded through tax reliefs. I note the council agrees with the committee that the tax base should be widened through the introduction of a third tax rate band - although this is not in the programme for Government. Has the council done a cost-benefit analysis of this proposal? My party's proposal before the general election of a 48% tax band for earnings over €100,000 was a very modest proposal which would have been very helpful.

If I may ask the representatives from Barnardos, according to the submission to the committee they seem to be very fearful of the development of the child and family agency. Is the worry that this is just another quango which will not deal with the nub of some of the issues? Barnardos has noted the significant inequalities in income. I asked the Minister for Finance if he would establish a commission on top pay which was proposed by the UK Labour Party to examine both public and private sector payment and awards across all incomes. The Minister replied that this is not one of his priorities. In the view of Barnardos, is a different approach and structure needed in order to protect these 90,000 children? How does Barnardos measure its own outputs? How does the organisation analyse what it has been able to achieve with funds raised or provided by Government?

My constituency is on the north side of Dublin and it has had the benefit of early childhood intervention schemes provided by organisations such as Doras Buí, the Northside partnership and with some help from a famous American philanthropist and others. Should breakfast clubs be provided throughout the island?

Deputies and Senators interact with the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul on a daily basis. We ask the society for help and it in turn asks for our help. This is a relationship which should not have to be there for so many vulnerable families but it is the reality. How will such families cope with the new site value or housing tax if it were to apply to low income working people or to the possible introduction of water or additional household charges? It is the case that these families often must choose between paying such charges or going without food or heating. Has the society made any submissions to Government on how people could be protected if a site value tax were to be introduced? I note the point made by the society about fuel poverty. An adequate response with regard to fuel poverty has not been developed. We seem to be going down the same road as the British with regard to energy provision by major competing private companies and where the protection of people against fuel poverty will not be a high priority. Does the society have a view?

Ms Orla O’Connor

With regard to lone parents, the National Women's Council has engaged with the Department on the changes and the structure of lone parent payments. The original proposals from the Department included a decrease in eligibility and the provision of more services for supporting lone parents. Unfortunately, we have not got the services. This is linked to the question on qualified adults. The current proposals from the Department to develop the single age working payment which includes lone parents and also qualified adults, would mean that there would be more eligibility for qualified adults to participate in programmes such as community employment schemes. There is, however, a significant problem. There is no information on that group which comprises a total of 70,000 people, 95% of whom are women. There is no information available on their skills, their backgrounds even though there is talk of activating them. There is a real problem with the reforms and in particular for that group of women because the information is not available. In the short term, the National Women's Council has put forward the case that qualified adults should be eligible for all programmes but this has not happened and instead we are looking at the long-term proposal.

It is very important that the issue of qualified adults needs to be addressed in the reforms which will be implemented in the next few months and into next year. We are raising this issue with the Department. I do not have the costings to hand but I will be happy to get back to the Deputy with them.

Mr. Fergus Finlay

I will answer some of the questions asked by Deputies. On the point as to whether Barnardos is fearful of the child and family support agency, it is quite the contrary. We are looking forward to the establishment of an agency which must not be a quango. It must have direct political accountability. It makes a lot of sense that there is now a Minister for Children and Youth Affairs with Cabinet responsibility and who is accountable to the Dáil and that services to children and families should be delivered through that Minister.

The HSE was established to run 55 hospitals, large and small, to provide a wide range of personal, community, societal supports, to administer the GMS system, to run a primary care system and somewhere down at the bottom of its list of priorities was its statutory responsibility for child protection and support. It never got above the bottom of the list of priorities until the Ryan report opened a door onto our whole societal approach to children over many years and then some individual scandals within the HSE's own operations shed more light. Now there is a real chance, through this agency, to do it right. Our fear is that it will be starved at birth. Nobody is expecting it to get new money. Its budget must come from a clean handover of existing resources from the HSE. Our fear is that it will not happen in such a way as to give the new agency the kind of start that it needs to have. There is now a real chance of seeing investment not just in child protection but also in prevention.

Deputy Broughan asked how we measure outcomes. We have good and close relations, for example, with a number of the agencies that Senator Zappone would know very well in Tallaght and also in Darndale and in Deputy Broughan's constituency where an enormous amount of investment has been made with philanthropic support and also through the own resources of organisations in trying to evaluate results and to move to a situation where one is not just responding to need but one is also trying to deliver results. We set ourselves objectives on every child we work with, which last year amounted to approximately 5,000 children. We are investing as heavily as we can in research, evaluation and in trying to prove - to put our hands on our hearts and say the work we are doing is making a lasting difference in the lives of those children.

We want every child we work with to come out of the process with a much higher level of emotional well-being and a much higher capacity to get the most from their education. All our work is geared towards trying to achieve those objectives. Deputy Broughan can imagine those are not easy things to fund-raise for. Nobody wants to invest in research and evaluation but as Mr. Noel Kelly in Darndale would say, it is the only way to go.

The Deputy inquired about breakfast clubs. I wish there was no need for a breakfast club anywhere in the country. We started breakfast clubs in many of our projects for a particular reason, it is a great opportunity for children to chill - to attend before school starts, to make friends and to play and also to get a bit of nourishment if nourishment is needed. We are now feeding children because they are hungry to a far greater extent than was the case previously. Breakfast clubs now provide two meals a day in many cases. There is a huge amount of hunger. In some ways I see breakfast clubs as a scandal. Nobody should have to run a breakfast club because children should not go hungry, but it is a reality of life.

Ms Catherine Joyce

I wish to add to what Mr. Finlay has said in terms of our overall approach to inequality in society. We need to be more strategic. As he mentioned we need to create a balance between income supports and service provision. We were discussing yesterday in regard to the child welfare protection system that there is no database for the children involved. There is no one database that strategically tells us where the children are, whether they are in care or known to the system and what kind of engagement is provided. There is no consistency across the entire structure. We are hopeful that the new agency will put in place a national structure that can feed into local services and also tell us which children are involved in which services and the outcomes for the children so that we can continually grow and build on the experiences in the services. That is our point about services across the board for children and families. It does not necessarily relate to welfare and protection; it also relates to poverty and disadvantage. We need a much more strategic approach to how we put services in place and also the outcomes we expect to get.

Mr. John-Mark McCafferty

I will hand over to Ms Fahey to respond to some of the issues raised by Deputy Broughan on payments.

Ms Caroline Fahey

Lone parents comprise the largest group that is being assisted by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. We know they have the highest poverty rate. That poverty is particularly concentrated in lone parents who are completely reliant on the one-parent family payment, who cannot access any work for reasons of care or because they have left school too early and they do not have the qualifications. Our concern is that for lone parents who have managed to overcome those barriers and have found work, the proposals around the single payment for working age would make them considerably worse off. There is talk of reducing the earnings disregard considerably which takes no account of the extra costs that are faced by lone parents and other parents in trying to access work. I fully support Ms Orla O'Connor's call for the supports to help people into work and also to look at the implications of the single working age payment for those who have managed to find work and those lone parents who will find work in the future but who will be subjected to poorer conditions.

Mr. John-Mark McCafferty

Regarding Deputy Broughan's specific questions on the site value tax and water charges, there is a big onus on the Government to broaden the tax base. There is a clear case to be made for a larger level of revenue from which the Government can operate.

A site value tax or property related taxes operate in other states. They operate on the basis not just on the value of the site or property but also on the household's ability to pay. There are ways in which one can reconcile a figure, which is much more sensitive to the contingency on the household such as whether it is one or two people on a State pension, a family with two earners on high incomes or a lone-parent family with one or two children. There are ways in which systems have been designed in other states. Our concern is that with the introduction of the €100 charge, and as has happened with public policy in the past, it is easier to go for something which is administratively much more straightforward and easier to understand and operate but is unequal and regressive. Our concern is that if the standard flat-rate approach is taken, the rate would be increased rather than introducing a system whereby the cost of the charge is reconciled with the ability of the household to pay. Other states have done it successfully so I do not think it is the case that we cannot do it.

Water charges will be an additional burden on all households. I do not see how households that are currently struggling will be any better off with water charges. We are not opposed to the principle of the user pays. We tried to interact with Government on the bin charge. We agreed the user pays but one must test that against the ability of the household to pay and what would be meant by a responsible production of domestic waste and a responsible usage of water. The devil is in the detail but it can be done if the schemes are designed appropriately.

On fuel poverty, one thing I noticed with regard to the UK is that the regulator there has begun to charge the utilities for such things as the mis-selling of products and has also become more interested in customer handling issues. It is a question of watching this space. One can have a market with private sector companies but what is important is the strength of the regulator in that domain. We should have a strong regulator that is adequately resourced and who has vulnerable customers as its central focus.

Deputy Michael Creed

I thank the National Women's Council, Barnardos and the Society of St. Vincent de Paul for their presentations. They are useful in the context of the preparations for the budget. What looms large in our mind is the €3.6 billion reduction, possibly €2.4 billion in cuts and €1.2 billion in taxation.

I find myself somewhat at variance with the proposal by the National Women's Council on retaining child benefit as a universal payment. Mr. Finlay said the Celtic tiger was perhaps best summarised by what he described as a one-trick pony whereby we threw money at problems. The clear obligation on us now is to be more focused. In another context Ms Catherine Joyce said we need to be more strategic. In terms of scarce resources it is very difficult to justify how people with large incomes receive the same level of payment for child benefit as people on social welfare. I would like the witnesses to take me through their arguments for retaining it as a universal payment. I do not support Deputy Broughan's argument about increasing the tax rate. We have an effective tax rate of 50%. Before the universal social charge there may have been a case for it, but people who earn more should take less out of the public pot. People on high incomes do not warrant the same level of support from the State, whether in terms of child benefit or other payments, as those who are on the lowest incomes or are dependent on social welfare. It is a "no-brainer" and long overdue that child benefit be taxed. It is part of targeting resources strategically.

I accept this is a payment that a lot of women receive exclusively and that it enables them to provide certain services for their children but they are a relatively small group and should be helped in other ways. I do not want the children in these circumstances to be forgotten but they are a relatively small cohort. We are prohibiting policy change on the basis of that small group of children who need to be cherished and taken into account in our policy decisions. That is not sufficient grounds for retaining a system of payment that does not differentiate between those on basic social welfare and the 2,000 individuals in this country who earn €2 million per annum. That is a scandal and if we are to be strategic, the day that we can afford that sort of universal payment is long gone.

Child benefit should only be paid automatically until the age of five and thereafter it should be paid on the basis of school attendance. That would address the questions Mr. Finlay rightly raised regarding the value of education and school non-completion among a large cohort of disadvantaged children. If school attendance was linked to receiving payments, we could deliver a higher rate of school completion. It would also have the secondary benefit of stemming the flow of funds out of the State in terms of the €15 million paid annually to children who are not resident here. A school attendance payment would go a long way towards tackling the problem of truancy, which jeopardises the future potential of children.

From the experience of my constituency work, I agree with Ms Fahey regarding lone parents. I have found lone parents to be the biggest manifestation of poverty in the social welfare system. The primary driver of that corrosive poverty is the rent allowance system. A young girl with an unexpected pregnancy almost routinely believes that the next step is to move out of the family home and isolate herself from a natural and supportive environment. That is a highly undesirable outcome, however. We should not automatically remove the entitlement to rent allowance. We should offer additional support for maintaining the extended family support network and allowing the parent to remain within the family home in the absence of overcrowding or other issues. The isolation that single parents experience contributes to their exposure to violence and domestic abuse at a later stage because they are at arms length from the supportive environment of the extended family network.

Many of the payments made by the Department of Social Protection have developed on an ad hoc basis, with the consequence that a proper overview has not been undertaken. It is indefensible that a married couple with two children will receive €380 from the State if they have no other income, whereas a retired couple on a non-contributory pension will receive €50 more. Who faces the greater expenses? Difficult choices lie ahead of us. We face several years of hardships and it is incumbent on us to call a spade a spade by identifying the real needs and targeting our resources at them.

In regard to lone parents, I am not hung up on how we define a family. The basis of a family is a commitment to offer cross-generational support. That involves children, parents and grandparents. The system of rent allowance encourages people to sever connections rather than foster them.

Ms Orla O’Connor

The National Women's Council approaches the issue of child benefit from the perspectives of anti-poverty and equality. Important issues must be unpicked because, unfortunately, the previous Government came to regard child benefit as a way of providing everything to all families, children and mothers. It was not the right approach, however. The recent value for money review conducted by the Department of Social Protection indicated that the payment aims at supporting all costs associated with children, as well as being the Government's way of supporting child care. Given the child care costs that families face, however, this is a totally unrealistic ambition. It is also the only payment that recognises the work done by women who care for children in the home. This one payment is trying to do everything. We have made numerous proposals to the Government in regard to providing a universally subsidised child care infrastructure and recognising the work of women who decide to care for their children in the home. We do not believe child benefit meets any of those needs efficiently.

In the context of the recession, many families are relying on this payment and it is critical for mothers in particular. When we conducted a survey on child benefit in 2009, the responses stressed the importance of the payment not necessarily in dealing with income poverty but for dealing with real problems where income is not distributed within families.

It is essential that the payment remains universal. We are speaking about a payment of €140 per month which provides inadequate support for all the aforementioned needs. In child care alone, families face bills of €800 to €1,000 per month. Child benefit is a minimal resource. Given that we are unlikely to see the type of support that should be available in terms of services and child care over the coming two or three years, it has to remain at the current levels.

We have repeatedly stressed the need to use resources strategically. We believe the taxation system is there to redistribute income and this why we recommend a third rate of tax. I find it interesting that when it comes to the budget we focus on the amount of €140 per month. If we are so interested in redistributing income in Ireland why are we not tackling our taxation system in a proper way and recouping money into the economy? Child benefit seems to be an easy target. I do not believe that if the payment were reduced further and considered in terms of means testing or taxation, other measures would be put in place to take account of the differing circumstances people have and the situations families face, including violence against women. This is why it is so important that the payment remains the way it is.

Mr. Fergus Finlay

I do not have much to add to this. I agree with everything Ms O'Connor said about the need for universality. Along with everything else that child benefit is supposed to do, in recent years it has also become a vehicle for winning elections. It is not without coincidence that the largest increases were in 2002 and 2007. They were occasions when people's votes were bought with their own money. Originally, child benefit was designed to help families with the cost of raising children. At present, we live in a world where 29% of the disposable income of a great many families who must spend money on child care goes on child care. For quite a few families this is more than they spend on their mortgage. The average amount of disposable income spent per family throughout Europe is 13%. In this context, child benefit makes quite a small contribution to the cost of raising children.

Deputy Creed made a point on linking child benefit to school attendance. It is not an idea I have heard before. I am certain he would not have meant it this way, but if I were to say to him that every time a child dropped out of school that child's mother should be punished financially by the State he would be horrified at the thought, but this is what linking child benefit to school attendance means. It means punishing the mother if the child drops out of school. Everyone who works in the field knows that a dozen different reasons exist for children dropping out of school early and one is the failure to support mothers early on. To link child benefit to school attendance would be an enormously retrograde step.

Enormous problems exist with regard to school attendance, and children who drop out of school early face huge disadvantages with the rest of their lives, but the key reason children drop out of school early is because they do not get off to a good start. This is as much a failure of the system, the nature of intergenerational poverty and the way we teach children and help them prepare for school as it is of any parent. The notion that one would the increase school attendance by punishing mothers whose children drop out of school does not add up.

Deputy Liam Twomey took the Chair.

Deputy Michael Creed

It would incentivise school attendance. That is how I would see it.

Mr. Fergus Finlay

I fundamentally disagree. The unfairness of the approach would leap off the page if it were ever tried.

Mr. John-Mark McCafferty

I will make a couple of comments before handing over to Ms Fahey. The social policy system has largely relied on social protection and income supports to fill the gaps. For example with regard to rent allowance, it was a deliberate policy choice by government that the private sector would provide de facto social housing and that rent supplement would be made available to access housing the State was clearly not prepared to provide. I do not see it prepared to provide it now, given the 100,000 people on the local authority housing waiting lists.

The phrase "free education" is used liberally and does not equate with my understanding of what it is. As well as the historic lack of preschool provision we also have all types of costs and charges. I mentioned the voluntary contributions. If everything was voluntary in this way I would not like to be a volunteer; it is much more like coercion in my experience. These are pressures on households. Until now, the policy system has plastered the cracks and filled substantial holes by providing income support in lieu of the type of public services that our colleagues in mainland Europe take for granted. If we want to dismantle child benefit I would like to see what type of Scandinavian-style child care preschool or after-school service will be provided in its place.

Ms Caroline Fahey

I will respond to the arguments on lone parent poverty and the connection to rent supplement. There is no doubt poverty traps exist in the rent supplement scheme which make it very difficult or impossible for people to take up full-time work on a low wage. I agree family support and other supports for parents who may be struggling are hugely important. I disagree fundamentally with linking supports to keeping people in their parents' home when they have a child of their own. It would not be the most useful way to deal with the issue.

Only 17% of people in receipt of one parent family payment are on rent supplement. This is less than one in five so it does not adequately explain poverty among lone parents, which can be more easily explained through the fact they tend to leave school early, there is no child care or after-school care infrastructure to help them work and issues arise related to intergenerational poverty with which the Society of St. Vincent de Paul is familiar. There is no suggestion that couples with children who are reliant on social welfare or on rent supplement would move back into their parent's home so why should a one parent family be required to do so?

To respond to the suggestion of linking child benefit with school attendance, one way of encouraging and promoting school attendance would be a free book rental scheme which would take the pressure off parents and facilitate them that way. Taking a payment from a child whose family is struggling will not help him or her attend school and get the most out of it.

Senator Katherine Zappone

I echo Deputy Broughan's acknowledgement of the contribution and extraordinary work over the years of all of the organisations before the committee and the ways in which they provide such an exceptional service to the State through their suggestions on the improvements of the design and delivery of effective services and the way in which they undertake research in an interdisciplinary fashion using economists, sociologists and psychologists. They provide an enormous service. Do the organisations feel such acknowledgement and respect for their work from the Government? Is their expertise gained through working at the coalface and developing innovative policy solutions sought after?

It is important to have this meeting and discuss issues of poverty and inequality. We do not give enough time to this in the current climate. How has the closure of the Combat Poverty Agency impacted the work of the organisations? Does the Government's anti-poverty work suffer as a result? In which Department does the core energy driving poverty reduction reside, if it resides in any single one?

One of the National Women's Council's important strategic recommendations is on a gender impact analysis of budget choices. The Think Tank for Action on Social Change, TASC, attended the committee's meeting yesterday. Through its work, it demonstrated that budget 2011 had a gender impact, in that women fared less well. How likely is it that the council's recommendation will be given a priority by the Government?

In connection with Deputy Doherty's question on the impact of cuts in light of the recession, has the effectiveness of refuges or the services for those experiencing domestic violence been evaluated, particularly in terms of the better use of money? Deputy Doherty asked what amount of money was required to meet demand. What is the quantifiable value of the 35-40% cut in funding across the board?

I have a couple of specific questions for the Barnardos delegates. In Mr. Finlay's presentation, he touched on the issue of prevention. What is his opinion of the focus of the new Department of Children and Youth Affairs on prevention and early intervention as priorities? Rightly, there has been a great deal of focus on protection and the establishment of the new agency to which he referred, but has sufficient priority been afforded prevention and early intervention? How effective has the co-location of the relevant services, first within the Department of Education and Science, then in a single office and now in the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, been in terms of the work being done?

Will Mr. Finlay provide us with a breakdown of the €7,000 he suggested would be the annual cost of the preventative approach as distinct from the €80,000 per year to keep a child in care? Like Barnardos, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul recently stated that individuals would need less income if its services had more support. This was a radical proposal. The society mentioned that, if we had greater public services, we would have less need for the current fragmented approach to income support. Are we heading in that direction? Any of the delegations can comment.

Do the Society of St. Vincent de Paul's policies and ideas contain anything that could help to provide a more flexible approach in the social welfare system, particularly in terms of benefits?

Vice Chairman

Before the witnesses answer, there will be a vote in the Dáil in approximately ten minutes. As the Senator was the final contributor, I ask the witnesses to keep their answers short so that we would not need to return after the vote. The vote has just been called.

Deputy Pearse Doherty

We have four minutes before we need to leave.

Vice Chairman

We will see what we can do. We might stay.

Deputy Arthur Spring

Senator Zappone can stay and the rest of us can go.

Vice Chairman

I will appoint Senator Zappone Acting Chairman. She can conclude the meeting and the witnesses can take their time answering.

Senator Katherine Zappone took the Chair.

Ms Orla O’Connor

I thank the Acting Chairman for her comments on that contributions made by our organisations. The closure of the Combat Poverty Agency is a real loss. This is particularly evident now, given the agency's work on budget analyses. It puts it up to the social inclusion unit of the Department of Social Protection to assess the budget's impact on poverty, a key role of the agency.

Regarding a gender impact assessment, budget choices have different impacts on men and women. For this reason, the work done by the Equality Authority and TASC is critical. The ratio between taxation and expenditure cuts needs to be shifted towards taxation, as this would have a better impact on women. The EU has made significant agreements on assessing the impact on women of the austerity measures undertaken by countries. We are pushing the Government towards this approach.

Ms Rachel Doyle

As to our work in the broader sector and the extent to which the State recognises our role, it is important to examine the work done by organisations such as ours in terms of direct supervision, being a voice for the most excluded, providing supports and empowering people, in our case women, to participate in decision making and to critique and debate Government policy. In recent years, the Government has shifted its emphasis to direct service provision. For example, much of the National Anti-Poverty Network's funding has been moved away from the advocacy role that many of us play towards addressing disability and meeting those demands that require funding. Our organisation is named as a key player in the national women's strategy. This is important for us, as is the fact that we are funded by the State. Our role, expertise, work with women on the ground and the experiences we can bring to bear on policy need to be given greater credibility.

At local level, women's groups throughout the country are experiencing cuts of 15%. Many are closing down. They provide direct services to women and work with them to build capacity and empower them to access the labour market, take up training and so on. These significant funding cuts are having a detrimental impact on women, communities and families.

Regarding violence against women, I am unaware of any evaluation of the funds required to meet demand. We can revert to the committee on this matter.

Mr. Fergus Finlay

The Acting Chairman asked a number of specific questions. The closure of the Combat Poverty Agency was a disaster at the time and has remained so, given the absence of an independent voice, independent analysis and modest funding for independent research. It was promised that the voice would not be silenced, that it would become a unit within the Department of Social Protection and that it would remain active. If it is not silenced, it is certainly very quiet. It was an occasional prod to the conscience of the nation, policymakers and parliamentarians. It will be sorely missed. It had a stature which all of us put together, while we do our best to fill the void, do not have. It was genuinely independent and had significant capacity.

Senator Zappone asked about the effectiveness of the co-location in the Department of Education and Skills of the children's office. I am tempted to give a lengthy reply but I would be in trouble for doing so. The best answer I can give is that we live in hope. I also live in hope that the Department of Education and Skills will at some point begin to believe in education. I had better not go there.

Senator Zappone asked about the €7,000 to which I referred. I would like to be able to prove in a completely incontrovertible way what it costs per child to prevent damage being done. The figures I used are roughly speaking the cost on a child per child basis of a decent early years education programme spread over two years. Roughly speaking, that is the cost on a child per child basis of a well resourced, managed and so on family support project. Some of those figures have been reached based on our experience and that of others.

An investment we will be making, irrespective of the financial difficulties we all face, is the development of a well grounded database system that would enable all the work we do to communicate. For example, we would like our financial reporting systems to communicate with our children's database systems and so on. We are hoping to obtain philanthropic support in this regard. One of the questions I would like to get a scientific answer to is precisely that posed earlier by the Senator. I know anecdotally that prevention is not alone good but relatively cheap.

I live in hope that the new language of prevention and early intervention evident in everything the Minister says and in everything that is built into and underpinning the new agency will be adequately resourced and underpinned by real accountability. I believe it is the future.

Mr. John-Mark McCafferty

In regard to whether we are respected or sought after, that depends in what setting one is and to whom one speaks. Currently, economists and economic discussion take precedence. I was not suggesting my ideas are the panacea to all woes, far from it. However, structured engagement with the administrative system through social partnership no longer takes place with the same level of frequency or buy-in from Government. It was never going to be the one way in which organisations would interact but it was a channel. It is still used to some extent but it is a much reduced extent. Things in terms of officials getting back to us and so on are much looser. We need to ramp up settings such as that, inputs to Oireachtas committees and dialogue with elected representatives. That is the challenge facing those of us involved in the previous paradigm.

On the closure of the Combat Poverty Agency, the key losses in that regard are research and capacity building of the sector. We fundamentally have lost both. The Combat Poverty Agency set the agenda and directed what areas of work would be explored or what person would be supported in terms of inquiries and so on. Many of the issues might have been on the edge of what we were working on but were emerging issues, problems, opportunities or policy solutions. We are very much at a loss as a result of the agency's closure. The wider sector is also at a loss in terms of the capacity building they can provide. There are good people within the social inclusion division but its staff numbers has shrunk and it is now only a small core of what was the Combat Poverty Agency. In addition, the division has physically moved three times in the past three years, from the agency into the Department of Social and Family Affairs, from there to the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs and back to the now Department of Social Protection, which has clear destabilising and distracting influences on its ability to do its business.

Ms Caroline Fahey

An example of flexible responses in the social welfare system would be issuing a family on social welfare when they move into work with a letter asking if they have considered applying for family income supplement, the uptake of which is very low. The reason for that is in part lack of awareness. We need a system that informs people who finish on social welfare and need support in work of what is available to them in terms of support. I am sure there are other simple and straightforward ideas like that that could make a huge difference.

In terms of where the responsibility for reducing poverty lies, there is a real risk that it might be seen as coming within the remit of the Department of Social Protection. The social inclusion division is located in that Department and is undertaking much work in terms of review of the national poverty target. Tackling poverty and the causes and consequences of poverty must be cross-departmental. Unless that is done, we will not make a difference to people's lives.

Acting Chairman (Senator Katherine Zappone)

I thank the witnesses for their briefing and discussion. Is it agreed to publish the various submissions on the joint committee's home page? Agreed.

Mr. Fergus Finlay

The Acting Chairman has the casting vote.

Acting Chairman (Senator Katherine Zappone)

I am sure the witnesses understand the reason our colleagues had to leave. I can assure them they are diligent colleagues who will be reading witnesses' responses to the questions raised at the end of the meeting.

The joint committee adjourned at 1.10 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Thursday, 17 November 2011.