Vol. 511 No. 1
29 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs his views on the ESRI prediction that, unless there are fundamental policy changes, relative income poverty will increase by a half to 2001, at the 40% line from 1994, and by a sixth, at the 50% income limit; and the action, if any, he will take with regard to this prediction. [23621/99]
One of this Government's key objectives is the creation of an inclusive society where everyone has an opportunity and an incentive to participate in the social and economic life of the country.
The global target adopted in the National Anti-Poverty Strategy is framed in terms of "consistent poverty" as defined by the ESRI which combines low incomes with the experience of enforced basic deprivation. Combining both these elements is considered by the ESRI to be a better measure of the extent of poverty at any given time than simply considering either part in isolation. In this regard, the results of the latest ESRI research, "Monitoring Poverty Trends", are very encouraging with the numbers experiencing consistent poverty falling from 9% to 15% of the population in 1994 to 7% to 10% by 1997 – I hazard a guess that that would have continued over the intervening years – with the original NAPS target virtually achieved. In light of this progress, I have announced ambitious new targets to reduce consistent poverty to below 5% by 2004.
Having a job is recognised as the best route out of poverty and, as such, the dramatic progress made in reducing the numbers of unemployed has had, and continues to have, a very beneficial impact on the overall numbers in poverty. Since this Government took office, some 200,000 net jobs have been created and the live register has fallen by 77,000, or 30%, to its lowest level since 1982. Nonetheless, social welfare payment rates remain a central factor in determining trends in poverty. This Government is committed to at least maintaining the value of social welfare payments in real terms and, recent years have seen significant increases in excess of inflation. In the review of the Programme for Government, there was a commitment to increase all social welfare pensions for old people in line with average earnings over the lifetime of this Government.
Additional Information
Between 1995 and 1998, social welfare pay ments increased by 13% to 14% compared to a total rise in the consumer price index of less than 6% and an increase in gross average industrial earnings of about 11%. Furthermore, all social welfare rates are now at or above the minimum rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare meeting a key target of both Partnership 2000 and NAPS. We have reaffirmed our commitment to increase the old age contributory pension to £100 per week and further undertaken to increase the non-contributory pension to this level by 2002. In addition, we have committed ourselves to increasing social welfare pensions for older people in line with average earnings over the lifetime of this Government. This reflects a real improvement in the living standards of those dependent on welfare payments which, together with the dramatic progress made in terms of employment creation, have provided substantial real increases in the incomes of lower income households and a marked reduction in deprivation.
The trend in numbers falling below relative income lines is also a matter of concern to this Government. Sustained increases in relative income poverty can be an early indicator of future problems regarding social exclusion and thus needs ongoing monitoring. The future direction of social welfare rates generally is under continuing review in my Department. All relevant research and publications from the ESRI, Combat Poverty Agency and others such as the National Pensions Policy Initiative and the NESC inform that process. This must also take account of wider budgetary and employment considerations and will be complemented by other developments such as the introduction of a national minimum wage, the implementation of the Employment Action Plan and the outcome of the current discussions on a new partnership agreement.
I am pleased by the Minister's last comment. It is a type of Pauline conversion for this Government. However, he deliberately misses the key point of the question which refers to relative income. It is a fact that because social welfare increases were pitched at the 40% poverty line, as defined in NAPS and other organisations, that the figures in this question are correct and that in relative terms poverty has been increasing. Is it not essential, therefore, that today fortnight the Minister and the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, will be able to ensure that social welfare payments will be linked to average incomes or perhaps even to go further to average industrial earnings in the case of many of the key payments? Is that not the basic way for those on social welfare who are not working to try and ensure that these figures do not re-emerge in the future?
Hopefully there will be another partnership agreement. It will include significant pay rises, will it not? Does the Minister agree that social welfare payments should keep pace?
The Deputy is referring to the ESRI report. It was referring to the period 1994-7 when the Government was not in office. Perhaps the Deputy should look to his own in that respect.
The commitment on old age pensioners was a new cast iron commitment which was made in the review of the programme for Government. Indeed, on the experience over the past two years, the increase in those schemes has been way in excess of the average income over that period. We will be endeavouring as best we can to eradicate poverty. As I said, the unambitious targets which were set by the Government, to which the Deputy's party was a party, have already been reached long before the term of the NAP strategy while this Government was in power.
The Government has much more money available to it – £6.5 billion.
Please, Deputy Broughan.
The Deputy is misquoting the actual figure because he knows the Government made a decision about the surplus, that we would dedicate a sizeable portion to State pensions.
I am afraid the Minister doth protest too much. Does he not feel a little ashamed at times that in this affluent nation there are still such deep pockets of poverty, that there are predictions of relative poverty increasing and that we figure so badly in international league tables, such as the recent UN human life report? Is the Minister upset by that or does he just feel moved to justify the present situation? Would he not join with Deputy Broughan and me to plan to remove all those deep pockets of poverty?
I do not think Deputy O'Keeffe was at the recent launch of the UN figures, which took place in the Shelbourne Hotel. The gentleman from the UN was particularly effusive about the way Ireland, in the past number of years, has transformed itself.
He should visit parts of the northside.
Again much of it is due to the policies which were enunciated by my party over the years in social partnership, for which at least Deputy Broughan's party was not prepared, but he has converted anyway.
