Combat Poverty Agency Bill, 1985 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Dr. O'Hanlon

On the last occasion on which this Bill was before the House I had dealt with various aspects of poverty. Before the Easter Recess I had been speaking about the Government contribution to poverty. Indeed, since Easter we have seen a further example of that contribution in the reduction of the food subsidies, causing greater hardship to the poorer people in our community. It should be remembered that essential commodities such as bread, milk and butter are used by the poorer people, particularly those with large families. We had an example also of the Government's good public relations in advertising the fact that the children's allowance was being increased by £3 per month or 75p per week. This will not in any way compensate the poorer sections of our community for the serious consequences of Government policy. What we need now is action. There is sufficient known about poverty. Indeed, there has been sufficient information passed on to the Government from these benches—even if they do not realise it themselves—to alert them to the fact that something needs to be done urgently.

The increase of 75p per week in the children's allowance will not in any way compensate the less well off for the hardship they are suffering. The Government advertisement did not state that in the last budget those with large families, entirely dependent on social welfare payments for their livelihood, were granted no dependant's allowance. For the first time there was no increase granted in the child dependant allowance to those families entirely dependent on social welfare for their livelihood. Naturally that will create hardship for those people. The whole approach of the Government to children's allowances has been antifamily. There was no increase whatsoever granted in children's allowances in 1983, an increase of 7 per cent granted in August 1984—it should be remembered that such increases were always effected in April when Fianna Fáil were in power—no increase whatsoever in 1985 and this small one only this year.

Not alone has there been no increase granted for the dependants of persons on social welfare benefit but the tax free allowance for children has been abolished, again something which is very antifamily. There are many couples with children over 18 years of age who will not qualify for any children's allowance, and they will lose the tax free allowance. Those with children who qualify for the children's allowance—if paying 48p in the £tax—will receive £36 per annum by way of children's allowance, losing £48 as a consequence. Therefore they will be worse off to the extent of £12. That is not what the Government have been telling people either by way of statements or advertisement in the national papers. For example, if a taxpayer is paying 58p in the £—that is the taxpayer with eligible children — he will receive £36 per annum extra but will lose £58. In other words, that taxpayer will be worse off to the extent of £22.

On a number of occasions the Taoiseach recognised that there was poverty in the community. In a speech in Jury's Hotel on 15 November 1984, speaking to the Simon Community, the Taoiseach had this to say:

If, even in a period of grave economic difficulty, even at a time when a high measure of priority must be given to the restoration of economic growth—from which alone the resources needed for social progress can come—we were to set on one side, or to show ourselves forgetful of, the social needs of our people, we should be turning our backs on a fundamental moral duty and might at the same time undermine the social stability necessary for the attainment of our economic objectives.

That was the Taoiseach himself speaking 18 months ago. One might well ask: what has he done about it? The answer is nothing.

The Government have done nothing to alleviate poverty among the people. I have pointed out what they have done in regard to children's allowances, and for the second time in a year they cut food subsidies, thereby creating more hardship for more people. Those who depend on social welfare payments for their livelihood were always given the increases in benefits early in April. This Government first of all postponed these increases until early July, now recipients will not get their increases until the third week in July, when one-third of the year has gone. This makes a major contribution to poverty.

The Government said they were showing their concern about poverty through the introduction of this Bill and the setting up of this agency. They should be looking at what they have been doing to find out if they have not been creating more poverty. Certainly they have been doing nothing to alleviate it. It is fair to ask why we have not been getting any of the radical, progressive policies we saw in successive years under Fianna Fáil, such as free electricity, free television licences—it was interesting to hear the BBC advocating that the British Government should adopt the policy begun by Fianna Fáil in this regard—and Fianna Fáil also introduced the telephone rental allowance, which showed great foresight. We have been having a difficult period in the more remote areas of the country because of robberies, and it was a great comfort to elderly people living alone to know they could communicate quickly with people close to them if they found themselves threatened by people roaming about the countryside.

I do not think anything contributes more to the creation of poverty than the reduction in health care which we have been seeing. I will make only a passing reference to it and its contribution to hardship. Not alone have the Government created the highest percentage level of unemployment in Europe but they have set about dismantling the health services and cutting back the hospital service, particularly by reducing the number of staff at weekends. Illness knows no time limits, but the Government have reduced the working week in hospitals. Dental services are non-existent for adults, though there is a limited service for children. Consequently, we can see widows with dependent children having to pay for dental care.

It is important to stress all these things when discussing this Bill. It would be wrong for us to say that by setting up another statutory body we are making a major contribution to the alleviation of poverty, because all of us can see poverty and we should be taking action to do something about it. The poor have to compete with more powerful groups to get their rights. Where services are available, access to those services for the poor, in remote rural areas and in the centre of urban areas, is not available. This is something Government should be looking at.

I am not opposed to the setting up of this agency but I fail to understand why, if the Government are serious, they did not allow the National Community Development Agency, set up by Fianna Fáil and given £2 million in 1982, was not given a chance to operate. If the Minister had allowed that agency to work for a year or two and then told the House that he did not think it was doing any valuable work, we would have accepted it, but the Government did not do that. The Minister announced that he was dismantling that agency without a satisfactory explanation before it had time to do anything.

The Government have a grave responsibility to the poor in the community. On all sides we have enough evidence to prove the existence of widespread poverty. On this side of the House we have drawn attention to it time after time. What we want is not more statutory bodies but action to alleviate poverty.

Mr. J. Doyle

"Combat poverty" is a phrase that may be unacceptable to those who do not or, indeed, cannot believe that poverty exists in Ireland today. It may also sound offensive and patronising both to those people who suffer the multiple effects of deprivation and those who are working and enabling them to deal with such effects. The real challenge facing all of us in Ireland in the eighties is to confront and eradicate the evils of poverty.

At present the poor are being systematically excluded from a full life in Ireland. This is not new. In fact, the first clear warning was given nearly ten years go when Séamus Ó Cinnéide reported at the Kilkenny conference organised by the Episcopal Council for Social Welfare that 25 per cent of Irish people were living in poverty. Poverty does not come about by accident: rather our system is planned in such a way that poverty is an intergral part of it, emerging from social, economic and educational policies which favour the non-poor. The whole structure of our society is underpinned by its philosophy which is totally inimical to the poor.

The Bill before the House is in fulfilment of the commitments in the Programme for Government to re-establish the structures of the combat poverty organisation, with local involvement and development of constructive community action against poverty.

The conclusion from the Catholic Bishop's Conference on Social Welfare in Kilkenny that a quarter of the population of the country were poor, aroused serious concern among statutory agencies, voluntary bodies, academic institutions and others concerned with poverty and the Coalition Government which came into power in 1973 set about considering what action could be taken to deal with the problem. The opportunity to initiate action at EC level arose at the same time when the EC Commission was formulating its proposals for a new EC social action programme. The Irish Government proposed that the programme should include special action against poverty and this proposal was agreed when the programme was approved at the end of 1973.

Poverty is not an accident. As I said earlier, it is a direct consequence of the way we order society. It is a reflection of the values of society and, in particular, it is a reflection of the emphasis on competition as a basic value in society. Deputy Skelly said that society is like a competition where we have winners and losers. He is quite right. In order to identify the winners, we determine a level of affluence and consumption as a mark of success. On the other hand, it is necessary to have poor people in order that the success of those who are successful can be measured. Poverty is not an accident. It is the necessary consequence of the values that we have in society. The poor are necessary to reassure the powerful that they are successful.

One of the major causes of poverty is unemployment. This was referred to by Deputy O'Hanlon before the recess, when he said that the greatest problem at present was the high level of unemployment; that it was a major challenge to this House, especially to the Government, because the only way to alleviate unemployment is through proper economic policies. The Government's policies, he said, have been a major contribution to unemployment. He said today that the Government have created the highest level of unemployment. I cannot accept what the Deputy has said. The Government do not go out of their way to create unemployment. Indeed, they are very sensitive — as are all politicians — to that problem and are doing everything possible to alleviate it. They introduced recently a number of policies which will help to reduce the number of unemployed. They also introduced a number of programmes, such as the social employment scheme to assist those who are unemployed.

At a meeting of Dublin City Council which I attended last night, it was urged once again on the trade unions who employ staff for Dublin Corporation to introduce the social employment scheme. They are one of the very few local authorities who have not put that scheme into operation. I ask the trade unions to reconsider allowing it to be introduced. People on long term unemployment could be assisted by this means.

What frightens me is the indifference to the plight of the unemployed. It is characterised by a positive hostility to them, a lack of sympathy to their needs and feelings and, most of all, by the continuous talk of abuse of the social welfare system. There are abuses in that system, one must acknowledge that. There are abuses in every system. I understand that the social welfare abuse amounts to a small fraction of the total welfare expenditure. People who criticise social welfare assistance for the unemployed are people who have never seen the inside of a labour exchange. They have never seen the inside of a social welfare office. They have never had to suffer the humiliation of signing on, the long queues and the deliberate humiliation of the extraordinary procedure of having to sign a receipt for money before it is placed in one's hand. Above all, they have never had to suffer the humiliation of being compelled to be available for work when work sometimes is not available.

There are many in our society who state that unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit are too high and become a disincentive to work. Does any man or woman with two children and in receipt of £70 per week regard that assistance as a disincentive to work, especially at this time of year when parents are preparing their children for First Holy Communion, with the ensuing expenditure, and at Christmas when they are trying to put a few pounds together to buy toys for their children? It is fascinating that people talk about disincentives when as much is spent on a meal for two as a married couple on unemployment assistance have to live on for a week. Unfortunately, what we have in society today are not only a new wealthy but a very insensitive wealthy. I find it most offensive when newspapers detail an intimate dinner for two which will be equal to or cost more than social assistance for husband, wife and a family of two for a week.

Another aspect of poverty in our society concerns old people who live alone. We are indebted to many organisations who give assistance in this area, particularly to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. We are further indebted to that society for the sample survey, published in September 1980, mentioned by Deputy O'Hanlon, of the 80,000 who are old and alone in this country. The survey told a tale of physical deprivation in relation to the old, lack of washing facilities, indoor toilets and so on. It also showed that loneliness affects about two-thirds of elderly people at varying levels. It affects 25 per cent occasionally and as many as 35 per cent of those surveyed suffer from depression occasionally and about onetenth are constantly subject to it. Before passing from the elderly, I would like to pay tribute to the special task force operating from health boards to assist the elderly living alone in the upkeep of their homes. Substantial progress has been made in this area.

I want to state very clearly that I welcome the Bill because I believe it has benefited from the input of the working groups which have been serving in the interim and have made representations to the Minister. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to Sister Stanislaus Kennedy and the work of her national committee on pilot schemes to combat poverty. I am pleased to see that the principal functions of the agency are, first, the question of advising and making representations to the Minister on all aspects of economic planning in relation to poverty in the State. This means that they are integrating their anti-poverty approach with the social and economic planning process. That is a real achievement. I should like to put that on record. The next function — and I commend those who gave it second place in priority — is the initiative which is aimed at overcoming poverty in the State and the evaluation of such measures that have an action and an evaluation component. I welcome the third principle of research. In the final function there is the question of public education. I am of the view that there is a need for such education and for a greater public understanding of the nature, cause and extent of poverty in our society and how to overcome such poverty.

I hope the Combat Poverty Agency, when set up, will see their function as a catalyst to enable the people to do something for themselves and in the process to realise that the more deprived people are, the less opportunity they will have to do anything for themselves. This means a shift of economic power so that power, economic and political, will go hand in hand with participation and that the institutions will co-operate with the people in the community to create the answers to the problem not just of combating poverty but of eliminating it from our society.

Mr. O'Kennedy

We are all united in a determination, as Deputy Doyle has said, not just to combat poverty but to eliminate it from our society. The difference arises between us in this issue as to whether the proposal being brought before the House now by the Government is the effective way of eliminating poverty.

First, what we are witnessing now is a proposal from the Government to set up an agency which will be very preoccupied with combating the consequences of that Government's failure. The most important issue which we must address is not just that of reacting to problems and to the poverty which is all too evident to us but, over and above that, to exploit the wealth that is in the nation, to ensure that the need for an agency of this kind will not be as evident as it appears to be at this stage. Here there is a very definite difference of approach between this side of the House and that of the Government. What we are witnessing is a proposal to establish an agency which would have the best intentions, whose function would be to make suggestions as to how to cope across a range of areas which fall within the fundamental responsibility of Government. We are asking an agency to deal with the trying circumstances in which the poor find themselves, while at the same time failing to acknowledge that the Government have the fundamental responsibility to deal with the causes of poverty and to ensure that those causes are eliminated from our society.

It is quite remarkable that the Government should give the agency such broad terms of reference as almost to bring them into the area of Government responsibility in economic areas. Four main functions are given to the agency under the Bill. The first is to advise and make recommendations to the Minister on all aspects of economic and social planning in relation to poverty in the State. I assume we all recognise that poverty exemplifies itself particularly in unemployment and its consequences. The Government are apparently transferring to this agency the responsibility to advise and make recommendations in relation to the problem of unemployment. Another problem closely involved with poverty is inadequate housing and it would appear that this agency are to be asked to advise and make recommendations on that aspect of economic and social planning. Alternatively, are they to be precluded from that which any social worker will confirm as a major characteristic of poverty?

The second function of the agency is to advise and make recommendations on the initiation of measures aimed at overcoming poverty in the State and the evaluation of such measures. I presume that if they are to initiate measures to overcome poverty the intention will be, as Deputy Doyle has said, to eliminate poverty in all its symptoms and unacceptable characteristics. If they succeed in that area they are properly moving into the area of social and economic planning and to that extent they would render themselves redundant if successful.

Thirdly, the agency are to consider the examination of the nature, causes and extent of poverty and for that purpose to promote, commission and interpret research. Does it take any great research to establish that the cause of poverty derives from the lack of adequate income, opportunity, employment, the failure to generate wealth from our own resources, personal or physical? Nevertheless we are asking this agency as one of their functions to conduct an examination of the nature, causes and extent of poverty. Are we seriously pretending that, in setting up an agency with these broad terms of reference, all of which would be commendable, these problems can be effectively tackled by an agency such as proposed by simply concentrating on poverty as it all too obviously presents itself to us throughout the country? Reacting to the symptoms of poverty will not begin to solve the problem or to eliminate the causes.

The final function to be allocated by the Government to this agency is the promotion of a greater public understanding of the nature, causes and extent of poverty in the State and the measures necessary to overcome such poverty. I hope I will not be taken as being too critical if I suggest, as a number of social workers have done in the media, that one of the biggest problems is to promote an awareness in the Government themselves of the nature and extent of poverty, to secure a real, visible demonstration from this Government of their awareness of the crushing impact of poverty. While one would generally have to welcome the laudable terms of reference given to this agency, one has to recognise that they are so general in this instance as to be meaningless in terms of an agency that can only cope with the consequences of the Government's failure to get at the causes of the problems the agency have been asked to address.

In a whole series of sub-paragraphs the agency are asked to do a number of other things. For instance, the agency are asked to evaluate, advise and make recommendations to the Minister in relation to policies and programmes of the State and of statutory and other bodies. They are also asked to identify the possible new policies and programmes for the purpose of overcoming poverty. The collection and dissemination of information on poverty and community development is another of their functions. All this seems to imply that responsibility for those matters does not lie with the most fundamental combat poverty agency, namely, the Government of this nation at any and every time. These are the fundamental responsibilities of Government and they cannot abrogate their responsibility by setting up an agency of this kind and delegating to them the fundamental responsibility which they have as a Government.

The irony of this legislation is that it is proposing to establish an agency to deal with the consequences of the Government's own failures, which amounts to turning responsibility on its head. To that extent the terms of reference are far too broad and vague. I cannot imagine that anyone could disagree with any member of the agency who would say that according to the normal interpretation of their terms of reference they would make proposals to the Government across every area of economic activity in order to eliminate the causes of poverty. The Government would probably tell them very quickly that they were interpreting the terms of reference far too broadly. Before launching another new agency we must be clear and precise about their responsibilities.

For some years there has been a substantial difference between the parties in this House. Wherever there is an obvious need which must be tackled the Government propose to tackle the need by setting up an agency or a corporation to do the Government's job. I have just indicated how this is one such agency. Another example is the NDC who have been set up to do a job which is fundamentally the responsibility of the Government. The Government, as well as being a combat poverty agency should be the fundamental national development corporation. It is the Government's role to ensure that our development potential is maximised. Delegating that responsibility to another authority is a cop-out. I am concerned that the consequences of this apparently commendable effort will be just another abrogation of fundamental Government responsibility. In many cases poverty is the direct result of Government policy and we are now asking a Government agency to cope with the consequences of Government failures and to make recommendations to deal with the crushing consequences of Government policy. That is a new direction for any State agency.

The most obvious cause of poverty is the high level of unemployment. The unemployed are clearly suffering from poverty. They do not need surveys outlining what it is like to suffer from poverty and unemployment. They are living with the reality of it. The way to combat their poverty is to provide employment. That is the most effective way to deal with it and then the State will not need an agency to make recommendations to cope with the consequences of poverty which are all too pervasive in society at the moment.

The Government failure to deal with the employment issue speaks for itself. I would ask the Taoiseach to desist from offending the unemployed by using the statistical jargon that the level of growth of unemployment is reducing in percentage terms. Naturally if the percentage level were to increase at the same rate it would mean that employment was increasing even further than it is at present. Obviously 10 per cent of £100,000 is an extra 10,000 and on 200,000 is an extra 20,000, and so on. Will the Taoiseach stop making the specious claim that the level of growth of unemployment is decreasing? Using specious statistical presentations adds further to the frustration of the unemployed.

The Government in their decisions have failed to combat poverty and in some areas have aggravated poverty. The most obvious example, an example agreed with by Mr. Wille Birmingham of the organisation ALONE, is the decision to phase out food subsidies. It has always been accepted that the people at the lowest levels subsist on bread, butter and milk and by abolishing the food subsidies on these items the Government are withdrawing support for the families most in need. The crushing effect of this decision is immediately felt by the poor people. The Government who are asking this agency to make the public aware of the reality of poverty might consider contacting the poor directly. If the politicians called to some of the houses in our towns they would get the smell of poverty in every sense of the word. Perhaps then they would realise the crushing effect of the Government decision to reduce subsidies while at the same time setting up an agency to advise the Government as to how to combat the consequences of poverty. Was ever anything so contradictory or so offensive to the poor? The Government decision aggravates the problem and then an agency is asked to make recommendations on the consequences of it.

Apart from food, the greatest needs of the poor are fuel, electricity and so on. In the last 20 years this is the first Government to benefit extraordinarily from the world economic climate. There are falling oil prices, falling inflation rates and falling interests rates throughout the world. Everything happening outside the country is favourable to our economy. However, in relation to a practical matter such as ESB bills, instead of having a reasonable delay in the reduction of bills, the public are told that some time in October ESB bills will be reduced. Perhaps it is too much to expect that the poor will be using electricity in any event.

The contradiction in that should be obvious. We all welcome the major boost to the economy from outside but the Government choose to postpone the benefit of that development and not to pass it on to the poor. However, the Government are acting in even a worse way than that because this year they are providing for old age and blind pensions a sum of £278 million or a 1.5 per cent increase on last year's figure of £273 million. They must be aware that at least 4,000 more people will qualify for those pensions this year. Because of the various external factors the projections of the Government may be realised and we may experience an inflation rate of 4 per cent or even 3 per cent, but despite this the Government have increased by only 1.5 per cent the provision for old age and blind pensions. What kind of miracle are they hoping to achieve? Those of us who deal frequently with applicants for old age pensions know that the only way the Government can operate within these provisions is by applying the most stringent means tests possible in the matter of qualification for old age pensions. This will mean that very many who in any other year would qualify for old age pensions will be told that their income is greater than the limit and therefore will not qualify. Apart from the matter of fixing a limit there is the question of how the income of an applicant is generally calculated. As always there will be a degree of discretion and judgment on the part of officers of the Department in reaching their conclusions.

Officials of the Department of Social Welfare, especially those who deal practically with these matters — pension officers and their assistants — have always shown a deep concern and a great readiness to help the aged poor particularly but because of the limitations being imposed on them and because generally of the scope of instructions being directed to them, the reality is that many people are either being disqualified or are being reduced in their entitlement this year. These are people who would otherwise have qualified for a full range of benefit. The explanation for that is that the Government are providing an additional £5 million only to cope with the growing number of people who will qualify.

I could introduce any member of the Government to a number of old people who are poor but who are not in receipt of full old age pensions. This leads to various kinds of problems for these people. Is it not then somewhat contradictory for the Government deliberately to take a decision to provide only an extra £5 million in this instance and at the same time to set up an agency to advise them as to the realities of poverty and as to how the problem might be tackled?

Another example is the imposition of service charges. The Government decided to introduce a scheme whereby service charges would be imposed across the board in terms of users of local authority services. I acknowledge that there are many who can afford to pay for these services but there are countless thousands who are not able to pay the charges in respect of water, sewerage and refuse collection services. I know of many such people in my home town. These people are upset and embittered, too, by reason of their being pressed for payments they cannot afford. They will not be re-assured by the outcome of their representations to local representatives in the matter of the waiving of these charges and by public representatives making a big deal of a successful outcome of the representations. These people should not have to come to the likes of us in an attempt to have lifted from their shoulders the burden of poverty imposed on them by the Government.

Even those old age pensioners who, because of the age limit provision had the charges waived last year are receiving demands again this year for the charges. People who are now in their eighty-first year will have the task of proving again this year that they are no better off now than they were last year when they were in their eightieth year. Is this not a nonsense? Any practical person should be able to make the kind of recommendations that the agency being discussed would be likely to make. These are some examples of poverty so far as the old are concerned but these are the people the Government seem to have overlooked. Most of the matters the agency will be asked to address themselves to are matters that are the fundamental responsibility of Government. I suggest that the agency would advise the Government first that they should not take any action that would add further to the problems of those who are already in the poverty category. Secondly, the agency might advise the Government to try to ensure that opportunities are provided to enable people to avoid poverty and to become engaged in gainful and meaningful employment.

Apart from the poverty that is manifest in terms of the unemployed, the old and the sick, there is poverty also in our various institutions, in such places as our hospitals and welfare homes. We talk sometimes of the special care given to private patients compared with the care given to public patients. Apparently private patients enjoy a higher level of accommodation than is available to public patients. In this context I am not making any reference to the question of whether the treatment is better in the case of the private patient but his accommodation is better because he is paying for it whereas the public patient must make do with what is available. That is an unacceptable face of poverty.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle and I are well aware of the poverty that is experienced in a hospital in our home town. People in an advanced state of illness are being treated on the corridors by dedicated professional staff who are frustrated at not being able to cope adequately with the needs of those people. Last weekend I spoke with a person who was suffering from a terminal illness and whose family were gathered around in the corridor. That is an appalling demonstration of poverty. It is also an appalling demonstration of the failure of Government to provide for the alleviation of that kind of poverty. The people who suffer will not be reassured by agencies of this kind no matter how well intentioned they might be and no matter how well qualified their members might be. The relatives of that person and many like them suffer terrible frustration and bitterness because of the way they are being treated.

This year the Estimates provide for an increase of £1 million over last year's provision for the building, equipping and furnishing of hospitals and other health facilities. Last year's provision was £57 million and this was increased to £58 million this year. This represents an increase of a little over 1½ per cent. Is it any wonder that we do not have adequate equipment to furnish our hospitals and adequate accommodation for the people we are supposed to be concerned about? Adequate funding should be provided for facilities of that kind. We should be very careful not to frustrate the medical staff in those institutions to such an extent that their commitment and devotion to those under their care are undermined. From my experience of visiting hospitals, particularly in my own constituency, I know that medical staff whom we know to be most dedicated and devoted people are so frustrated as to be embittered. This is very sad. The Government and the Minister imply that all is well and that all of these matters are being dealt with. This only aggravates the problem.

Is there anybody here who can suggest that the fuel allowances operated by the health boards are adequate? Can anybody in this House say he has had no occasion to take issue with the health boards when fuel allowances for the old, the sick and the unemployed were cut back? Any Deputy who has not made representations to try to restore fuel allowances has not been in contact with the reality of the problems of the people he claims to represent. The allocations to the health boards are not adequate to provide for those who need allowances. I have nothing but admiration for the officials of the health boards and their miraculous capacity to provide for the needs of the poor and the old, even within the limited resources available to them.

We have all heard of social workers such as Willie Bermingham. The greatest single problem for the old, particularly during the winter which is far from over, is the lack of adequate heating. Many people suffer from hypothermia. They are not aware of the cold until it is too late. This happens because they have not adequate fuel or heating in their home. One way of combating poverty would be to provide adequate fuel allowances for those people. The cost of treating those people in hospitals would also be reduced. The hospitals cannot cope adequately with those people because of the problems of bed space and treatment. Until such time as we provide more than adequate expenditure for the old and the poor to give them basic heating in their own homes, we are acting in a contradictory fashion. Some might say we are acting in a hypocritical fashion when we tell the country we are determined to combat poverty and at the same time we cut back the resources available to the health boards. The same applies to disabled persons maintenance allowances and supplementary allowances available to the poor and the unemployed.

This year I will press the Minister for Finance, as I pressed his predecessor unsuccessfully last year, to find a better way to deal more effectively with the problems of dependent old people. This can be done by increasing the tax allowances of people who look after dependent parents or grandparents in their own homes. If we were to give them an extra £3,000 tax allowance it would mean an extra £1,000 net for every person taking care of his or her parents. That would ensure that people would be taken care of in their own homes where they would be happiest. It would also ensure that the cost to the State would be very much less than it is now. Many families are obliged to transfer their aged parents or grandparents to health care institutions or geriatric hospitals. It is cheaper to encourage people to look after their own relatives at home than to force them to transfer their relatives to overcrowed institutions. I hope I will succeed, as we seem to have done in some respects already, in persuading this Minister to approach this problem in a more practical manner than his predecessor did last year. The cost of a hospital bed is £100 per week which is the cheapest possible rate.

How does that compare with the cost which the State would save itself by increasing a tax allowance? The sum of £100 a week would come out at £5,000 per annum. In the average case you would be talking £200 a week, which is £10,000 per annum. I am suggesting to the Minister and to the Government and I will propose it in the Finance Bill, that they increase the tax allowance to even onefifth of that amount in net terms when you would get a better return both for the old and from the point of view of the State finances, if that were to be our fundamental responsibility.

I presume that when the committee look at the causes or consequences of poverty, all of which fall within their remit, they will also mention a few other factors. They must mention alcoholism, drugs and the unbearable marital tension which many people suffer from. I am not saying that poverty is the exclusive cause of any of these problems but I am saying that that element in our community who are suffering from the burden of poverty are entitled to our special concern in these areas. There may be some in middle class Dublin or anywhere else who have marital problems but those problems do not derive from poverty. They derive from other matters within their own control. I might say in passing that they do not have my sympathy at all to the same extent as those who have marital problems arising from the crushing burden of poverty with all its symptoms such as alcoholism and wife beating.

We talk at great length about crime, lawlessness, alcoholism, drugs and all of the marital problems for which we are going to bring in proposals and meet the Bishops in relation to them while recognising at the same time that if we really wanted to alleviate the causes of those various problems we would do so best once again by actually providing adequate income and sustenance for the people who are, by and large, suffering from those symptoms of poverty. How many wives have been subjected to wife beating because of a husband who has not been at work and who spends most of his day trying to pretend to himself that he is not suffering the consequences of the indignity of unemployment by adjourning to the local pub and chatting with his friends who are also in the same condition? He can be a big man chatting to his friends in the pub as he does not have to face the constant complaints of an annoying wife — as some might say, the haranguing of the wife and kids. He can come home afterwards when the wife suffers the consequences of the problems that, frankly, in the first instance are not the making of either of them. It is time we realised that we have had these problems more in the last few years than we have had at any other time.

One of the main causes for the growth of those crushing problems, and I include vandalism and all of the things we speak about here such as Garda problems, has been the growth of unemployment and the poverty associated with it. Is it any coincidence, for instance, that most of the problems that an agency like this would be addressing itself to occur in the deprived areas of the city? Deprived from the point of view of housing, employment and any kind of dignity. They occur mostly in those areas and we are going to ask this agency to make recommendations as to how we can deal with those problems. I hope they will have the blunt honesty and a sense of anger and frustration to tell the Government the way to deal with them is to change their policies generally and provide adequate jobs, housing, dignity and opportunities as distinct from looking to an agency such as the Combat Poverty Agency to alleviate the consequences of the problems the Government have caused.

Housing is also of central importance in this and no doubt when the agency come to making recommendations they will touch on it. When we look at the tensions which are generated from the lack of employment we can see that tension eventually resulting in an actual breakdown of health. I personally know and I am sure I am not the only Deputy in this House who knows many people whose health has broken down because of the lack of employment opportunities. I know of many people who are not just mentally but physically broken because they have been three to five years out of work. That is the way to recognise what the consequences of poverty may be. Then we have to spend more money in providing for them in institutions and so on. It is time that we recognised that the only way to provide for them in coping with problems of that nature is to provide dignity for them.

I recently heard an eminent physician talking amongst a group of his professional colleagues express the opinion — I know of no other man who is as anti-tobacco and cigarette smoking as this man, as most physicians are at this point — that the most important thing to get across to the public is to avoid the pernicious tobacco habit. That in itself will guarantee them better health and relieve congestion in hospitals. Many of those who enter hospital are suffering from congestion due to cigarette related conditions. This particular physician expressed the view that not only is it a waste of time — he is very anti-tobacco in all its forms and habits — it is an offence to the poor to give them advice like that at this stage.

It is an offence to the unemployed to tell them to give up smoking at this stage. You can tell a comfortable middle class person that he is better off without cigarettes and probably he will listen. He will say to himself that probably he will be fitter and better equipped for his job. You try telling to some person who has been without a job for three to five years when either he or his wife are on unemployment assistance that the best thing he could do for his health is to give up the fags and the reaction you are most likely to get from him is that the reason he is smoking is that it is all he has left and he is going to stay with them for as long as he is around. That is the reality and it adds to the problems of our health care. Let us face it, until such time as we recognise those normal things that you need no agency to advise you on, we are not going to get at the basic causes of poverty which this agency is meant to combat.

We are not just dealing with poverty of income in this sense, we are faced with a deeper problem, a poverty of ideas. The Government have a responsibility to promote the ideas and the climate for providing the dignity of work for people. As yet, even in a better world economic climate, there is no sign of it. When every other country — everyone who has been outside the country in recent times will have to recognise this reality — is literally lifting with the new economic boom in the world at this stage, we are still talking about combating the consequences of poverty. Are we so negative and so helpless in our approach that we cannot see that the greatest poverty we have at present is the poverty of hopelessness and of young people who see no opportunities for themselves and having to make a contribution in other countries because they cannot make here?

Two or three weeks ago I visited the United States. I slept for most of the journey. When I got off at Kennedy airport I was appalled — let not the Taoiseach give us any other impression about the statistics of emigration — when I came to the immigration desk to find countless hundreds of our young people queueing up. That was on one day alone.

Young people are leaving every parish in the country every single day and, as long as this exodus continues, nothing will be done to provide for those who cannot help themselves — the old and the sick. If a spot check is carried out at Shannon Airport every day, we will get a real picture of the poverty of ideas that is being forced on us and we will see the drain on our greatest resource, our young people who are leaving because they feel a sense of hopelessness. Every day we have young people emigrating to Australia and Canada. All Deputies will admit that every weekend young people come to see them asking if they can get them to America, Australia, Canada or anywhere out of Ireland. Until we tackle this problem, we will have no hope of providing for the poor and the unemployed.

We overload the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Health as well as the health boards and every other organisation while trying to cope with these very obvious problems. We have a plethora of agencies and corporations but the Government do not have a specific plan. It is time we told them to stop this nonsense because, as long as they pursue their present course, they will aggravate the problem they ae pretending to tackle. Would it not be a good idea to start exploiting our wealth to the advantage of all, particularly the old and the sick? If we generate enough activity in this area, we will be able to provide properly for them in their homes, in hospitals or institutions. We will not see a Minister indulge in exercises like those we have seen over the last number of months when the Minister for Health closed a number of institutions, attempted in vain to justify those closures, and then attempted to change his mind while pretending he was not doing so.

How about developing our land resources and having a proper land policy? What about developing a policy for the food industry, for fisheries and forestry in all their forms, for tourism and so on? These are fantastic resources. What about a real plan to combat poverty by exploiting this wealth about which we are doing nothing? What about a plan to combat poverty by educating our young people to apply their knowledge and skills in added value for jobs, as is done in every other country where they have managed to combat poverty successfully? Educating young people is the only way to combat poverty and to eliminate poverty. Until we exploit the wealth of the nation we will always have the appalling evidence of grinding poverty and we will always have an excuse for bringing in an agency like this to advise us on the realities with which we should all be only too familiar at this stage.

Only the Government have fundamental responsibility in this area. They are the real combat poverty agency. Only when they begin to address themselves to some of the problems they are delegating to this agency can we say that at last we are beginning not only to combat poverty but to eliminate it.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 8 Apr 1986

Combat Poverty Agency Bill, 1985 [Seanad]: Second Stage (Resumed).

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Apr 1986