I move:
"That Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to proceed to establish on a statutory basis the Agency to Combat Poverty and to provide the necessary Exchequer funds."
Poverty, as such is not a subject that has been discussed too frequently in this House. Its existence in our midst is a reflection on all of us public representatives. Unfortunately, it is not something that has occupied too much of our time as legislators. It is in an effort to ensure that legislation, which I personally hoped to have had before this House in the current session, is put through to deal with poverty that this motion this evening is tabled in the names of Members of the Labour Party.
The argument frequently is advanced that, with the general growth and development of western economies, the rising tide will lift all boats. That is an argument we should reject out of hand. The continued prevalence and persistence of poverty in Irish society illustrates that this is not the case so far as this country is concerned. We need a commitment to tackle not just the symptoms of poverty but its underlying and fundamental causes. We need real commitment to redistribution of resources in this society of ours. The policy documents of the Labour Party have repeatedly emphasised our commitment to the elimination of poverty from our society. Indeed, I can say that it was as a result of Labour Party initiative — in particular as a result of the initiative of the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Frank Cluskey — that the previous Combat Poverty Committees were established. They did very good work in the period of their existence from 1975 until, unfortunately, they were wound up by the Government of the day in 1980.
These previous programmes showed us beyond all doubt that it could be confirmed from experience that deprived people have resources and skills they cannot use effectively because of the powerless situation in society in which they often find themselves. The final report of the Combat Poverty Committee concluded that that powerlessness is rooted in the way income, wealth, education and educational opportunities are distributed among the members of our society. While some major poverty issues and areas of concern were not dealt with in the lifetime of the Combat Poverty Committee, were not covered by the actual work done, it emerged beyond all doubt from their programme that poor people exist to a very substantial degree in our society, that poor people also are accorded no status and have very few rights. It emerged also that poor people experience difficulties in endeavouring to be part of, or to have any say in the events which shape their lives and which affect the way in which they live, that they are helpless and frustrated in the face of official structures. In consequence it emerged also that they had a poor self-image and depend to a very high degree on others to achieve the rights which should be theirs automatically, those others being perhaps social workers, clergy and, I suppose, in the main, politicians.
It was established that the poor face obstacles created by the complexities of services and structures in education, housing, in the legal system, in planning and so on. That committee established also that there was a great need for a greater public awareness of the existence of poverty in this country and that, until that public awareness existed, the prospect of eliminating poverty from our society was poor indeed. They concluded that the only effective means of eliminating poverty likely to emerge was when there was widespread agreement among the population that poverty cannot be allowed to obtain and a commitment given to that objective.
In their final report, adverting to that fact, they draw our attention to an EEC Commission report which, with regard to Ireland, showed that 56 per cent of the people questioned in this country were of the opinion and believed that there were not poor people at all and, if there were, they certainly did not know any. When questioned further as to whether there should be poor people, or why they thought they were poor, 30 per cent believed it was due to laziness and a further 25 per cent thought perhaps it was personal misfortune. Nineteen per cent in all only thought it had anything to do with the injustices inherent in our society. Yet we are aware, from what information we have, that there exists in this country a situation in which one in four of our people is poor. From the limited information available to us — and there is a dearth of information on the subject — I would refer the House particularly to Séamus Ó Cinnéide's paper to the famous Kilkenny Conference of 1971. From the analysis he carried out he concluded that one in four of the people of this State experienced poverty in their daily lives and more than one million people — we know that from the actual figure we have available to us when one includes claimants for social welfare and those dependent on those claimants — depend each week for their livelihood on social welfare benefit. They are in the main the old, the sick, the unemployed and, of course, single parents. We are aware also as a fact that one in six of all the children of this State live in a family dependent for its sustenance on social welfare payments, that greater awareness is essential and was the principal term of reference of the Combat Poverty Agency which we had proposed to set up. It is vital that we get the goodwill of the public towards the elimination of this blight from our society.
There is a situation obtaining in this country in which very many families lack the amenities which we regard as normal and basic in our own homes. Three out of every five old persons living alone in this country lack basic water amenities — hot water, a flush toilet, bath or shower facilities — all of the amenities we consider normal in a modern home. In fact it has been said with a great deal of force that the development of modern homes has to a large extent by-passed the elderly citizens of this country who, again to a large extent, constitute the poor among us.
Poverty shows its face in bad housing, in educational deprivation as well as in low incomes. I think the House will agree with me that there is no one single cause for poverty, that they are multiple. Poverty comes about in a type of vicious circle in which initial disadvantage is compounded by subsequent disadvantages, each one reinforcing the other. The case can be made with a great deal of force that the poverty we have has its base in the injustices which are within our power to eliminate and which we ought to be setting about eliminating, having first gleaned the necessary information to ensure that we tackle them in the right manner. A concentrated attack is needed on all fronts.
Joyce and McCashin, in their report entitled Poverty and Social Policy, dealt with this very forcefully. They said in their report that we needed a concentrated attack on all fronts, and an integration of all policy interventions so that the reinforcing cycle of causation could be broken. They instanced poor health, poor housing, poor education, low pay or perhaps no pay because of unemployment and an inadequate legal system that does not meet the requirements of those without money, as factors all interacting to produce a situation of poverty. They said that future anti-poverty action must concentrate on the multiple dimensions of poverty and must be based on a co-ordinated programme.
All of us could agree that this is the only way poverty should be tackled. For too long rather than having a strategy to combat poverty we have produced policies to deal with deprivation. All Governments do their best to improve the social welfare system. All Ministers in the Department of Social Welfare have done their best to allocate as much resources as possible to people who depend on social welfare for their living. We have advanced policies and programmes to deal with deprivation but there has not been an overall strategy to eliminate the basic causes of poverty. The problem must be tackled in a concentrated manner.
When we came into office in June 1981 our programme announced that an anti-poverty plan would be drawn up and implemented immediately. This was a vital issue so far as the Labour Party were concerned. It was argued that it should be implemented in the context of national and economic social planning. When in Government we set about this matter as quickly as possible. There was general agreement that political responsibility for the anti-poverty programme would lie with the Minister for Social Welfare and, therefore, it fell on me to implement our programme with regard to combating poverty.
We said we would re-establish the structure of the combat poverty organisation and we proposed that a special unit would be set up in the Department of Social Welfare to co-ordinate the work of the programme. Having considered the reports of the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty and the review groups set up in the Department to assess the schemes and in furtherance of the Government's programme we proposed to establish by statute a national agency. In the light of experience gained in the initial programme to combat poverty, we were certain it was necessary to give the proposals a statutory basis. We considered that necessary if it were to have the freedom and the permanency required and in order to allow the agency to function efficiently. We considered the agency should be set up under legislation to be passed by the Oireachtas.
This is our main area of concern now. The Minister has put before us an amendment. He has indicated that £2 million will be available to continue the work but there is no indication that legislation will be brought forward to set up the agency on a statutory basis. I hope the Minister will enlighten us about that matter this evening. Neither is there any indication of the terms of reference of the agency.
We had prepared the heads of the Bill and all the homework was done in connection with this matter. The terms of reference were: first, to examine the causes and extent of poverty; secondly, to engage in research in relation to poverty — I have already stressed the importance of research in this area; this is vital if we are to know the extent and direction of the work we are doing and we must have this information if we are to bring the public with us in this matter; thirdly, to engage in public education on poverty and to increase understanding of its nature and extent, to undertake action aimed at combating poverty and to evaluate such action. The terms of reference also proposed that existing policies and programmes be appraised and to recommend any necessary modifications and alterations. New policies should be suggested and they should be tested out on a pilot basis.
We proposed that the agency would be given power to make recommendations to the Minister, either on their own initative or on request from the Minister, and to advise on the implementation of recommendations of the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat Poverty. The recommendations were most useful and there was much work to be done in the area. We proposed that the agency would implement the specific recommendations of the national committee in respect of the provision of resources and support for community action against poverty. It was proposed to publish an annual report so that there would be an ongoing assessment of the progress of the agency and of the Legislature. It was also proposed that the agency would perform such specific tasks and submit such reports as the Minister might require from time to time.
It was proposed that the agency would have a board of management to be appointed by the Minister and that this would comprise a maximum of 12 members. We were guided in that by the advice given to us by the previous committee that a larger body could be cumbersome and detrimental to the effective working of the agency. We agreed that there was a maximum number beyond which an agency or committee does not work efficiently and 12 members seemed adequate for the agency. The chairman and vice-chairman would be appointed by the Minister from among the members. I had indicated I would be appointing Sister Stanislaus Kennedy as chairman of the agency.
It was also proposed that an executive personnel would be set up, that it would comprise a chief executive, a director of research and a director of programmes and that they would be appointed by the board subject to approval of the Minister. They would not be voting members or working members of the board. I considered that adequate research was a vital part of the work of the agency. So that this could be done we proposed that the director of research should be a different person from the director of programmes. We wanted to separate the research element of the new agency and, accordingly, proposed a separate director in each case.
It was also proposed to set up a special unit in the Department responsible for liaison between the agency and the Department, particularly at policy level. That ground work was carried out and the commitment obtained from the Government to proceed with the introduction of the necessary legislation. In fact, the draft heads of the Bill were prepared and I have them in my possession. I hope the Minister will be able to assure the House that he intends establishing such an agency on a statutory basis, and that he will give it permanency and freedom from the whims of any decision of a future Government. We must bear in mind that this is an ongoing problem that will not be solved overnight or in the lifetime of the Government. The task ahead is enormous. Any agency established — this is not a reflection on the Minister — must have a degree of permanency, particularly an agency responsible for combating poverty. The most important issue that faced us in Government was the question of combating poverty. We must remember that we have a commitment to treat all our people equally, but in recent years we have gone very far from that idea. This is the most important job that has to be tackled and any agency established to deal with it must be given statutory powers.
I hope the Minister will be in a position to tell the House that he proposes to introduce legislation to set up this agency on a statutory basis. The Minister's amendment to our motion mentions the provision of £2 million for this purpose, but that is not the issue. It was not intended that the agency would make a major change in the lives of the poor initially, but it was felt that it would be able to recommend policies and administrative changes in an effort to make Government policy more effective in that area. In allocating £250,000 initially we did not intend that the Combat Poverty Agency would in its first year be in a position to give people large sums of money. Its function in the first year was to set up office, employ staff, clarify its priorities in the short term and plan the implementation of its objectives. It was not a question of making a large sum of money available as once-off grants to relevant organisations, because that could be abused. Such grants are not the answer to the problem of poverty and will not eliminate it. By their nature they will be subject to political expediency. At the time of a by-election or as a result of political pressure the sums of money might be utilised where the greatest need did not exist.
The important thing is that we must have on ongoing commitment to the elimination of poverty. We must set up adequate structures to ensure that such a commitment is honoured. We must have planning, research and action in key areas with the active involvement of local communities. There must be direct input in this regard to national economic and social planning at Government level. We never envisaged that such a proposal would be implemented in one year; we wanted to commence the work on a sound statutory basis. We intended to make further money available as the need arose and following the advice of the agency. Had our proposal been implemented we would have had a free, independent and active agency. There are many committed expert people who have given their services in this area and I am sure that, given the freedom to act and the assurance that their position was permanent, they would contribute a tremendous amount to eliminating this problem. Members of such an agency should not have to worry about incurring the wrath of any people. Had the Government adopted that proposal we would have been discharging our obligation as legislators to the weakest and most vulnerable sectors of our community.
This is a priority with us and that is why we are anxious to know the Minister's views on this issue. We hope he does not intend establishing the agency on a non-statutory basis. We are anxious to know the terms of reference of the agency. It is important that such a body is given the freedom to give advice and educate the public about the extent of poverty and the injustices that exist in our society. As mature politicians we should not be afraid of adverse criticism. I have no doubt that an agency of committed people, many of whom have devoted a lot of their time to helping the poor, would be critical of the Legislature, the Government and those who enjoy more than their just share of the resources which exist here. I have no doubt that such an agency would be committed to helping the 25 per cent of our people who need such aid. In their clamour to do so I am sure they would highlight any injustices which exist. In doing so they would be likely to incur the wrath of powerful influential lobbies and, possibly, the wrath of Members. I have no doubt that they would be critical of the performance of this House in the area of elimination of poverty but that is the only risk we would have to take. If we are serious about our obligation to eliminate poverty and not embark on a cosmetic exercise, we must give that agency all the freedom it wants.
Poverty has never been a central political issue here. We have dealt with it as our consciences dictated. We have seen want, need and various areas of deprivation and dealt with some of them under the social welfare code. We have produced piecemeal policies. This has its basis not just in lack of income but in lack of educational opportunities. Four per cent of our children leave school before attaining the statutory age of 15 years, 19 per cent leave at 15 years. They, in the main, come from homes with no literary background and where there is already deprivation. Poor performance in school is caused by these conditions, which in turn, reinforces the state of poverty, leading to a situation where they cannot advance, are not in a position to get worth-while jobs and because of their poor education, are not in a position to avail of the existing facilities. I spoke earlier about the frustrations felt in dealing with the existing structures and establishments. I will refer here to a paragraph in the Final Report of the National Committee on Pilot Schemes to Combat poverty. This committee reports portion of an extract from the urban reports, which they believe make the point very effectively.
The poor person has no understanding of having rights. When you ring up the Corporation the likelihood is that you are left waiting; meanwhile a queue is building up outside the one public phone that is working in the area, you think you've been cut off, you have no other 5p pieces,
Nowadays one would need 10p pieces.
the child is crying in the pram. For 70% of the population the structures work and are organised to deal with their needs. For 30% they don't work. Their reaction to their treatment from the agencies is to internalise their experiences. "The engineer says the roof is not leaking, I must be imagining it". "The Housing Official says there is no dampness, I must be wrong". "The Welfare Officer says I can't manage, I must be useless". So the poor person retires into the isolation of the home, while the middle-class person uses the network of wealth and power and influence to get round the system.
The system is there, in all its complicated forms and intricacies. Every system is intricate and we do very little about publishing information to any but the more literate and more privileged of our community. The very services set up to help the underprivileged are numerous and complicated. It is not all our fault, but we have an obligation to do something about it. This is a system which we inherited, which evolved over many years but evolved with no care for those who are deprived educationally, in terms of health or, indeed, in terms of wealth.
We have not done very much about bad housing. There are families living in overcrowded conditions, young people marrying who will never have their own homes, whose children have never known anything but overcrowded, unfit conditions. We all, as public representatives, have met these people when we held our political clinics — young people who tell us about one child sleeping with the parents, two sleeping elsewhere and a cot in between. This gross overcrowding leads to frustrated parents, particularly frustrated harrassed mothers. All the mothers can do, because of her poor circumstances, is provide the basics for subsistence. She certainly has very little time for helping with education, or concerning herself in any way with the future or the development of her child, or the bringing about of a situation where that child might enjoy a better future than the parents had. Each new disadvantage reinforces the previous one, bringing about this vicious cycle of poverty from which people in certain areas and born in certain conditions can never extricate themselves.
Our system is not geared to those people. Up to now, we have done very little to make it relevant, or to bring home to them the meagre and limited facilities available to them. That goes, to a great extent, for old people, some of whom are not aware that they are entitled to a living alone or age allowance. In rural Ireland there is a greater awareness of these things. This information might elude the older person who is living a life of deprivation, or has come recently into a position of deprivation and who is at his or her wits' end to provide the basic necessities to life. With that deprivation there is lack of courage and confidence, confidence to avail of what schemes there are, to know one's rights.
We are all in our own way trying to do little things about this situation. Especially those of us who have had the privilege of working in the Department of Social Welfare are well aware that there are improvements which we could make. We all, whatever party we follow, have tried to improve the system in our Department. There still remain basic, structural problems of poverty and anything we do will merely alleviate the situation, but not eradicate it from our midst. The time has come to make a determined effort to finally tackle poverty in such a way as to lay the foundation for an evolving of economic and social policy within a planning framework which will finally eradicate poverty and its effects from our society.
We are not an exception. Poverty exists all over the world. Many will tell you — and there are about 56 per cent of our population who thought that we had no poor — but there is no poverty here, by reference to the Third World. Of course there is not — it is a relative thing. We are not making that suggestion. We must take measures against what would be considered as a normal standard of living for the average person. That includes the right to education, to a decent home with the modern facilities which are considered necessary, the right to a job and to the best health services we can provide.
