Single Working Age Payment Report 13 March 2012

8/2/2019 Single Working Age Payment Report 13 March 2012

1/70

An Comhchoiste um Poist, Coimirce Shisialach

agus Oideachas

Tuarascil aran Togra maidir le hocaocht Aonair do

Dhaoine in Aois Oibre

Mrta 2012

___________________________

Joint Committee on Jobs, Social Protection andEducation

Report onThe Single Working Age Payment Proposal

March 2012

PR Number: A12/0352


2/70


3/70

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

1.Background and Context 21.1 2010 Departmental Report on the Single Working Age Payment

proposal 21.2 2011 Department Consultation Report 41.3 Agreement with the Troika 41.4 Joint Oireachtas Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and

Education meeting 51.5 Preparatory Steps to Implementing the Proposal 6

2. Report Methodology 7

3. Consultation with Stakeholders 8

3.1 General Observations common and fundamental across groups 8

3.2 Lone Parents 143.3 People with Disabilities 173.4 Carers 213.5 Job Seekers 25

3.6 Women 27

4. Conclusions and Recommendations 28

4.1 Key Findings & Recommendations 284.2 Further Recommendations 31

5. Appendices 33

5.1 Membership of the Joint Committee 34

5.2 Terms of Reference 355.3 Verbatim Debate of Committee meeting of 18 January 2012 385.4 Consultation with Stakeholders 49

5.4.1 Full list of those who made oral and written submissions 495.4.2 List of questions for stakeholders and Departmental

Officials 495.4.3 Social Media Advertisement seeking submissions 51

5.5 Parliamentary Questions with Replies 55

6. Rapporteurs Acknowledgements


4/70


5/70

1

1. Introduction

The Irish social welfare system is highly complex and cumbersome. It has evolved in

a piecemeal fashion over many years. The Minister for Social Protection, Joan

Burton T.D., has announced that in March 2012 her Government shall present to theTroika of the IMF, ECB and European Commission proposals that may replace

existing social assistance payments with a Single Working Age Payment (SWAP).

This may be considered the greatest single change to the Irish social welfare system

since the foundation of the State.

Such a change could move us from a contingency based system aiming to meet

associated needs to an individualised activation-based model. The consequences of

the Single Working Age Payment (SWAP) model, outlined by the Department ofSocial Protection in its 2010 Report, for the finances of many households are

significant. Losses would be greatest amongst recipients of Carers Allowance, One

parent Family Payment, Disability Allowance and Farm Assist.

In the sections that follow, this report outlines the

background and context of the proposal to introduce a SWAP including the

original Department Report on the proposal published in 2010,

subsequent consultation report,

Agreement with the Troika,

January 2012 Oireachtas Committee meeting on the matter, and

steps that have already been taken to implement the proposal.

The main body of this report details the research methodology employed by the

Rapporteur and outlines the findings of his consultation with stakeholders. This part

is split under a series of headings:

general observations which were common and fundamental across groups,

concerns of lone parents,

concerns of people with disabilities,

concerns of carers,

concerns of jobseekers, and

concerns of women.


6/70

2

This report also includes three text boxes containing extracts of submissions

received from individuals which depict reaction to the proposed reform at a human

level.

It concludes with the key findings and recommendations of the Committee and someproposals for further work and research.

1. Background and context

1.1 2010 Department Report on the Single Working Age Payment proposal

In November 2010 the Department of Social Protection published its Report on thedesirability and feasibility of introducing a single social assistance payment

for people of working age hereafter referred to as the 2010 Report.

The 2010 Report set out the historical context for reform of the social welfare system

and the, then current, arrangements for people of working age with particular

attention given to the different secondary benefits, earnings disregards and means-

testing rules that apply to the various schemes. It referenced comparable activation

reforms adopted in a number of countries and those recently introduced in Britain

were focused on in greater detail.

The Report outlined a potential framework for the introduction of a SWAP involving

the merging of all working age social assistance schemes into one payment based

on the existing Jobseekers Allowance provisions.

The SWAP model outlined in the 2010 Report involved three tiers, allowing for

conditionality at each level in recognition of the persons individual circumstances.

Each tier would require a greater or lesser requirement to seek employment as a

condition of receipt of the social welfare payment. And in parallel each tier would

involve a greater or lesser degree of supports and services.


7/70

3

The feasibility study contained in the 2010 Report detailed many of the financial

losses that categories of social assistance recipients would suffer if the single

payment was introduced in 2010 employing the Jobseekers Allowance rates of the

time. It concluded there are losses in all categories at almost all income levels. The

losses are greater for Carers Allowance, One-Parent Family Payment, Disability

Allowance and Farm Assist. In certain cases entitlement to a payment would cease

at significantly lower income levels than at present and in some cases entitlement to

a payment would cease or be substantially reduced. (page 109)

The Report concluded that any proposal for people of working age has to make

work pay and this should be achieved through a combination of the social welfare

payment, the availability of the required services and in-work benefits. The Report

considered the question of whether carers should be included in the proposed single

working age payment scheme and concluded that on balance they should not.

Both the 2010 Report and its pre-cursor the National Economic and Social Council

(NESC) Report The Developmental Welfare State were categorical in their


8/70

4

respective findings that the success of a single payment is absolutely dependent on

delivery across the State of accessible and easy to navigate supports and services

at community level.

1.2 2011 Department Consultation Report

In July 2011 the Department hosted a consultation seminar with a range of

stakeholders. According to the report of this seminar participants broadly welcomed

the 2010 Report as a positive contribution to the debate on supports for people of

working age.

However a range of concerns were also expressed including a fear of financial

losses for specific claimant and household types; scepticism about the capacity ofthe system to deliver appropriate services and supports and the need for the new

payment to acknowledge personal circumstances and address them in different

ways.

As one participant put it using the current rules that apply to Jobseekers Allowance

is terrifying because of the impact this would have on the payment. And the

Department was urged to examine, using different tapers, in-work supports and

supports for people on low incomes.

The Department has also been encouraged to consider how the integration of the tax

and benefit system can provide better and quality outcomes for claimants, their

families and importantly their children.

1.3 Agreement with the Troika

The 2010 Report was referenced in the Agreement with the Troika of 28 April 2011

with a commitment that The Department of Social Protection will build on their

recent studies on working age payments, child income supports and disability

allowance with a view to producing, after consultation with stakeholders, a

comprehensive programme of reforms that can better target social support to those

on lower incomes, and ensure that work pays for welfare recipients.

Specifically the Agreement commits the Department to produce this comprehensive

programme of reforms by the end of March 2012.


9/70

5

It should be noted, and it is recognised by the Department, that the Troika

agreement does not necessitate the introduction of a single working age payment

nor does it commit Ireland to merge all or any of our social assistance schemes into

the jobseekers allowance. Rather, the agreement with the Troika involves a general

commitment to undertake social welfare reform and there is a large degree of

flexibility as to the form this should take. The non-prescriptive nature of the

commitment was re-affirmed in the updated Agreement with the Troika of 10

February 2012 (page 9 of that Agreement).

1.4 Joint Oireachtas Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and Education

In December 2011 the Committee agreed to examine the single working age

payment proposal as part of its work plan and appointed Aengus Snodaigh T.D. to

act as Rapporteur.

On the 18 of January 2012 the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Social

Protection, Ms. Anne Vaughan, and her officials appeared before the Joint

Committee to explain the rationale for the payment and to update members on the

status of the proposal.

In her opening statement the Deputy Secretary said while no decision has yet been

made it is envisaged that the single payment may possibly cover the following

seven payment types:

i. Job Seekers Allowance;

ii. Disability Allowance;

iii. One Parent Family Payment;

iv. Farm Assist;

v. Blind Pension;

vi. Widow/ers Non-Contributory Pension; and

vii. Carers Allowance.

This will involve introducing a single means test, standardising the conditionality of

payment and simplifying the relevant income disregards that currently apply.


10/70

6

In response to questions from Committee Members she confirmed that the scale of

the potential efficiency gains had not yet been costed by the Department and Budget

2012 did not allocate funds for the introduction of activation measures relating to the

single working age payment.

Asked if it was the wrong time to introduce the single working age payment, the

Deputy Secretary agreed and said it would be far preferable to try to introduce and

develop this type of payment in a better economic climate.

Committee Members expressed a range of further concerns including:

the potentially negative consequences of introducing a single working age

payment for certain groups including people with disabilities, lone parents andcarers in particular;

the veracity of the idea that in itself the single working age payment could

bring people closer to work when what really brings people closer to work is

the availability of work; and

whether the system would be flexible enough to interact with the reality of

modern work practices much of which is insecure, casual and part-time.

The transcript of the Committee Debate including, the Deputy Secretarys opening

statement, can be found in Appendix 5.3.

1.5 Preparatory Steps to Implementing the Proposal

Over recent budgets, steps have been taken towards standardising the rates and

criteria of different payments in what many see as preparatory steps towards the

future implementation of the SWAP. This is despite the absence of specifics or

agreement on how that payment would operate and to whom it would apply.

In Budget 2012 further steps towards the introduction of a SWAP were announced or

taken in Budget 2012 in terms of cuts to certain social welfare payments bringing

them closer into line with Jobseekers Allowance rules.

Examples of this include:


11/70

7

the, now paused, announcement raising the age for receipt of disability

allowance to 18 and cutting the payment to those aged 18 to 21 years from

188 to 100 and for those aged 22 to 24 years from 188 to 144;

the abolishing of concurrent payments for lone parents and people withdisabilities on Community Employment Schemes; and

the phased reduction of the One Parent Family Payment (OPFP) earnings

disregard, abolition of the OPFP transition payment and lowering of the OPFP

cut-off age to seven.

2. Report Methodology

Due to the proximity of the Troika deadline (end March 2012) the Rapporteur

commenced a high pace and time-bound consultation phase scheduling as many

meetings as possible with targeted groups over a three week period.

The Rapporteur e-mailed key representative groups seeking meetings and other

stakeholders seeking written submissions. In all 12 meetings were held in Leinster

House and one telephone consultation, each of approximately one hours duration.

The meetings took the form of a semi-structured interview. The Rapporteur outlined

the status of the proposals contained in the 2010 Report, the purpose of his work,

the role of the Committee and invited the organisations to outline their response to

the proposal to introduce a single working age payment. Their observations and

concerns were then teased out. The Rapporteurs Parliamentary Assistant had a list

of questions and towards the close of the meeting she put any of those that had not

been adequately addressed during the preceding discussion to the representatives.

The Rapporteurs Parliamentary Assistant took detailed notes during the meetings

and some of the groups provided written submissions in addition.

In terms of employer bodies, Irish Small and Medium Business Enterprise (ISME)

provided a written submission, the chair of the Community Sector Employers Forum

participated in a consultation meeting and the views of Irish Business and

Employers Confederation (IBEC) were noted from the Departments own 2011

consultation report.


12/70

8

An online animation advertising the Rapporteurs work and seeking views from the

public was circulated via social media networks. This attracted30 submissions from

individuals and smaller groups.

The Rapporteur also met officials from the Departments working group. A series of

questions were addressed at this meeting, in particular those that had remained

unanswered in the 2010 Report. The Departmental officials qualified their input

throughout emphasising that no final decisions had been made.

A full list of oral and written submissions can be found in Appendix 5.4

The first draft of this report was circulated to all those organisations that met with the

Rapporteur and further feedback from them was then taken on board.

3. Consultation with stakeholders

3.1 General Observations common and fundamental across groups

There was a near universally positive, though qualified, reception to the principle of a

SWAP. The qualification was that the introduction of SWAP must be preceded by

putting the supports in place and ensuring that the quality jobs are there to move

onto. Theactivation obligations would have to be realised in a way that is broad and

positive including evidence informed paths to personal development or contributing

to the community rather than being limited to formal education or labour market

participation in a narrow sense.

Progression in this holistic sense should be open to all, resourced for all andexpected of all single payment recipients. There is widespread recognition that it is

not in anyones interest to remain indefinitely dependent on social welfare.

That being stated there were a number of other caveats to the support of various

organisations for a move towards SWAP.

Carers Allowance recipients are the exception to an extent. They are a category that

do not fit the concept of a single working age payment as by definition they are

already engaged full-time in the delivery of care work which if not carried out by


13/70

9

them would cost the state far in excess of the payments carers receive. That said

some carers if they become aware that they are approaching the end of their time as

carers may wish to avail of activation supports in preparation for returning to work in

the future. The position of carers vis-a-visa single working age payment will be dealt

with in greater detail later in this section.

It was also widely held that now is the wrong time to proceed with the proposal. We

currently have more people who are job ready than there are jobs. The European

Vacancy Monitor published in January 2012 by the DG Employment, Social Affairs

and Inclusion of the European Commission demonstrates that there is currently just

one vacancy for every 50 jobseekers here.

The following table extracted from the European Vacancy Monitor demonstrates that

while Germany, the Netherlands and Austria are enjoying record low levels of

unemployment Ireland has 300,000 jobseekers actively seeking just 6,000

vacancies. That is 50 jobseekers for every one vacancy, well above the EU23

average of 9:1. There are currently 90,267 recipients of OPFP of which the

Department estimates 46% are engaged in some form of paid employment. If the

remaining 48,744 OPFP recipients were to be added to the ranks of the jobseekers

this would bring the ratio of jobseekers to vacancies to almost 60:1. If the 101,142

disability allowance recipients aged over 18 were to be added to this it would bring

the ratio of jobseekers to vacancies to 75:1. If the 42,000 carers allowance

recipients of working age were added it would bring the ratio to 82:1. If the

approximately 144,000 qualified adult dependents estimated to be of working age

were required to seek work this would bring the ratio of the stock of unemployed to

the stock of job vacancies to a grand total of 106:1 double the current ratio (figures

extracted and estimated from parliamentary question replies in Appendix 5.5.


14/70

10

The Deputy Secretary of the Department of Social Protection, in her presentation to

the Joint Oireachtas Committee on 18 January, stated:

In order to support the activation of recipients of a single payment, the

provision of the necessary supports and services to enable them to take up

employment is essential. This will involve providing individuals with access to

education and training supports and other secondary services such as

childcareand disability supports.

While this view is supported, it is also the experience and expert opinion of the

groups consulted that the required supports and services are not in place for the

proposal to safely proceed and that what supports are in place are operating under

increased pressure with shrinking resources. There was near unanimity that the

income component of the single working age payment absolutely must not go ahead

in advance of sufficient supports, services and jobs coming on stream; and that

nobody be less well off than their current position as a consequence.


15/70

11

The National Employment and Entitlements Services (NEES) which is currently

being established do not have the capacity or the infrastructure to meet the needs of

those currently on the Live Register. Adding even greater numbers to this system,

including people facing a complex range of challenges, will only overburden and

further stretch an already struggling system. This system is in the process of reform.

Sensitive profiling, strong case management and professional development and

learning for service providers are vital. Cognisance of and response to needs

ranging from health, including mental health, educational attainment, literacy,

numeracy, parental responsibilities, accessibility and mobility as well as an

understanding of motivation, coaching and mentoring to name just a few will be

pivotal to the mutual success of the services for both users and providers. This is

resource intensive, requires significant up skilling and training of the existing and

required additional staff. It also requires a cultural shift across the Department which

will take time.

The single payment proposal cannot safely proceed unless the lack of affordable

childcare and after school care is fully addressed. The role this plays as a barrier

preventing parents, be they alone or in a couple, from progressing into education,

training or employment cannot be overstated. Childcare costs are amongst thehighest in Europe with up to 45% of average income spent on childcare. Ireland also

has one of the lowest levels of out-of-school hours childcare provision. A report on

the provision of out-of-school care in Ireland published by the UCD School of Social

Justice in 2011 quotes the Quarterly National Household Survey conducted in 2007

which found that between 2002 and 2007 the proportion of households using non-

parental childcare for pre-school children increased from 42% to 48% while the

comparable proportion in relation to primary school children remained unchanged at

25%. This confirms that even during the boom years there was minimal after school

provision.

It was identified that demand or employer side factors must also be addressed.

There does not appear to be a clear plan of concrete measures in place to tackle

discrimination on the part of employers which also acts as a barrier for people with

disabilities and lone parents. Early anecdotal and other evidence suggests that

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


16/70

12

disabilities and those with sole parenting responsibility. In addition negative employer

attitudes or perceptions of experience and qualifications arising from Community

Employment (CE) have never been addressed. Evidence to date would show that

the Department does not seem to have a concerted plan to tackle this in the context

of its plan for a SWAP. ISME highlighted the need for employers to be involved to

assist in removing some barriers. The Department should engage with ISME and

others around whether a single working age payment is ultimately introduced or not.

There is fear that in the context of the Governments commitment to cut the social

protection budget by 1 billion by the end of 2014, over and above what was cut by

Budget 2012, reform at this time will simply amount to an income cut for groups that

are already disproportionately at risk of poverty.

It was agreed that the complexity of the social welfare system and means testing in

particular needs to be reformed but that the different needs and costs associated

with different contingencies must continue to be recognised. Earnings disregards,

secondary benefits and means or capital allowances go some way towards covering

the costs associated with different contingencies particularly in the absence of

services, e.g. the cost of disability or the cost of parenting alone. These

complexities aid the various social assistance recipients to cross the barriers to

paid employment and more importantly to social inclusion. Their removal reinstates

the very poverty traps that they were designed to overcome.

Unless the new system had a series of add-ons which captured the complexities and

challenges of individual claimants circumstances it was felt by many that SWAP

could have the effect of pushing people further into welfare dependency and poverty

especially if it resulted in the removal of provisions such as earnings disregards that

currently allow recipients of certain social welfare payments to engage in some work

or progression. While those who are entirely dependent on social welfare for their

income may not lose anything financially those who currently supplement this with

income from some type of paid employment will be penalised. The SWAP could

shoehorn these people out of what employment they have because it may no

longer pay or may cost them too much to engage in work.


17/70

13

It was felt by many that the emphasis on full-time employment is not appropriate

considering so many people simply cannot be available for these formal full-time

hours whether by virtue of a disability or parenting responsibilities. It was also seen

as being out of touch with the transformation that the Irish labour market is

undergoing particularly in the context of the recession where increasingly the only

work going is short-term, part-time or insecure. ISME was keen to highlight the need

for an improved system for part-time and casual work within social welfare, and a

better recognition of its importance, reflecting current trends.

One positive of the current contingency based system that could potentially be lost is

that it facilitates the development of particular policy responses for particular groups

with common needs. This could be lost if everyone is just viewed as an individual.There is also an equality dimension to the debate that has been overlooked to an

extent and requires further exploration SWAP risks treating everybody the same in

an unequal world.

ISME alone called for increased sanctions in association with activation.

There was disappointment expressed that in the compilation of the 2010 Report the

Department focused almost exclusively on Britain, which meant that reform based onthe sort of universalism associated with, for example, the Nordic models of welfare

was not considered. There are clear social and economic advantages to

universalism that should be recognised. The countries that base their social

protection systems on universal payments and provision are faring best in this time

of financial crisis. Universal social welfare payments act as an automatic stabiliser

during a financial crash. Universal payments buffer demand in the local economy

thereby protecting jobs which in turn protects state revenues. Universal payments

also enable a workforce to be flexible which is a key requirement of

competitiveness. Positive examples of this were presented at a conference in Dublin

on 25 November 2011 co-hosted by the independent Think-Tank for Action and

Social Change (TASC) and the Embassies of Denmark, Finland and Norway entitled

The Nordic Models: Resilience in Changing Times. (conference papers can be

found athttp://www.tascnet.ie/showPage.php?ID=3248).
http://www.tascnet.ie/showPage.php?ID=3248http://www.tascnet.ie/showPage.php?ID=3248http://www.tascnet.ie/showPage.php?ID=3248http://www.tascnet.ie/showPage.php?ID=3248


18/70

14

Social Justice Ireland (SJI) and others have long proposed the development of a

basic income model involving a universal payment for every person, with add-ons for

those categories or groups with additional needs. The basic income would replace

tax credits and allowances for those that are in employment and social welfare

payments for those that are not. The payment would be set at a level that proofs

against poverty and the associated system of taxation would ensure that there is

always an incentive to take up whatever work is available and accessible. The

administrative costs of such a system would be greatly lower than our current

complex and bureaucratic welfare system. The Economic Research Unit presented

very tentative costings on this to a seminar hosted by TASC in Cork on 30

September 2011 entitled Incomes Instruments of Recovery (seminar papers and

presentations can be found at http://www.tascnet.ie/showPage.php?ID=3240).

Further consideration should be given to this and other models that would move us

progressively towards a suitable model based on universalism over time.

Deputy John Lyons made a submission to this Report on behalf of the Labour Party

Members of the Committee. The Labour Members submission highlighted the need

for the provision of essential services in conjunction with the introduction of the

SWAP. In their view, the submission stated, in order to introduce a SWAP, recipientsof this payment should also be entitled to access vital supports and services which

will assist them in their pathway back to employment. The delivery of essential

services such as training, education, childcare and disability supports should

underpin the delivery of the SWAP. Given the current budgetary constraints and the

inevitable cost to the exchequer that the provision of services will result in, it is the

view of the Labour Party Members that a balance needs to be struck between the

availability of services, the delivery of activation measures and targets and the

continued provision of income support.

3.2 Lone Parents

The implementation of a single working age payment model is most advanced with

regard to recipients of OPFP. The reduction of earnings disregards, abolition of

concurrent and transition payments and lowering of the age of the child for cut-off all

amount to a part way standardisation of OPFP with Job Seekers Allowance (JSA)
http://www.tascnet.ie/showPage.php?ID=3240http://www.tascnet.ie/showPage.php?ID=3240http://www.tascnet.ie/showPage.php?ID=3240


19/70

15

occurred in advance of this Committees work on the introduction of a SWAP. And

these cuts were not accompanied by an activation supports dividend for example: no

increase in the number of CE places; no significant increase in access to training or

further education; JobBridge is still closed to OPFP recipients; and, CE which was

the principle formal activation programme availed of by lone parents has become

unaffordable for most. This is evidenced by the difficulties currently experienced by

community crches trying to recruit for CE posts in childcare.

The SWAP is proposed on the premise that it will activate people into employment

and keep people close to the labour market and its dynamics. However, in terms of

lone parents, if the income element of it proceeds in the absence of the services

required to scale the barriers associated with parenting alone then it will have theopposite effect. That is by removing payment peculiarities that make engaging in

activation and going to work affordable, many lone parents will be left with no option

but to disengage from the work force and depend wholly on social welfare.

It is also felt that the model is based on an assumption that lone parents are not

close to the workforce. Whereas the reality is that many work. In 2004, 59% of

OPFP recipients were engaged in some form of paid employment, the Department

now estimates that figure at 46%. The Department admits, though, that it has no

knowledge whatsoever of the work patterns of OPFP recipients so policy is being

proposed in the dark. See response to Parliamentary Question numbers 164 to 167

of 15 February 2012 in Appendix 5.5 confirming that this data is not collated by the

Department.

The JSA working disregard which is based on days worked/not worked is not a

suitable means of measurement for many lone parents who may work a couple of

hours each morning for example while their child is at school or during term time

only. Lone parent representative groups are not opposed to the notion of a single

payment however it would require lots of childcare and lots of jobs. The recent

measures in Budget 2012 to cut childcare supports does not provide a positive

indication for the supports that would be necessary in the context of SWAP. There

also needs to be a high level of cross Departmental co-ordination in order to provide

the appropriate level of income supports. Work is seen as a very positive thing both

in terms of keeping families out of poverty and tackling the isolation/exclusion that


20/70

16

many lone parents experience. The social benefits of work were emphasised by all

groups advocating for or working with lone parents.

Of the jobs that are available, many are poorly paid, without benefits and lacking

security. Often when low wage workers become unemployed, they have to apply for

welfare in order to make ends meet. Eventually, many people find paid work again.

However, it is primarily low wage, insecure jobs that are available. As a result, low

wage workers commonly work for a period of time, and then are laid off and in need

of social assistance again. Consequently, many low income people alternate

between low wage work and social assistance.

The earnings disregard component of OPFP is seen as a vital activation and socialsupport mechanism because it enables a lone parent to work part-time it is also a

huge motivational factor. Lone parents who engage in part-time work will also be

better placed to take up full-time employment when their child is older or when their

circumstances change, i.e. if affordable childcare is made available. The prevailing

wisdom is that social welfare reform must make work pay but the removal of the

earnings disregard would mean that part-time work may no longer pay.

Cost of engagement in activation and work is higher for people parenting alone.Parenting responsibilities and costs cant be shared. Services including childcare,

after school care, education and training would have to be guaranteed in any reform.

It is worth reiterating the critical shortage of job opportunities again at this point.

Box 1

Extracts from a selection of the submissions received from individuals are reproduced hereunder with

their permission:

I'm a single parent and also a carer, for my mother It would be great to do a

course that would improve chances for employment at a later date. It would also

enrich social life as we would be getting a break from childcare and caring

responsibilities which are very strenuous at the best of times without the addedstrain of being on the breadline. If the government want to help us let us be able to


21/70

17

undertake a funded home learning course which we could do in our own time as

each carer has different hours of free time and help us improve our chances of

employment when our caring responsibilities cease. I know I won't have my mum

forever, and children will grow I would love to get a qualification to improve my

earning potential to try to escape being constantly on the breadline but would haveto give up caring for my mum to do so which doesn't seem fair as she devoted much

of her life to myself and my siblings I had lived away but moved back when my

mum got sick which meant giving up my job for the move back. My intention was to

get work here but as the weeks of jobseeking turned to months ended up with more

responsibility in caring for mum.- A lone parent and carer.

I am a lone parent with a special needs child. I could only go so far throughthe court to try to get maintenance for my child. Blood from a stone. He is self-employed or was. Would LOVE affordable accessible childcare and have up-

skilled TWICE since 2004 when my son was born and cannot wait to go back towork soon....my son is now finally attending 2hrs daily at an autism unit andwhen the day extends to 2.30 p.m. I will be out like a shot getting an IT trainer

job (or something!). We do NOT want a hand-out, we WANT to work! We wantto pay tax, which is more than I can say for some Irish people who shall remainnameless. Thanks to all who stand up against the unjust decisions whichdisproportionately impact children during these difficult times, hope there can bea change soon. a lone parent

I was six months without a fridge because I feared the cost of call-out and repair.

The Department acts as if a car is a luxury rather than a necessity which it is for

many.

We want to stand up for all future lone parents. Its not just somebody whos

pregnant now that will be a lone parent. Anybody can become a lone parent,

anytime.

The Qualified Child Increase of 29.80 does not feed a child. A 16 year old costs as

much as an adult. So the lone parent herself is not getting the 188 to cover her

costs that for example a 26 year old man with no kids gets. a series of comments

from lone parents.

3.3 People with Disabilities

Currently Disability Allowance (DA) recipients are not included in the Live Register

because they are not deemed to be available for work. However in reality there are

many people with disabilities who would love to work if the correct and flexible

supports were put in place to help them access work and if suitable work andactivation programmes in the broader sense existed. This also means that job


22/70

18

creation cannot be left to the open market and formal education and training must

not be the only show in town.

More than ever when we consider people with disabilities the broadest possible

conceptualisation of activation must be employed. As noted in the 2010 Value forMoney Review of Disability Allowance with reference to people with a high level of

needs for whom the market workforce is never going to be a viable option activation

should be about pathways to social inclusion and personal development etc. (see

page 118 of the VFM Review).

Working is often seen by people with disabilities and their parents as being the key

to greater inclusion in the community. It allows the person to make a contribution

and to educate the community about disability and shift the focus of society onto

their abilities. For people with intellectual disabilities, in particular, having work

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

regression.

In the wake of the Budget there is a real sense amongst those representing people

with disabilities that there is very little understanding at a Departmental or

Government level either of the issue of capacity or of the true cost of disability.

From the moment a disability, whether congenital or acquired, occurs in a household

additional costs begin to accrue for the family arising from that disability. Comparing

young people on DA to young people on JSA is simply not comparing like with like.

For people with disabilities the cost of engagement in activation and work is higher

than for those without a disability as is the cost of living and cost of social inclusion.

For example if one young person with an intellectual disability wanted to go to a

concert or do anything that is considered the norm for young people their age twotickets must be purchased. And the opportunities for activation are far fewer.

Research in Britain showed that while 48% of people with disabilities there are in

employment just 10% of people with an intellectual disability are. They commenced

the programme Valuing Employment Now - real jobs for people with learning

disabilities in 2009 which aims to increase the number of people with moderate to

severe intellectual disabilities engaged in work. There are some lessons to be taken

from this approach which should be explored prior to any roll-out of the SWAP. The


23/70

19

first lesson is that its a 15 year plan. It recognises the need for radical reform in the

delivery of health, social and education services from birth onwards right through to

changes on the part of employment agencies and employers. Any genuine

activation plan for people with disabilities cannot be brought in overnight

accompanied by a social welfare income cut. Meaningful reform requires investment

and long-term commitment.

The whole of Government, inter-Departmental approach that is required for the

successful introduction of any SWAP model does not exist at this time. There is a

sense that nobody is looking at the situation of persons with disabilities and their

income needs holistically. For example, major cuts to the under 25s DA payment

rates under the Department of Social Protection were announced during Budgetweek and one month later it was announced that the Rehabilitation Training

Allowance (RTA) under the Health Service Executive (HSE) was to be cut also. Both

of these cuts are now paused. The RTA cut wouldve hit some of the very same

young people hit by the DA cut.

The impact of the cuts to concurrent payments and to funding for CE schemes was

highlighted by a number of groups and individuals during research for this Report as

evidence of risks posed by the SWAP agenda to people with disabilities. CE was

identified as a programme that both supports people with disabilities by delivering

vital services to them and as one of very few activation routes open to people with

disabilities themselves. There is a danger that if activation programmes focus only

on how to get workers back to work in the market economy, then any move to a

SWAP would be nothing more than a social welfare cut for many people with

disabilities.

The DA, its peculiar income and capital disregard rules and the secondary benefits

associated with it, has evolved over time to respond to the specific needs of people

with disabilities. These form a wide package of measures that go some way towards

addressing the costs of disability, as well as poverty and unemployment traps

particular to disability. It is vital that the value of these not be lost in any social

welfare reform.

The introduction of a partial capacity benefit scheme is noted but is not dealt with inthis Committee report as it is a social insurance rather than assistance based


24/70

20

scheme. Consideration should be given to whether the scheme once evaluated

should be extended as an option for people on DA.

Box 2

Extracts from a selection of the submissions received from individuals are

reproduced hereunder with their permission:

I have Spina Bifida. My education was interrupted regularly by trips to the hospital

for check-ups, physiotherapy and five operations throughout my school years. As

you can imagine this had a big impact on my education where I had to be kept back

a few years due to long stays in hospital and missing a large part of the school year.

This lead to me leaving school at 17 just after my Junior Cert to take up various

courses in computers and later on I did sit my Leaving Cert. I am on Disability

Allowance and any sort of physical work is out of the question. I have family

members and friends with college education and they cannot find work, my own

brother who is able bodied has had to leave us to find work in Australia not because

he wants to. So now the Government wants me to compete with college educated,

physically fit out of work people this is not a level playing field and its not fair on

people with disabilities to have to compete in this way. It's like asking a hurler to go

out and play a match with an arm and leg tied behind his back with a patch over one

eye. a person with a disability

I am in receipt of disability allowance since 1992.

Even though my disability would most likely rule me out I would jump at the chance

of taking up even part-time employment. Any extra income would be most welcomebecause quite frankly I am really struggling financially as a result of the on-going cuts

and price rises.

I have looked around for suitable jobs but there are none to be had, of any

description! To date I have managed to keep up with mortgage payments but any

further cuts to my present income would land me in very serious difficulties. a

person with a disability.


25/70

21

I am a 40 year old on disability payment. I have heart and blood disease. Had my

first heart attack at 22.At my age with little education and my health problems, no

employer will look at me and that is a fact. I have to tell them of my condition in case

I need medical attention. My wife is in receipt of Invalidity Pension. As it is even

with social welfare assistance with Electricity Supply Board (ESB) and phone, we are

struggling to survive. We cannot light a fire in the house until after five each day if we

want to make it last the week. We cannot afford to socialise. We dont drink, smoke,

or gamble. We have never been on holidays because we put everything we had into

building our home.

How are we to survive? House tax, water charges and septic tank charges.A

rise in car tax and a rise in food and fuel pricesThe graveyards are filling up with

desperate people who have taken their own lives. a person with a disability.

3.4 Carers

As stated in the section above carers are an exceptional category and should be

treated as such. The condition for receipt of CA i.e. that you must be engaged in the

provision of full-time care is completely at odds with the activation/genuinely seeking

and available for full-time work condition of JSA. The Gregg Report on Britain,

quoted in the 2010 Report, was emphatic that carers should be excluded from

SWAP (see pages 76 and 77 of the 2010 Report).

A section of the 2010 Report was devoted to exploring the pros and cons of including

carers in the SWAP and it concluded that on balance carers should be excluded

from the scope of a SWAP. Despite this conclusion it was made clear that CA is

back on the table and is being actively considered for merger along with the rest of

the working age social assistance schemes (see opening statement of Deputy

Secretary of the Department of Social Protection, Ms. Ann Vaughan to the

Committee Appendix 5.3).

The most persuasive argument identified by the 2010 Report in favour of including

carers in the SWAP was the premise that being a carer is a temporary phase and

that for this reason it would be prudent to keep carers close to the workforce. But if

your child is born with a disability or your parent suffers a severe stroke at age 55can the caring responsibility that results really be called a temporary phase?


26/70

22

The entire health policy trajectory in this State, however intended or unintended, is

moving towards care in the home and community. Hospital beds and nursing home

beds are closing. The finances of the Exchequer and well-being of the Nation

depend increasingly on family members being available and being supported to care.

The potential financial consequences of including CA in the SWAP for carers and

those they care for are stark. The maximum rate of CA is currently just 16 more

than that of JSA but this is a very important recognition of the unpaid work of caring.

There is no clarity as to how half rate payments could coincide with a SWAP model.

Two types of half rate payment currently exist associated with the CA. The first is

where the carer is caring for two people, and the second is where the half rate

carers payment is made on top of another principal social welfare payment for

example a pension, OPFP or DA.

The higher earnings disregard and secondary benefits (including Family Income

Supplement, Respite Care Grant, Household Benefits Package and Travel) are also

vital for many carers and go some way towards covering the many extra costs to

which caring and a disability within the household give rise.

That said, carers should be given the opportunity to voluntarily opt-in to the activation

services including education and training and childcare and respite care

opportunities that may become available in association with the SWAP. Caring can

be a very isolating experience and for some it is a stage that will come to an end at

which point they will likely seek to return to the workforce but may require training or

education etc. in order to do so.

Box 3

Extracts from a selection of the submissions received from individuals are

reproduced hereunder with their permission:

Bh go maith is n raibh go holc go dt go bhfuair xxxx breoite i Meitheamh 2006.

Generalized Anxiety Disorder a dradar. Iarlais a bh ann. D'athraigh an saol go

hiomln. N raibh s ar a chumas dul ag obair a thuilleadh (laethanta n fhgfadh san chathaoir is n oscldh s a bhal) Chaith s sealanna fada san oispidal. Nor


27/70

23

thinig oiread na frde d'fheabhas air cuma cn drga a chaitheadar chuige.

Bhomar ag brath ar disability benefit. An uair deireanach a dheineas na sums bh

thart ar 17,000 sa bhliain againn An bunlne n nl aon tsl go bhfadfainnse dul

amach ag obair, agus teacht abhaile chun pl leis an mbreoiteacht sin agus le beirt

leana ga a raibh an saol iompaithe bunoscionn orthu chomh maith. T 17,000

seal go maith mar at s (cuma cad a deireann daoine), m chuirtear restrictions

agus bacanna i bhfeidhm air, danfar an-dhochar do dhaoine leochaileacha agus t

gach seans nach n-ireodh leo tabhairt faoi shaol "normlta" ars. Nlimid ag caint ar

an nduine leis an mbreoiteacht n leis an mchumas amhin, ach na daoine ar fad

timpeall orthu. .. Is lir dom go gceapann daoine go bhfuil ana -shaol ag lucht an

welfare agus an disability, mar nach bfhuil na figiir ar eolas acu. B'fhidir go

gceapann daoine nach bhfuil sa 100 euro cin ar thithe ach 2 euro sa tseachtain

(nach fidir a dhol mar sin), ach do dhaoine nach bhfuil ach thart ar 380 sa

tseachtain acu (m chuireann t lintas leana do bheirt san ireamh) chun a mbill

ar fad a oc, is mr an chuid dibh an 2 euro sin a bheith mbaint dobh. - A Carer

I have 2 children with Autism, 1 child recovering from Brain Surgery. I myself have

health problems, which most parent carers eventually end up with if we were honest.

I did work more hours and was on Family Income Supplement (FIS), but when my

eldest son started to regress, I had to make the hard decision of either giving up my

job or seeing if my employer would reduce my hours, with a review in 6 months to

see if this was workable for my employer. I made this hard decision to enable me

to be able to take care of my son's extra needs and unfortunately growing mental

needs. .. if I have to go back to work full time my options are more than limited, as

my son cannot be trusted without the constant supervision of an adult. What stops

me from sending my son to a residential unit or medicating him to a zombie, is the

fact I still can help him and have the ability to fight his corner and of course love him.

This is the same with most families, its last resort. The Government can be grateful

that there are these families out there as otherwise the Government s budget would

be substantially worse than at present, if these carers took the Government s stand

and decided that the people we care for are not worth it and let someone else sort it

out. That would be easier for many families, who would immediately have a quality of

life back and be able to have choice and freedom. - A Carer


28/70

24

We are exhausted as parents with no services and the huge costs involved raising

kids with special needs.

Will the Government pay to institutionalise my son when I have a nervous

breakdown because

A... Will lose house

B... can't work no child minder would cope with my situation

C... ill health is already getting me down from stress

D... Family life is suffering

E... Siblings have enough to endure with having siblings with autism etc , why should

they lose their home because the Government chose to target any vulnerable people

in the country - A Carer

Those who receive the CA are already in effect in employment in the care of their

loved ones. They do not have the choice to abandon their charges and go out to

seek employment. They are already in employment 24 hours a day seven days a

week. Many parents on our support group do not have the choice to work. Their

children require on-going care and intervention that requires consistency. Children

with Autism do not adjust well to change. The families and individuals who are

reliant on Carers Allowance (CA) and Disability Allowance (DA) are not living the

high life they are just getting by. They have been hit by many other cumulative cuts.

They have been hit by rises in transportation, food, heating, household bills. They

also have been badly hit by the moratorium on staffing levels in the HSE where

access to services like occupational therapy, physiotherapy, psychology, speech and

language services to name a few are very thin on the ground and in some cases

there is no access What is even more frightening is a small amount of pa rents Ihave spoken to are being driven to the brink needing treatment for depression and

some even contemplated suicide. This is fact .It is what is happening on the

ground The Carers Allowance and Disability Allowance cannot and should not be

equated with Jobseekers Allowance. - Galway Autism Partnership


29/70

25

3.5 Job Seekers

It should be noted that the complexity of social welfare queries presenting to

helplines and clinics is increasing since the commencement of the recession and this

is a real challenge. Clarity and simplification should be one objective of socialwelfare reform. There is a widely held perception amongst those with experience of

the social welfare system that people need a pre-existing knowledge of what they

might be entitled to before they even approach their social welfare office if they are

to have any success in accessing support.

There are currently approximately 300,000 recipients of JSA and there simply are

not enough jobs available for them. As stated the European Commission Job

Monitor statistics published in February 2012 demonstrate that there is currently one

vacancy for every 50 jobseekers. Nor are their sufficient activation opportunities for

the current numbers on the live register. The new NEE) will have to be labour and

resource intensive if its to be effective and there is a real danger that it would be

swamped if all categories of working age social welfare recipient were to be made

subject to an activation condition.

Adding lone parents, people with disabilities, carers and qualified adults to thosealready classed as unemployed would bring the number of people requiring

activation to approximately 635,000. Thats more than 100 people for every single

job vacancy.

The importance of frontline staff in NEES having a good understanding of and links

to the local labour market must be stressed. The capacity to match people up with

the right opportunity for them must be developed amongst staff. This in turn requires

that frontline staff have the right skill-set to support people to make the best choices,in particular the ability to understand peoples existing skills, how transferrable they

are and how best any gaps can be addressed.

Also with regard to programmes like CE better links with the wider labour market are

required which NEES and other Departmental staff must develop so that real

progression is feasible in particular for jobs that are not sector specific and where

skills should be transferrable e.g. receptionist, office work or caretaker.


30/70

26

For the SWAP or indeed the activation agenda more generally to work there needs

to be a level of cross-departmental integration that simply does not exist at this time.

An example offered by one group consulted was the Joint Government Industry

ICT Action Plan which was launched on 30 January by the Department of Education

involving graduate skills conversion programmes to plug the ICT gaps of enterprise

and in which there was no mention at all of the Department of Social Protection.

Frontline staff in social welfare offices need to be part of these strategies from the

start. One of the current problems in the system is that frontline social welfare staff

often are not directing jobseekers to the appropriate courses or programmes when

those come on stream.

Matching rights with responsibilities is a key theme throughout the social welfarereform debate. But there is a sense that most of the onus is being placed on the

unemployed person themselves where there should be an equivalent onus on the

State to deliver the required supports and services and indeed to create jobs growth.

It would also require the State to give greater recognition to recent trends in the

labour market in particular with a substantial growth in part-time, temporary, flexible

temporary or contact work.

The SWAP model presented in the 2010 Report would make part-time work more

difficult. It risks shoehorning people into an either/or scenario whereas what is really

needed is to make the system more flexible. A first class flexible system that

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

aside from the proposal for a SWAP a number of reforms should be made to the

existing JSA scheme. The economy is a long way off meaningful growth in the

number of full-time jobs and for many part-time work would be a more effective

activation measure than placement in a formal activation programme. Reforms are

needed to accommodate part-time work and the earnings disregard should be

reformed to this end. This is the key point, the SWAP will not work if it is based on

the current JSA a whole new payment has to be designed. Currently JSA is based

on a particular idea of the labour market and the claimant, the SWAP would have to

include people who have lost their job / been forced to reduce hours of employment/

are in part time work / have not been in work / will not be able to work.


31/70

27

3.6 Women

The 2010 Report states that the SWAP and accompanying activation supports will

enable women to gain more self-sufficiency, security of income and a higher

standard of living. These sentiments are welcome however in the context of socialwelfare spending cuts and particularly the measures contained in Budget 2012

concern was expressed that the introduction of a SWAP will make income support

for tens of thousands more women conditional on their being able to prove their

availability for full-time work while continuing to treat them as dependent adults.

There are currently a total of 193,000 qualified adult dependents in the system. The

numbers that are themselves of working age are not known.

Moving to a single payment provides an opportunity to individualise payments and

remove limitation of entitlement. Limitation has served to discriminate against

women. There are a range of costs involved in actively seeking and being available

for work, education or training. For example, when a person applies for JA the

applicant is asked by the social welfare officer if they have their childcare sorted. It

was suggested that if everyone is to be treated as an economic unit who must

engage in activation then they should all receive a full personal payment.

The SWAP model currently being considered by the Departmental working group

includes Qualified Adult Dependents. With the qualification mentioned above, the

Departmental officials explained for illustrative purposes that in the case of a couple

on the maximum rate under this possible model the personal rate would be added to

the qualified adult rate and each individual would receive 50% of the total. Both

recipients would be subject to an activation requirement but a provision may be

included allowing a parent to remain in the home until their youngest child reachesseven years of age.

The overwhelming majority of qualified adults are believed to be women and beyond

that very little is known about them. As one representative organisation put it it is

neither credible nor cost effective to develop a new payments system and introduce

activation for women without any information on the women with regard to their age,

education and training background, employment profiles and care responsibilities.

Research into this is badly and urgently needed.


32/70

28

The Rapporteur put Parliamentary Questions to the Minister seeking to ascertain the

number of female qualified adults, the number of whom were of working age whether

any research had been undertaken that documents a breakdown of who the qualified

adults in relation to whom a payment is being made are in terms of age profile,

educational qualifications and work history. The response received confirmed that

the required knowledge does not exist within the Department. (see Parliamentary

Questions numbers 161 to 163 of 15 February in Appendix 5.5).

Many mothers, including lone parents choose, or have no choice but to, work part-

time due to the high cost of child care, the need to be home when children return

from school or because working part-time is the only viable way of combining their

work and parenting responsibilities. Any extension or reform of the genuinelyseeking work criterion must accommodate this reality.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1 Key findings and recommendations

4.1.1 The Committee calls on the Minister not to proceed with the proposal

for the SWAP at this time.

The Committee approves of the principle of a SWAP but recommends that

it should not be introduced at this time because the necessary supports,

activation opportunities and quality jobs to move onto are not in place. In

the absence of these the Committee believes that the implementation of the

proposal would simply serve to cut the incomes of vulnerable groups who

are already recognised to be at higher risk of poverty.

In theory, a single payment has many benefits where the necessary

supports and services are in place. We welcome the forthcoming

report as a starting point whereby the Government will clearly identify

the supports needed in the event that a single payment arises.


33/70

29

A real and measureable commitment on both service provision and job

creation should be given to the Troika (IMF, ECB and European

Commission) in tandem with any proposals on the income element of social

welfare reform.

4.1.2 The Committee urges the Minister to maintain the value of the existing

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

reform.

Social welfare reform must proceed in such a way that household incomes

are not diminished as an outcome of the reform or during the process.

The Committee agrees that the complexity of the social welfare system andmeans testing in particular needs to be reformed but that the different

needs and costs associated with different contingencies must continue to

be recognised in some way. Earnings disregards, secondary benefits and

means or capital allowances go some way towards covering the costs

associated with different contingencies particularly in the absence of

services, e.g. the cost of disability or the cost of parenting alone. These

complexities aid the various social assistance recipients to cross thebarriers to paid employment and more importantly to social inclusion.

4.1.3 The Committee advises the Minister that any reform must

accommodate the up-take of part-time, short-term or casual work.

Any SWAP must be a new payment with new structures and not just an

amalgamation of payments. Currently JSA is based on a particular idea of

the labour market and the claimant, whereas the SWAP proposes to

include people who have lost their job / been forced to reduce hours of

employment / are in part-time work / have not been in work / will not be able

to work.

In addition the Committee recognises that full-time secure employment is

no longer the norm for the majority of those of working age in modern

Ireland. Many contracts are based on hours rather than full days and

counting two hours in a day as if a person worked a full day is no longer


34/70

30

appropriate. Reforming JSA rules to consider hours worked rather than

days would be a positive move.

The Committee considers that the 2006 Government Discussion Paper:

Proposals for Supporting Lone Parents made an important point that is ofrelevance to all those of working age. It acknowledged that a full-time

working week no longer reflects the atypical working patterns of many in

Ireland today, particularly women. And this is increasingly the case.

Accordingly it recommended that in order to meet the genuinely seeking

work condition seeking work of 19 hours and over should be sufficient.

The genuinely seeking work rule must be flexible enough to allow all

parents to take up whatever work is available and can be balanced withtheir parenting duties.

4.1.4 The Committee recommends that carers should not be included in any

SWAP.

In line with the Gregg Report in Britain and in line with the conclusion of the

2010 Departmental Report on the desirability and feasibility of introducing a

SWAP, the Committee recommends that carers should not be included in

any SWAP. Carers should however be entitled to avail of a voluntary opt-in

to appropriate activation supports and services on an individual basis.

Should a SWAP be introduced, the Committee also agrees with the finding

of the Gregg review of the welfare system in Britain cited in the

Departments 2010 Report (see page 77) which advocated for a No

conditionality Group including lone parents and partners with young

children, carers and most disabled people, in relation to whom there would

be no requirement for any work related activity, but where support would be

available for people who chose to seek it.

The Committee believes that activation or progression in a holistic sense

should be open to all and resourced for all working age social assistance

recipients.


35/70

31

4.1.5 The Committee advises the Minister that any programme of social welfare

reform must be driven by an explicit anti-poverty and gender equality objective.

In this context the measurement of poverty should not be restricted to the

income and deprivation measures currently employed but rather shouldbuild on the consensual budget standards method developed by the

Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice. This seeks to establish a socially

agreed upon minimum standard of living, which society agrees it is

unacceptable to live below. This standard is arrived at through consensus,

as focus groups of real people define, in detail, the minimum requirements

for households to live at an acceptable level and participate in society.(A

minimum income standard for Ireland, 2012, published by the Policy

Institute at Trinity College Dublin).

4.2 Further recommendations:

The Committee believes that adding greater numbers to the National Employment

and Entitlements Service including people facing a complex range of challenges

would overburden and further stretch a system that does not have the capacity or the

infrastructure to meet the needs of those currently on the Live Register. The

Committee acknowledges that the system is in the process of reform and believes

that its success depends on a range of components. Sensitive profiling, strong case

management and professional development and learning for service providers are

vital. Cognisance of and response to needs ranging from health, including mental

health, educational attainment, literacy, numeracy, parental responsibilities,

accessibility and mobility as well as an understanding of motivation, coaching andmentoring to name just a few will be pivotal to the mutual success of the services for

both users and providers. The Committee recommends that this is resource

intensive, requires significant up skilling and training of the existing and required

additional staff. It also requires a cultural shift across the Department which will take

time.

The Committee welcomes Pathways to Work as an initiative which aims to

introduce enhanced activation and training services as its stated objective. The


36/70

32

Committee also acknowledges that the success of the initiative is heavily

dependent on the resourcing of NEES as has been articulated above.

Simplification and administrative savings should be sought via the introduction of a

single collection of documentation for means testing (updated as required). Such a

change would service all schemes to replace the current situation where applicants

are forced to present their documentation multiple times giving rise to a wholly

avoidable waste of the Departments resources and the applicants time. Perhaps

the Business Operation Model that has commenced roll-out could be used to

implement this recommendation.

There is a need for further research to precede reform including quantitative and

qualitative data on the profiles of those social assistances recipients being

considered for any SWAP including their gender and age profiles, caring or parenting

responsibilities and educational and work histories and current work patterns.

Further research should be conducted by the Committee and the Department and

fuller consideration should be given to the basic income model and others that wouldmove us progressively towards a welfare State based on universalism over time.

The Committee is concerned that the development of SWAP proposals and

proposals for the reform of family and child income supports is proceeding in a dis-

jointed way. The Departments 2010 Report recognised in-work benefits as a key

solution in terms of making work pay. Support for housing and health costs which

currently serve as poverty traps should be redesigned to facilitate the transition to

employment. Following the same logic the recent Forfs report IrelandsCompetitiveness Challenge 2011 argued that financial supports for housing should

depend on income rather than employment or unemployment status. The

Committee agrees that proposals in relation to both rent supplement and medical

cards should be brought forward building on that logic.

The Committee also considers that a reformed FIS, as an in-work benefit, could be

part of the solution in the shorter term. Access to FIS should be speeded up and

more regular adjustments of the payment facilitated. There also needs to be greater


37/70

33

clarity around the consequences for FIS in any proposal for a SWAP from the

Department.

Cross Departmental co-ordination is critical to the implementation of any reform,

each Department would need clear targets and implementation timeframes.

The Committee recommends that the current rules preventing access to activation

programmes by recipients of One Parent Family Payment, Disability Allowance,

Carers Allowance and Qualified Adult Dependant e.g. rules that a period of time

must be spent on Job Seekers Allowance before you can be eligible to participate

should be removed.


38/70

34

5. Appendices

5.1 Membership of the Joint Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and

Education

Chairman: Damien English (FG)

Deputies: Ray Butler (FG)ine Collins (FG)

Joan Collins (PBPA)

Michael Conaghan (LAB)

Barry Cowen (FF)

Sen Crowe (SF)

Damien English (FG)

Tom Fleming (Ind)

Brendan Griffin (FG)

John Halligan (Ind)

Sen Kyne (FG)

Anthony Lawlor (FG)

John Lyons (LAB)

Nicky McFadden (FG)

Mary Mitchell OConnor (FG)

Willie ODea (FF)

Aodhn Rordin (LAB) (Vice-Chair)

Aengus Snodaigh (SF)

Brendan Ryan (LAB)

Brendan Smith (FF)

Peadar Tibn (SF)

Senators Deirdre Clune (FG)John Kelly (LAB)

Michael Mullins (FG)

Marie Louise ODonnell (Ind)

Averil Power (FF)

Feargal Quinn (Ind)


39/70

35

5.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE

a. Functions of the Committee derived from Standing Orders [DSO

82A; SSO 70A]

(1) The Select Committee shall consider and report to the Dil on(a) such aspects of the expenditure, administration and policy of the

relevant Government Department or Departments and associatedpublic bodies as the Committee may select, and

(b) European Union matters within the remit of the relevant Departmentor Departments.

(2) The Select Committee may be joined with a Select Committee appointedby Seanad ireann to form a Joint Committee for the purposes of thefunctions set out below, other than at paragraph (3), and to reportthereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas.

(3) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the SelectCommittee shall consider, in respect of the relevant Department orDepartments, such

(a) Bills,

(b) proposals contained in any motion, including any motion within themeaning of Standing Order 164,

(c) Estimates for Public Services, and

(d) other matters

as shall be referred to the Select Committee by the Dil, and

(e) Annual Output Statements, and(f) such Value for Money and Policy Reviews as the Select Committee

may select.

(4) The Joint Committee may consider the following matters in respect of therelevant Department or Departments and associated public bodies, andreport thereon to both Houses of the Oireachtas:

(a) matters of policy for which the Minister is officially responsible,

(b) public affairs administered by the Department,

(c) policy issues arising from Value for Money and Policy Reviews

conducted or commissioned by the Department,(d) Government policy in respect of bodies under the aegis of the

Department,

(e) policy issues concerning bodies which are partly or wholly funded bythe State or which are established or appointed by a member of theGovernment or the Oireachtas,

(f) the general scheme or draft heads of any Bill published by theMinister,

(g) statutory instruments, including those laid or laid in draft beforeeither House or both Houses and those made under the European

Communities Acts 1972 to 2009,


40/70

36

(h) strategy statements laid before either or both Houses of theOireachtas pursuant to the Public Service Management Act 1997,

(i) annual reports or annual reports and accounts, required by law, andlaid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas, of theDepartment or bodies referred to in paragraph (4)(d) and (e) and the

overall operational results, statements of strategy and corporateplans of such bodies, and

(j) such other matters as may be referred to it by the Dil and/or Seanadfrom time to time.

(5) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (1), the Joint Committeeshall consider, in respect of the relevant Department or Departments

(a) EU draft legislative acts standing referred to the Select Committeeunder Standing Order 105, including the compliance of such acts withthe principle of subsidiarity,

(b) other proposals for EU legislation and related policy issues, including

programmes and guidelines prepared by the European Commission asa basis of possible legislative action,

(c) non-legislative documents published by any EU institution in relationto EU policy matters, and

(d) matters listed for consideration on the agenda for meetings of therelevant EU Council of Ministers and the outcome of such meetings.

(6) A sub-Committee stands established in respect of each Departmentwithin the remit of the Select Committee to consider the matters outlinedin paragraph (3), and the following arrangements apply to such sub-Committees:

(a) the matters outlined in paragraph (3) which require referral to theSelect Committee by the Dil may be referred directly to such sub-Committees, and

(b) each such sub-Committee has the powers defined in Standing Order 83(1)and (2) and may report directly to the Dil, including by way of Messageunder Standing Order 87.

(7) The Chairman of the Joint Committee, who shall be a member of Dilireann, shall also be the Chairman of the Select Committee and of anysub-Committee or Committees standing established in respect of theSelect Committee.

(8) The following may attend meetings of the Select or Joint Committee, forthe purposes of the functions set out in paragraph (5) and may take partin proceedings without having a right to vote or to move motions andamendments:

(a) Members of the European Parliament elected from constituencies inIreland, including Northern Ireland,

(b) Members of the Irish delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of theCouncil of Europe, and

(c) at the invitation of the Committee, other Members of the EuropeanParliament.


41/70

37

b. Scope and Context of Activities of Committees (as derived from

Standing Orders [DSO 82; SSO 70]

(1) The Joint Committee may only consider such matters, engage in suchactivities, exercise such powers and discharge such functions as arespecifically authorised under its orders of reference and under StandingOrders.

(2) Such matters, activities, powers and functions shall be relevant to, andshall arise only in the context of, the preparation of a report to the Diland/or Seanad.

(3) It shall be an instruction to all Select Committees to which Bills arereferred that they shall ensure that not more than two Select Committees

shall meet to consider a Bill on any given day, unless the Dil, after duenotice given by the Chairman of the Select Committee, waives thisinstruction on motion made by the Taoiseach pursuant to Dil StandingOrder 26. The Chairmen of Select Committees shall have responsibility forcompliance with this instruction.

(4) The Joint Committee shall not consider any matter which is beingconsidered, or of which notice has been given of a proposal to consider,by the Committee of Public Accounts pursuant to Dil Standing Order 163and/or the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993.

(5) The Joint Committee shall refrain from inquiring into in public session orpublishing confidential information regarding any matter if so requested,for stated reasons given in writing, by

(a) a member of the Government or a Minister of State, or

(b) the principal office-holder of a body under the aegis of aDepartment or which is partly or wholly funded by the State orestablished or appointed by a member of the Government or bythe Oireachtas:

Provided that the Chairman may appeal any such request made to the

Ceann Comhairle / Cathaoirleach whose decision shall be final.


42/70

38

5.3 Verbatim Transcript of Committee meeting of 18 January 2012

AN COMHCHOISTE UM POIST, COIMIRCE SHISIALACH AGUS OIDEACHAS

JOINT COMMITTEE ON JOBS, SOCIAL PROTECTION AND EDUCATION

D Cadaoin, 18 Eanir 2012

Wednesday, 18 January 2012

The Joint Committee met at 09.30 a.m.

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Deputy Ray Butler, Senator John Kelly,Deputy Joan Collins, Senator Michael Mullins,Deputy Michael Conaghan, Senator Feargal Quinn.Deputy Barry Cowen,Deputy Brendan Griffin,Deputy Sen Kyne,Deputy Anthony Lawlor,Deputy Nicky McFadden,Deputy Mary Mitchell OConnor,Deputy Aengus Snodaigh,Deputy Peadar Tibn,

DEPUTY DAMIEN ENGLISH IN THE CHAIR.


43/70

39

Single Working Age Payment: Discussion with Department of Social Protection

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

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that membersshould not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or anofficial either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect oftheir evidence to this committee. If a witness is directed by the committee to cease givingevidence in relation to a particular matter and the witness continues to so do, the witness isentitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of his or her evidence. Witnesses aredirected that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be givenand 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 thesingle payment as it is less of a mouthful. I will focus on the rationale for the payment, the workcompleted to date and the next steps. I emphasise that while the Department has done a good dealof work on the single payment, key elements remain to be completed and these will be furtherdeveloped over the coming months prior to decisions being taken by Government on the matter.

Irelands social welfare system has evolved in a somewhat ad hoc way over many decades inresponse to different influences and issues at different times. As a result, specific payments havebeen 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 anapproach has allowed the social welfare system to respond in a flexible manner to the needs ofspecific groups. However, it has also created a complex system which treats individuals in receiptof social welfare supports differently depending on the type of payments they receive. Thedifferences 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 welfarepopulation of people of working age indicate persistent welfare dependency and poor outcomesfor some people in spite of an earlier sustained period of economic growth. In considering theextent 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 singlepayment could improve the outcomes for people of working age.

These considerations were informed by work carried out by the National Economic andSocial Council, NESC, and reflected in its report, The Developmental Welfare State, published in2005. That highlighted the need for greater interaction between services, income support andactivation 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 peopleof working age can operate to confirm a persons status as someone outside of the workforcerather t

Single Working Age Payment Report 13 March 2012

Documents

Transcript of Single Working Age Payment Report 13 March 2012