Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON JOBS, SOCIAL PROTECTION AND EDUCATION debate -
Wednesday, 18 Jan 2012

Single Working Age Payment: Discussion with Department of Social Protection

I welcome Ms Anne Vaughan, Deputy Secretary General of the Department of Social Protection, and her colleagues to discuss with us the plans for and the work on the single working age assistance payment.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If a witness is directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and the witness continues to so do, the witness is entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of his or her evidence. Witnesses are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and witnesses are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Ms Anne Vaughan

I thank the Chairman and the members of the joint committee for the opportunity to discuss the single working age assistance payment which I will refer to as the single payment as it is less of a mouthful. I will focus on the rationale for the payment, the work completed to date and the next steps. I emphasise that while the Department has done a good deal of work on the single payment, key elements remain to be completed and these will be further developed over the coming months prior to decisions being taken by Government on the matter.

Ireland's social welfare system has evolved in a somewhat ad hoc way over many decades in response to different influences and issues at different times. As a result, specific payments have been designed and implemented to meet the needs of certain groups of individuals. Examples include payments for jobseekers, people with disabilities and people parenting alone. Such an approach has allowed the social welfare system to respond in a flexible manner to the needs of specific groups. However, it has also created a complex system which treats individuals in receipt of social welfare supports differently depending on the type of payments they receive. The differences are to do with means testing, disregards, entitlement to secondary benefits, requirements to seek work and so on.

Furthermore, and in spite of flexibility within the system, trends in the social welfare population of people of working age indicate persistent welfare dependency and poor outcomes for some people in spite of an earlier sustained period of economic growth. In considering the extent to which the structure of the social welfare system has contributed to this position the question must be asked as to whether a reconfigured social assistance system based on a single payment could improve the outcomes for people of working age.

These considerations were informed by work carried out by the National Economic and Social Council, NESC, and reflected in its report, The Developmental Welfare State, published in 2005. That highlighted the need for greater interaction between services, income support and activation measures and saw these as developmental for families, communities and the economy. A recurring theme in the NESC report is that the current contingency based payments to people of working age can operate to confirm a person's status as someone outside of the workforce rather than as an unemployed member of it.

In November 2010, the Department of Social Protection published a report on the desirability and feasibility of introducing a single social assistance payment for people of working age, the link to which is welfare.ie/EN/Policy/CorporatePublications/Finance/exp_rev/Pages/WorkingAgeReport.aspx. This report addressed issues around the desirability of such a payment, its role in social welfare reform and the framework that would need to be put in place for such a payment to exist. The report paid particular attention to the design of a single payment and the associated issues that would have to be addressed were it decided to implement it. The report concluded that it is both desirable and feasible over time to move to a single payment structure. That is not saying it would be easy. The report also noted that the availability of other supports and services to recipients of the new single payment would be essential to ensure that these individuals will be in a position to avail of opportunities to move from relying on social welfare support.

The introduction of the single payment would represent a fundamental overhaul of Ireland's social welfare system. It is based on the principle that people are given or directed to the supports or services they need to enable them take up employment or avail of education and training opportunities. This is matched by a requirement that they avail of the support, that is, there is a right to a payment and a matching responsibility to engage.

The overall objective, therefore, in introducing the single payment is to improve outcomes for people of working age from a poverty and social inclusion perspective and, in so doing, to ensure that changes to the social welfare system make work pay. It is not all about work because we recognise that it may not be feasible for everybody to be in paid employment.

The restructuring of the Department, including the recent merging of the community welfare service, the employment and community services of FÁS and the development of the national entitlement and employment service will support the achievement of the objectives underpinned by the introduction of the single payment.

The Department's feasibility report on the single payment was referenced in the agreed programme of financial support with the troika with a commitment that: "The Department of Social Protection will build on their recent studies on working age payments, child income supports and disability allowance with a view to producing, after consultation with stakeholders, a comprehensive programme of reforms that can help better target social support to those on lower incomes, and ensure that work pays for welfare recipients". Specifically, the Department is to produce this comprehensive programme of reforms by the end of March this year. This commitment was reinforced at the recent meetings with the troika.

The single payment aims to create a single social welfare payment that would cover all people of working age including those who would currently be classified as unemployed, sick, disabled, or parenting alone.

I emphasise that while no decision has yet been made, it is envisaged that the single payment may possibly cover the following seven payment types: jobseeker's allowance; disability allowance; one parent family payment; farm assist; blind pension; widow-er's non-contributory pension; and carer's allowance.

The rationale for the single payment is twofold. First, introducing it is to give effect to the policy principle that people have both rights and responsibilities - a right to a payment and a responsibility to engage as part of the activation agenda. In order to support the activation of recipients of a single payment, the provision of the necessary supports and services to enable them to take up employment is essential. This will involve providing individuals with access to education and training supports and other secondary services such as child care and disability supports.

Second, the single payment provides an opportunity to address the current complexity of the social welfare system by streamlining a number of payments for people of working age. This will involve introducing a single means test, standardising the conditionality of the payment and simplifying the relevant income disregards that apply. Cost and efficiency gains from simplification of administrative structures and collapsing multiple payments into a single payment are also possible. The reduction in complexity is not just an administrative nicety. The evidence is that complex systems are difficult for everybody to understand and affect people's choices. The introduction of the single payment will, therefore, be a key development in the pursuit of a more focused and purposeful activation agenda which will be delivered under the auspices of the National Employment and Entitlements Service.

In July 2011 the Department held a consultation seminar with interest groups, the social partners and other Departments. The aim of the seminar was to provide participants with an overview of the Department's report on the single payment and give people the opportunity to make a contribution towards deciding the future policy direction and, of course, hear their concerns. At the seminar Mr. John Martin of the OECD made a key address which supported the proposal but also alerted us that it would not be an easy path and as such that there would be difficulties.

The stakeholders broadly welcomed the concept of introducing the single payment. However, several of them expressed concern about the possibility that certain claimants, particularly individuals in receipt of disability allowance and the one-parent family payment, might experience financial losses under the single payment scheme. Concern was also expressed about whether the system in the current economic climate could deliver the appropriate supports and services to recipients to enable them to progress to employment, education or training. These concerns have been noted by the Department. A report on the consultation process is on our website and I have made the link available to members.

The Department has established a working group which has commenced work on designing the single payment. Separately, intensive engagement with other Departments is taking place on the supports and services required. The Department will develop an implementation plan for the introduction of the payment on foot of the outcome of the deliberations of the working group and its engagement with other Departments. This implementation plan and the structure of the payment will then be presented to the Government for its consideration and decision.

While a significant amount of work has been done on the development of a single payment, many issues still have to be worked through and decisions made by the Government. The Department is committed to completing this work in order that, subject to the approval of the Government, an implementation plan can be submitted to the troika by the end of March. I would welcome the views of committee members. We are happy to answer any questions raised in so far as we can.

I thank Ms Vaughan and her staff for coming to discuss the issue. We welcome the creation of a single welfare system which was initiated by the previous Minister, Deputy Ó Cuív. We recognise and hope it will simplify the system, reduce the number of welfare traps and result in an individual focus being placed on labour activation measures.

Ms Vaughan has said cost and efficiency gains from the simplification of administrative structures and collapsing multiple payments into a single payment are also possible. Has this been costed in advance of the Department's submission in March and what figure is available in that regard? She also said the single payment would be a key development in the pursuit of a more focused and purposeful activation agenda which would be delivered under the auspices of the National Employment and Entitlements Service. Some €20 million for job activation measures was included in the budget announcement. Has funding been provided under that heading towards at least partial delivery of this measure in the forthcoming year?

Will the changes result in reductions in welfare payments for recipients? Will the changes generate more confusion as recipients of payments such as disability allowance and unemployment benefit are left uncertain about their payments after the introduction of the reforms? Will labour activation measures inflict hardship by imposing what might be seen as unrealistic demands on welfare recipients - for instance, lone parents being sent a significant distance from home to work, thus increasing child care and transport costs?

In general, we welcome the proposal and recognise the need for it. We understand the improvements that can be made as a result of these changes. As the proposal was instigated by the previous Administration, we support its thrust.

Ms Anne Vaughan

I thank the Deputy for his comments of welcome. As I said in my opening statement, considerable work is being done. However, we have not costed the gains from the efficiencies. It seems there would be gains because there would be greater commonality in means testing which would allow for more "once and done" cases in reviewing people. Therefore, no is the answer to that question. The Deputy asked if any part of the figure of €20 million relates to this change. Again, no is the answer.

The Deputy asked about reductions and causing more confusion and hardship. All of this is a work in progress and the report gives an example of what would happen if we ran the single payment scheme alongside jobseeker's allowance and applied the jobseeker's allowance regime, entitlements, disregards and means testing to all other payments. The report makes it clear that there would be losses, but no decision has been made as to where the payment would be pitched. Clearly, for illustrative purposes, the report shows reductions. As I was trying to make clear in my opening statement, the report is very strong - this is a concern of the groups we met - in emphasising income support and improvements in services, both of which go together with the overall objective of improving outcomes for people. That is the objective. I hope, therefore, it would not cause more confusion. Reduction of complexity is not just an administrative nicety; it means a lot to our client group. Our stakeholders and representative groups, as well as members of the committee, tell us schemes are far too complex for people to understand, which makes it difficult for them to figure out whether they should take up a part-time or any job. All that is in the policy development pot with the working groups which are trying to move the issue forward.

I do not know if the delegates are aware that I recommended that the committee take this topic on board. As I asked to be appointed rapporteur, I will be back in touch with departmental officials and I hope the authors of the report in order to make a report to the committee prior to the release of the implementation plan. This puts me on a tight timeframe because I had not expected the implementation or proposal to go to the troika in March but I believe I will be able to deliver a report by the end of February so that the committee can discuss it in time. While it is administratively attractive to go down this road I have questions, some of which arise from the report published in November 2010. It is a pity we did not have an opportunity, prior to its development to the stage it is at now, for the committee to carry out an in-depth examination of it and now we are doing it in a rushed manner. Anyway, does the agreement with the troika commit us to introducing the single working age payment or does it simply commit us to build on the original report?

Differences have been suggested and there are other models reported and referred to in the report which might be able to deliver something similar. Social Justice Ireland has a basic income model which it espouses. Much is made in the report of a similar exercise in England which involved working towards a single working age payment. The Gregg review outlines how this was delivered in England. It raised some of the same concerns mentioned by the deputation and which stakeholders raised here during the conference about specific categories and the implications if one lumps together all the categories of those in receipt of social welfare. For instance, the deputation referred to jobseeker's benefits among the list and the carers allowance in particular, whereas the Department's report stated that the carers allowance should not be included. There has been a shift in the past year. Why has that shift taken place? The British review proposed a category within a single payment framework for whom there would be no requirement to undertake work-related activity but who could do so voluntarily if they so wished. Are we looking to move down that road? Such a category would include the likes of one-parent families, carers or those with disabilities.

Because of the peculiarities of everyone's situation, over the years we have developed the complex system that is in place now. Whatever system we develop, even it involved a single working age payment, would still have to take account of various circumstances. Are we simply introducing a single payment with a multitude of add-ons to a system which might not work as effectively as we would wish but which delivers to a degree?

The deputation alluded to another major question relating to one of the key concerns most people have. If we move down this road it is contingent upon the support and activation measures being in place. The Department may be ready to present an implementation plan to the Minister and the troika by March but will there be an implementation plan to do with job supports, activation and so on in place prior to this as an add-on or at the same time so that people can see this is where the move is taking place? Without this second part, any move towards a single working age payment would be detrimental and a backward step at the moment.

Does the deputation agree that in some ways this is the wrong time to consider this change? We have been forced by the circumstances to re-examine the social protection budget but such a substantial change in a time of recession could be detrimental to those surviving on it. If there is no corresponding increase in spending on the activation measures and training and education and so on then it is doomed and destined to cause misery. I have many more questions but since there are many other Deputies here I will hold them. Perhaps afterwards I could get to speak to whoever is in charge; there is always an author in the background. I realise there are various officials involved but that would be useful for me as part of my work in the coming weeks.

Ms Anne Vaughan

I am the author, not all by myself I hasten to add. I hear what Deputy Ó Snodaigh is saying and I welcome the fact that he is the rapporteur. We will facilitate or arrange a separate briefing and whatever he wishes for. That would be helpful on all sides.

It is a tight timeframe, one we were given by the troika. To clarify one point, the implementation plan is what is required by the March deadline. This will outline what we will do and, I hope, it will have timelines attached. This is all in the mix at the moment in the discussions. It was always acknowledged that this was something in the medium term, not something that could be turned on overnight. The committee will see in the report a discussion on whether it would apply to new entrants only or to existing clients. That is all up for discussion.

The troika is interested in structural change of the welfare system. This ties in with the activation agenda which I spoke about and which they spoke about. I take the Deputy's points about other possible ways. I referred in my opening statement to the actual commitment. It states that we will build on recent studies and so on. I do not believe the troika has a specific view of what the working age payment should look like except that it should be structural change that helps the situation.

As part of drafting the report in the first place we examined models in other countries and we went to the United Kingdom to study what is in place there. We would have taken note of the people referenced by Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

I will clarify a point about the carer's allowance. I was keen to point out in my opening statement that no decision has been made and I emphasise that point. The Deputy is perfectly correct. In the report we put forward the pros and cons of whether a single working age payment should include the carer's allowance. The report concludes that on balance it should not. Obviously, that will be a decision for Government. This is why I suggest it could possibly include the allowance. To be fair to my opening statement, I am being transparent in what I say. I take Deputy Ó Snodaigh's point and it is one we are concerned about in the discussions. Let us assume we get to a single payment. People are different and people's needs are different and by the time one has addressed these differences the question arises of whether one is back to where one started. This was Deputy Ó Snodaigh's point about a single payment with add-ons and it is a challenge for the working group. It is not desirable to get back to where we were. The working age payment is to try to ensure that someone is not seen as unemployed or parenting alone or a person with a disability but as a member of a working age group. That is not to say such people do not have individual needs that must be met. That is the change.

I have clarified that it is a medium-term plan and what is required by 2012. Is it the wrong time for this? There is no right time for things and I do not disagree with Deputy Ó Snodaigh. It would be far preferable to try to introduce and develop this type of payment in a better economic climate. There is no argument from me about that. However, as part of the bigger activation agenda we are trying to ensure that people do not grow more distant from the labour market, which is probably something that happened previously, so that when there is a pick-up there will not be a big gap. That is what the activation agenda is trying to achieve.

We can return to Ms Vaughan at the conclusion if more questions are asked.

I have no questions at this point; I just wish to listen to the debate.

I welcome the departmental officials to the meeting and I thank them for their presentation. I think I know what the Department is trying to achieve but I do not really know how it is going to get there because there are many difficulties ahead.

Ms Vaughan referred to the merging of the community welfare officer service and the development of a national entitlement and employment service. The community welfare officer service, as yet, does not even know what will be its role within the Department of Social Protection. Nobody has informed it. The best it has ever got is a meeting with an official from the Department who has told them that everything will be grand. There is disquiet among the community welfare officers and until such time as senior officials spell it out for them and persuade them to buy into any future changes, there could be difficulties.

With regard to the types of payment, I understand the Department wishes that everyone should be considered for employment in some shape or form and this should certainly be the case with regard to jobseeker's allowance. As regards persons in receipt of disability allowance, some of them are employable while many are not. I agree that in the case of recipients of lone parent allowance many of them are employable while some may not be. I cannot see how it will work with regard to recipients of the farm assist benefit, considering that their employment is farm-based and it is unlikely they could take on employment at any stage in the future while farming. The same applies to recipients of the blind pensioner allowance. Some recipients may be employable and many will not. Widows certainly may be employable and many of them should be. I cannot see how carers could ever be considered as the medical assessment for a carer's allowance is so severely dealt with by the Department and by the medical profession that a person would nearly want to have one foot in the grave before his or her carer will be awarded the carer's allowance. To think, therefore, that such a person might be employable on top of that is more laughable than anything.

I would advise the Department that over the past number of years, before money got tight and we must now worry about how it is expended, many people were awarded carer's allowance who perhaps should not have got it. I suggest the concentration should be on a review of the historical applications and payments as there could be quite a significant amount of money to be saved in this regard.

At the moment it seems 99% sure that anyone who applies for the carer's allowance will be refused by the Department and will be sent down the route of making an appeal. I will not mention all of the cases I know about but it is laughable to think that these people could be refused a carer's allowance purely on medical grounds. A doctor provides a medical assessment report with five categories of level of severity of an illness, mild, moderate, high, severe and profound. I do not understand the need for five categories because it is quite obvious that unless the person is categorised under "severe" or "profound", he or she will not get a carer's or an invalidity or disability allowance. The Department needs to clarify this situation. Why are there five categories?

This is not the subject for discussion today, Senator.

It is a question that needs to be addressed in the future. I agree with the standardisation of a means test but I do not know how the Department proposes to go about it. Every social welfare payment is means tested in different ways. For example, if the Department were to use the unemployment assistance means test then the carers and others would lose out. I have great time for carers and for the great work of the Carers Association. It would be a retrograde step if their work were to be hindered in any way. A hindering of the carers will impact on some other budget in the Department of Health, for instance. Any standardisation of means tests should not be applied retrospectively to any existing payments and may be considered for any future payments but not to affect the carer's allowance.

Ms Vaughan may not be able to answer all those questions today but I invite her to answer what is relevant.

Ms Anne Vaughan

I thank the Senator for those questions. Senator Kelly referred to the community welfare service. I accept there may be individual former community welfare officers or indeed, superintendents, who may not be happy or possibly do not know what is happening but I really find that difficult to understand and I certainly would not accept it as an across the board statement. At this stage, the Department has had numerous seminars and consultations with our staff. Originally, this time last year, we held about eight seminars all around the country and led by the Secretary General and myself. We invited in and met all the community welfare service staff. I am not saying that everybody is happy but the Department has made very great efforts to meet and explain the situation to all its staff. The Department has 7,000 staff and we will also have seminars with the staff who have joined us from FÁS. The Senator and I will have to agree to differ on that point.

As regards the single payment, I agree with the Senator that we must find a solution and this will not be easy, as I said. This is the reason for the working group. I note the points made by the Senator and they will be taken into account. I refer to his final point about the application of a regime. The example given in the report is the jobseeker's allowance. I agree there will be monetary losses. The report refers to a way around this but no decision has been made, one way or the other and that is that it would only be applied to new entrants. This is a form of working around this issue. I hear what he says about the various components of the schemes listed. They would all be put under the umbrella of a single payment and they would all have the same conditions, eligibility and means testing. I have dealt with the carer's allowance in reply to Deputy Ó Snodaigh. I note the Senator's points about carer's allowance and I will relay the points about the medical side to our chief medical adviser, Dr. Leech and that is all I can say about that.

I wish to make a brief point.

It must be a brief point.

If I may, I will revert to Ms Vaughan in the near future with regard to the community welfare service on which we will agree to disagree right now.

Ms Anne Vaughan

Yes, of course. I welcome that suggestion.

I thank the delegation for their attendance. Reconfiguring the social welfare system is a good idea because the system has evolved in a haphazard, piece-meal fashion. It is very unwieldy and I accept it needs to be reconfigured. There needs to be a more dynamic linkage between unemployment, training and employability rather than the deadness that currently exists and the separation within the system. This job needs to be done on its own merits. However, what I have concerns about in this report is the idea that in itself, this brings people closer to work. In my view, this is completely overstated. What brings people closer to work is the availability of work. In my area there was traditionally very high levels of structural unemployment but when work came in the past decade, people deserted the dole office in their droves. They went to work. There was talk of closing down the labour exchange in Ballyfermot at the time.

The presentation suggests that somehow the availability of work is the X factor and not reconfiguring the social welfare system unless penal clauses are introduced, which I would very much oppose. The committee needs to discuss how we can make the availability of work a more real prospect in people's lives by outlining a new generation of activation measures. We need to look at the levels of funding appropriate to delivering those into communities where people are left high and dry. Changing the colour of the labour exchange does not hold out great prospects for people. A new generation of activation measures, claiming some of the appropriate resources to fund them, is needed. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, demonstrated investment in the high end of the economy. We need to invest an equivalent proportion to create and deliver activation measures.

The Department is trying to do two jobs. The presentation states that two objectives can be achieved in the single act proposed. If one thing is achieved properly that is enough. The idea that the second can be achieved is groundless and overstated. It needs a different kind of approach, one to which this committee should pay more attention. We need modern new activation measures that excite and interest people in communities. That is what brings people closer to work.

Ms Anne Vaughan

I am not sure there is that much between what we are both saying. Maybe I am not explaining it well. The Department fully accepts that when work is available people should take it up. We saw that in the good times. The Deputy said he does not accept what I said about keeping people closer to the labour force. I agree with him. At the end of the day, there have to be jobs. Given what has happened in the labour market, some people will drift further away and when opportunities arise they will not have the skill sets to take the jobs on offer. Supply and demand in the labour market needs to maintain some sort of connection.

I do not disagree with what the Deputy said about the activation space. It is about far more than cosmetic changes and collocation. The Minister is very strong on the fact that it is a change from a passive to a more active, energetic and dynamic approach and we agree with that. If it is to work, it needs to work at local level from the bottom up, which is what the Deputy said. It will work with engagement at local level with local employers and that is something we are talking to our local office staff about. It is very much a bottom-up approach. I welcome the comments of the Deputy and we can tease the issue out more off-line, focusing on his area.

We have to have specific meetings on labour activation and pathways to work. The two run in parallel and we will make sure we do enough work on both.

I welcome the delegation. I always believe in full and frank discussions, which Ms Vaughan has engaged in every time she comes before the committee. Unusually for me, I have to agree with Deputy Ó Snodaigh that it may be the wrong time to introduce a measure like this. When we had full employment was the time to change the entire social welfare system in order that it could become what we need now, namely more flexible. I want to hear about the flexibility of the system. We now have a different type of workforce in that there is much more casual work. We have to be more sympathetic to people who can only get jobs for two or three hours a day and should not punish them. Is the Department working on flexibility within the system?

Ms Anne Vaughan

The short answer is yes. I dealt with the wrong time when I responded to Deputy Ó Snodaigh. On flexibility and casual workers, we need to modernise our jobseekers supports to be more in line with how the labour market operates, such as people who only work a few hours per day. The bottom line has to be that we make work pay in those situations. That is not easy for certain family sizes and types. A minority of people receive considerable social welfare payments versus what they would earn in paid employment. There is also a debate on replacement ratios. It is something that, on the policy side, we are very conscious of and need to make progress on to make work pay. I take the points.

Some of the speakers who came after me covered my additional points.

I apologise for being late. I have concerns about the disability allowance and one parent family payments. People who are desperately struggling as a result of the current cuts are coming into my clinics and I am concerned that a single payment would result in further cuts to payments.

Ms Anne Vaughan

It is very much still a work in progress. If, as the report sets out, we apply the jobseekers regime there would be reductions. I again emphasise that it is not just about income support, it is also about services and supports. The points the Deputy made were strongly made at the consultation seminars by groups representing those to which she referred.

One has to look at the data and outcomes for people parenting alone over a time of considerable growth in Ireland. The outcomes, risk of poverty and take-up of employment were poor. We have to look at the current situation and the medium term to determine the best supports for people and where we can, over time, make people less dependent on the welfare system with better outcomes. That is what is driving the rationale for the report and payment.

That said, the groups at the consultation seminar were very strong on asking whether the change was just a cut. It is not and it is not being presented as such. It is well based in evidence, our data and evidence from the OECD and other countries on outcomes for people. I understand that people are in receipt of a weekly payment this week and I am talking about future outcomes. One has to make that connection. The groups, especially the one-parent family groups, would say to us that many of those who are parenting alone want to work. There is evidence to support that. Many of them are working. Obviously, we want to facilitate that.

I am concerned about people with disabilities. They have no option other than to receive disability benefit because of their disabilities. My biggest concern relates to them.

Ms Anne Vaughan

As one of the Deputy's colleagues said earlier, those receiving these payments have a range of disabilities. It is not a case of "one size fits all". That is what we talk about. We need to see what work these people are capable of. If they are seen as being totally incapable of any work, it is not fair to anybody.

Ms Anne Vaughan

We would not disagree on that.

I am worried that I unintentionally cut Deputy Ó Snodaigh off. Did he wish to say something else?

No. I will not open up a big debate on universality and means testing, and so on. I will try to tease some of that out in my report.

I thank Ms Vaughan and her team for attending this meeting. We look forward to reading the report that will follow Deputy Ó Snodaigh's study. The committee will focus on this matter over the next couple of months. I thank Ms Vaughan for her help. Her comments will focus our minds. I do not doubt that we will be in touch again as we go along. I remind members that the select committee will meet at 11.45 a.m. this morning.

The joint committee adjourned at 10.30 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 25 January 2012.
Top
Share