asked the Minister for Social Welfare his estimate for the total number of people in the State now living below the poverty line; the criteria applied in assessing poverty; the percentage of the population this figure represents; the way in which this compares with other EC countries; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Poverty Level.
9.
There is no official poverty line in Ireland. Studies of poverty here have used different arbitrary lines usually based on a social welfare payment, e.g., the rate of supplementary welfare allowance, which is the basic income due to any person who is in need. In a study of poverty in this country over the 1973-1980 period, it was estimated that the level of poverty was considerably reduced over this period by reason of improvements in income maintenance policies.
There are difficulties in making worthwhile comparisons with the situation in other EC countries in this area and comparable data are not available. However, Ireland's gross domestic product per head stands at 70.7 per cent of the EC average, so inevitably the general standard of living of all sections of the population in Ireland is bound to be significantly below the standard of living in most of the other EC countries.
A more important basis for comparison is the degree of redistribution in the form of social protection services to the weaker sections of the community. In this regard Ireland compares well. In 1983 the percentage of GDP devoted to social protection in Ireland was 23.9 per cent, just 4 per cent below the average for the nine EC countries, excluding Greece, Spain and Portugal.
The Combat Poverty agency, whose brief includes research into poverty, is at present part financing a major study of poverty being conducted by the Economic and Social Research Institute. One of the objectives of this study is to establish the extent of poverty and it forms part of a study of a number of EC Countries being co-ordinated under the Statistical Office of the European Communities. The final European report will enable valuable comparisons to be made at international level.
I appreciate the Minister's lengthy and detailed reply. Would he not accept that, while we are waiting for analyses and reports, there are people in dire need and that there are readily identifiable needy sectors such as those living alone on unemployment assistance of £34, £35 or £36 per week? Would the Minister not accept that it should be an urgent priority of social welfare policy to identify and target these groups now for special consideration and help?
In relation to the reply, the Deputy asked a whole series of questions within one question and I was asked for comparisons with EC countries.
I appreciate that.
Hence the length of the reply. In relation to the basic levels, unemployment assistance is one of the lower levels. The long duration unemployment level will be £37.80 from July, whereas personal rates for old age pensioners will be £55 and the widow's pension will be £49.50. Some areas are lower than others and these will have to receive special attention in any future developments.
Why did the Minister's Government stop the special increase of £3.50 per week which the previous Government had provided for in relation to those in the catogory I mentioned? Why in the name of God was it stopped when those people are living in dire need?
That is a specific question.
It arises specifically from the supplementary reply given by the Minister. I feel very passionately about that sector of our community. Did the Minister see "The Late Late Show" on 8 May during which Gay Byrne described this country as a Third World country and would he agree with that description?
That does not mean that we are.
Deputy Andrews is not a Minister yet.
I did not see the show in question. The figures I have quoted will go some way towards indicating what our position is in that regard. It is very far away from what is suggested in the Deputy's statement about "The Late Late Show." Nevertheless it is something that will have to be considered on an ongoing basis as money becomes available. The Deputy raised the question of the special allowance for people aged over 45 who are living alone. That was a measure which was introduced because of a particular political situation in which the previous Government found themselves.
It was not. That political situation has passed. That is rubbish.
I know it passed and the Government passed with it. Unemployment assistance is totally funded by the taxpayer. It is not part of the insurance fund. That is where the real problem arises. Unemployment assistance is currently costing £396 million per annum. In addition to the basic levels in our schemes, we must also bear in mind that there are certain cash benefits which apply. Only when you consider the real value of any of our schemes and of the dependant's allowances which go with the basic allowances in conjunction with the cash benefits do you get the full picture. Certainly I will be concerned about that.
The question sought information not on the extent of benefits but on the number of people below the poverty line. In the first instance, would the Minister give the source of the report he mentioned and which, after all, if it is to answer the question, should give the number of people concerned? Would he not agree also that the question asked for the criteria in assessing poverty to be indicated to the House and that the criteria he has announced are not those used for calculating the poverty line in any other country in Europe where the criteria centre around basic needs such as questions of food, nutrition, housing, access to services and so forth? When does he propose to bring that information to the House?
I am not sure whether the Deputy was here for the full reply.
I was.
The Combat Poverty Agency are currently undertaking that task. Most of the criteria that have been used to date have been arbitrary criteria in the various studies. One of them was the study I mentioned and which was carried out by John Roche and based on the analysis of household budget surveys. He used alternative poverty lines. He used the supplementary welfare allowance level as what he called level A. He then took a level 20 per cent above that and then a level 40 per cent above that. He found in 1973 at level A, the lowest of those three levels, that the percentage was 9.8. In 1980 the percentage was down to 4.3. At poverty line B the level was 15.3 per cent in 1973 and that had reduced to 7.5 per cent in 1980. At poverty Line C it was 22.7 per cent in 1973 and 12.3 per cent in 1980. I give that as the latest information available that is directly relevant. The ESRI are conducting a major study in conjunction with the Combat Poverty Agency, and that I expect will provide the kind of information the Deputy and the rest of the House would like to have.
In his second last reply the Minister referred to the scarcity of resources and the amount of money being spent on social welfare. I understand that resources are not limitless and I am not even asking that more money would necessarily be spent on the overall Social Welfare Vote, but would the Minister not agree that there is an urgent need for selectivity, that, for instance, we should not be paying children's allowances to everybody no matter how well off and at the same time ask a certain category of our people to live on £36 or £37 a week?
The Deputy is raising a matter which is worthy of a specific question on the Order Paper.
The Minister seemed to suggest in his reply that we were asking for more resources for social welfare. I am asking for special attention for those below the poverty line and if that means greater selectivity, let us get on with it.
The question refers to the poverty line, how you determine it and who is living below it, and there are different criteria for assessing that. It is difficult enough to define that line very clearly. Nevertheless, as I said to Deputy Higgins, I will be pursuing this in conjunction with the Combat Poverty Agency. The Commission on Social Welfare established another line, and the cost of bringing everyone up to that line would be £460 million at 1986 levels. I wish to make clear to the Deputy the size of the problem. The commission concluded that the basis they were using was not a particularly good one for the criteria for establishing where poverty lay. That is the difficulty, and that is the relevance of the study being done by the Combat Poverty Agency. That study will provide the information on which greater selectivity can be introduced.
Question No. 10. I have dwelt on this question for a considerable time. I appreciate that it is a very important question but all questions on the Order Paper are important to the Chair. I hope that Deputy Bell will be very brief so that we can pass on to the next question.
I understand the Minister to say that social welfare payments here were 70 per cent of the EC levels. Most of the parties are selling to the people the question of a "yes" vote in the Single European Act referendum campaign and telling people that everything effectively will be equalised in European terms, but I have not heard if the Government have plans to equalise social welfare payments in accordance with the ratification of the Single European Act. Will the Minister state if that is so?
That is a separate question and if the Deputy puts one down we can have it considered. We had a question earlier on the equality which arose from the EC. It is significant that our joining the EC in 1973 made resources available here which were paid for previously by the taxpayer here to support agriculture. It was the freeing up of those which made it possible to increase social welfare benefits during that period.
From farmers' taxation?
Did the Deputy say "along with taxation"?
Where did it come from?
It was a redistribution of, for instance, the milk support moneys in 1973 which were than available to the Government to put elsewhere. That is what happened in practice. Fair enough, taxpayers' money had to go to support agriculture but subsequently it did not have to go for that purpose and went in this direction instead. During the years 1980 to 1982 — I was Minister at the time — there were still substantial increases in social welfare, 25 per cent each year. I accept that since that time the general situation has become much more difficult. I accept also what Deputy Mitchell and others have said, that there is a need now for more information and greater selectivity in future decisions.