Written Answers. - Anti-Poverty Strategy.
Dick Spring
Question:
50
Mr. Spring
asked the
Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs
if he will review the existing national anti-poverty strategy targets and extend them to cover housing, health care and income inadequacy in view of the recent growth in national income; and his views on where the poverty line should be set in terms of average household income.
[23609/99]
The national anti-poverty strategy was launched in April 1997 with the overall target of reducing the proportion of households in consistent poverty from 9% – 15% to less than 5% – 10% by 2007. Targets and objectives were also set in relation to each of the five key themes of unemployment, educational disadvantage, income adequacy, disadvantaged urban areas and rural poverty.
The first annual report of the NAPS Interdepartmental Policy Committee was launched in June of 1999 and contained a comprehensive overview of developments and progress in the social inclusion area. This report also detailed the substantial progress made to date towards achieving many of the original NAPS targets. In particular, the number of people in consistent poverty has been reduced from 9% – 15% to 7% – 10%, with the NAPS target of 5% – 10% by 2007 almost achieved; all social welfare payments are now at or above the minimum rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare; the level of unemployment has been reduced from 11.9% in April 1996 to 5.7% for the period March to May 1999, already below the NAPS target of 6%; and the level of long-term unemployment has been reduced from 7% in April 1996 to less than 2.5% by March to May 1999, again below the NAPS target of 3.5%.
In light of these developments, and as part of this Government's social inclusion strategy, I announced a revised target to reduce the numbers in consistent poverty to below 5% by 2004. In addition, the employment action plan contains a target to reduce unemployment to 5% and long-term unemployment to 2% by the end of the year 2000.
I have also asked the NAPS IDPC to examine possibilities for new targets to reflect the changed environment – for example in relation to education and adult literacy – and to consider setting targets in relation to particular groups such as children in poverty. I expect that the IDPC will consider a wide range of possible areas, including those referred to by the Deputy. It must be borne in mind that work on this complex matter is at a very early stage and it will be necessary to find a balance between the desirability of a wide range of targets to cover the complexity of social exclusion and the danger of losing focus if the net is cast too wide. No doubt, the national development plan and the outcome of the ongoing partnership negotiations will also inform this process.
As regards an appropriate poverty line, the overall NAPS target is framed in terms of consistent poverty which is defined as being below 50% to 60% of average household income and experiencing enforced basic deprivation. The ESRI have stated that they consider this combined definition to be a better measure of poverty at any given point in time than using either element in isolation. However, it is common practice, to capture the complexity of the issue, to also examine the numbers falling below relative income poverty lines – without reference to deprivation – set at 40%, 50% and 60% of average household income.
The future direction of social welfare rates generally is a matter which is under continuing consideration within my Department, particularly now that the minimum rates as recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare have been achieved. Various research presented by the ESRI, including monitoring poverty trends and review of the Commission on Social Welfare's minimum adequate income, as well as other work such as the national pension policy initiative's securing retirement income, various publications from the Combat Poverty Agency and a forthcoming strategy document from the National Economic and Social Council will all have an important role to play in the formulation of a future policy direction in this regard.
Social exclusion is a broader issue than purely income levels, incorporating issues surrounding ability to participate in the wider aspects of society. In this regard, issues such as education, healthcare, drugs, crime, sporting and cultural facilities are also of the utmost importance in ensuring that everyone has the opportunity and incentive to participate fully in the social and economic life of the country.
