Vol. 501 No. 5
2 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress on the targets to reduce the consistently poor in the period to 2007 as set out in the national anti-poverty strategy. [6555/99]
The national anti-poverty strategy, NAPS, was launched in April 1997 with the overall target of reducing the proportion of households in consistent poverty from 9 to 15 per cent to less than 5 to 10 per cent by 2007. Targets were also set under five key themes, namely, unemployment, educational disadvantage, income adequacy, disadvantaged urban areas and rural poverty.
I will publish in the near future an assessment of our progress on the specific targets set out in the NAPS on the basis of ESRI and other research. This updated information will allow us to measure progress towards the overall target, inform the future direction of the strategy and enable us to refocus our efforts on those most in need. I would like to think we could update the key targets, in light of the rapidly changing circumstances, as part of the Government's social inclusion strategy, and we are currently doing that.
It should be remembered that this is just one of the targets set in NAPS. There are subsidiary targets under the five key themes of unemployment, income adequacy, educational disadvantage, urban disadvantage and rural poverty. An example would be the commitment, also referred to in Partnership 2000, that the Commission on Social Welfare's minimum recommended rates would be achieved by the end of 1999, a target which we accomplished in the 1999 budget. Measures aimed at meeting all these targets continue to be implemented across Departments, in line with the cross-dimensional approach we have adopted.
Developments in this regard are overseen by the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs chaired by the Taoiseach.
With regard to progress on unemployment, considerable headway has already been made towards the NAPS target of reducing the unemployment rate to 6 per cent by 2007. The Central Statistics Office estimated the rate of unemployment at 7 per cent for January 1999. Therefore, we are well ahead of our target. Since the Government came into office the number unemployed has fallen by 46,500. This means the target for end-year 2000 set out in the employment action plan has been already achieved. Long-term unemployment stood at 3.9 per cent for the period March to May 1998, the latest figure available, with the NAPS target of 3.5 per cent by 2007 almost achieved.
The Department of Education and Science run a range of schemes aimed at countering educational disadvantage, such as Breaking the Cycle, and the home-school-community liaison scheme. The introduction of the School Attendance (Amendment) Bill, which will raise the minimum school leaving age to 16 years or on completion of at least three years of junior cycle education, should also have a positive impact on school retention rates.
The spatial dimension of poverty is also being addressed on a number of fronts. In addition to national policies aimed at combating social exclusion, there are a range of initiatives which aim to tackle the particular characteristics of urban and rural disadvantage.
The forthcoming White Paper on Rural Development will deal with rural development as a multidimensional integrated process. The paper will set out a statement of the overall objective to be achieved together with a broad policy framework and the institutional mechanisms to achieve it. Other issues such as rural transport, rural resettlement and farm incomes are also being examined.
Urban disadvantage is also being tackled on a number of fronts, through programmes such as the area-based partnerships, the URBAN programme, the national drugs strategy, the young people's facilities and services fund and the integrated services project.
It is my intention to review the various targets set out in NAPS in light of the changed social and economic environment since the original targets were set. I propose to do this in the context of achievements under the Government's employment action plan, the forthcoming ESRI report and the NAPS annual report, which I expect will be published in the coming months.
I am disappointed the question I originally tabled on pensions and on the major developments on which the Minister's colleague is embarking was not accepted. I, and I am sure other Members, would like to hear the Minister's views on that matter.
I do not have a say in how priority questions are dealt with. I would be willing to reply to such a question.
I accept that. I may also table a question on that to the Minister for Finance.
The Minister said a report will be published soon on the NAPS on sharing and progress. That is welcome and I hope Opposition spokespersons will be invited to the presentation. My question is closely linked to Question No. 7 tabled by Deputy O'Shea. Will the Minister agree the ESRI report published before Christmas on budget perspectives and the proceedings of the conference of 27 October 1998 showed conclusively that while increases in social welfare averaged 16 per cent, in recent budgets the average household income increased by 22 per cent? Will he also agree that under recent Government policy the richest 10 per cent of families gained more significantly from fiscal and budgetary changes than the poorest 30 per cent? They gained only half of what the richest 10 per cent gained. Is it not obvious that the poorest in our society are not sharing in the fruits of the Celtic tiger and that the Minister, as the person in charge, is not ensuring the poorest 30 per cent of families are keeping up with other categories.
I welcome what the Minister said about child benefit. At the start of the former partnership Government, the target set in respect of child care, to be achieved over five or six years, was £20 per week, although we did not reach that figure. Will the Minister agree that if we were to reach that target, as recently proposed by Fine Gael, this £700 million would be well spent? Will he also agree he is failing to meet fundamental targets set out in the NAPS?
I reject that. I refer the Deputy to the figures I gave on the creation of employment, probably the most important aspect of tackling poverty. Under this Government, we are all but there in terms of achieving the targets set for reducing unemployment and creating employment. The targets set by the former Government, in which Deputy Broughan served, were not ambitious. The target set for 2007 has been all but met by the creation of approximately 47,000 jobs since June 1997 and 96,000 jobs in 1997-98. The figures in the ESRI report, to which the Deputy referred, relate primarily to the period during which the Deputy and his party were in Government. However, it is important to point out we have conflicting signals coming from the ESRI, in that in very recent days it has asked the country to control wages and show restraint while, on the other hand, it suggests that social welfare payments should rise faster than they have done. The social welfare increases in the past two budgets in which Fianna Fáil were involved either equalled or exceeded the normal wage increases, particularly the old age pension.
I am glad the Minister referred to unemployment, which is one of the key parameters in the measurement of poverty. However, is it not a fact that, despite an unemployment rate of 7 per cent, in many constituenc ies including the Minister's and mine, there are parishes with unemployment rates of 30 and 40 per cent?
The Taoiseach was involved in negotiations yesterday on Agenda 2000. The policy currently being pursued by the Government may leave those disadvantaged areas in the Minister's constituency and mine without the extra structural support from which we have benefited over the past five years and which will be badly missed by those most deprived communities. There is a major question mark over how we will target resources at deprived areas outside the Objective One region.
The Minister has set up an interdepartmental group on the issue of basic income. However, is he not, in a sense, just humouring and plamásing Fr. Seán Healy and CORI and leading them along, although he has no intention of introducing a basic income along the lines argued for by Fr. Healy and his very impressive colleagues? Would it not be better for the Minister to say the Government does not believe in that kind of basic income and that it will embark on another way, which includes the existing basic incomes of the social welfare system and the minimum wage, which is a policy of the Government? Should he not just be honest with CORI and Fr. Healy?
I suggest the Deputy ask for a meeting with Fr. Seán Healy and CORI so they can brief him on their position, not necessarily only on the basic income issue but also on their response to the recent budget, which they subsequently acknowledged, when I pointed out to them that their post budget press statement was based on erroneous figures—
That document was fairly critical – it was sizzling with criticism.
They acknowledged at a meeting with me that the figures they had used were not correct because they misunderstood – perhaps through no fault of theirs – the figures that issued from the Department of Finance in the immediate aftermath of the budget. That is probably a lesson to all the lobby groups which are very quick to berate budgets a few hours after they are announced. They should be very careful how they look at their figures.
As the Deputy pointed out, the issue of basic income is being looked at. We are not disregarding that issue.
I am glad the Deputy raised the issue of regionalisation. I fully support the Government's attitude. We could have done what the Deputy's party wished to do, which was to do nothing and to create a situation which would not be for the overall benefit of the country.
We tried to get Objective One status for everyone.
The Deputy referred to my area. If the Labour Party were in Government and adopted the attitude that we should do nothing about the issue of regionalisation and that we should not put our best foot forward, in effect, not only would we lose some Structural Funds – not a huge amount – we would also lose the ability to get maximum state aids for counties such as the Border counties, including my county, which have, unfortunately, fallen behind over the past 20 or 30 years.
The Minister should see west Cork.
Only 20 of the 400 new companies which have come to this country from abroad have gone to the six Border counties. If we were to accept regionalisation, County Louth and the other Border counties would be put at a huge disadvantage in relation to the six Northern counties which would still be able to get maximum state grants. We would lose out even more if we accepted what some economists and commentators, who know no better, are saying.
I am very proud this Government is doing its level best to ensure we maximise our position in Europe, as we did the last time, when we were also criticised by the Opposition. Does the Opposition remember the £8 billion? In fact, we got more than £8 billion. The Opposition was wrong then and it is wrong now.
The 20 minutes allocated for Priority Questions has long expired. As a result, Question No. 3 cannot be taken and Questions Nos. 4 and 5 are transferred to ordinary questions.
