Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 27 Jan 2000

Vol. 513 No. 2

Ceisteanna–Questions. Priority Questions. - UN Report on Poverty.

Jim O'Keeffe

Question:

5 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if his attention has been drawn to the observations of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressing concern on the persistence of poverty among the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in Ireland, notably the disabled, the traveller community, children, elderly women and single women with children, and highlighting the inadequacy of welfare benefits and in particular that children's benefits are not sufficient to cover the cost of bringing up a child; and the further proposals, if any, he has to improve the situation. [1855/00]

I assure the Deputy that I am aware of the observations of the United Nations committee. These were provided in response to the submission of Ireland's first report under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which refers to developments occurring in the period to 1996. However, the UN, in its observations, did not confine itself to that period but also to the 1996-99 period, on which it had solicited information.

The groups mentioned by the committee, such as people with disabilities and single women with children, are among those identified in the national anti-poverty strategy as being at particular risk of poverty. Consistent poverty stands at between 7% and 10%, and such groups as the disabled, retired and those on home duties, accounting for the majority of the groups referred to by the Deputy, have benefited from the overall reduction in the numbers of consistently poor.

In response, the Government announced a new consistent poverty target of less than 5% by 2004. The achievement of this would mean we will have made significant progress in our strategy on social inclusion. Social welfare payment rates remain a central factor in determining trends in poverty. The Government is committed to at least maintaining the value of social welfare payments in real terms and, indeed, in recent years there have been significant increases in excess of inflation. Between 1997 and 2000, social welfare payments increased by 16% to 23% compared to a total rise in the consumer price index of just over 6% during the same period. In addition, 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.

As part of our recent review of this Government's action programme we have reaffirmed our commitment to increase the old age contributory pension to £100 per week, undertaken to increase also the non-contributory pension to this level by 2002 and committed ourselves to increasing all social welfare pensions in line with average earnings over the lifetime of this Government.

Increases of this nature reflect 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.

Finally, the recent budget provides for an additional full-year investment of almost £106 million in child benefit, bringing the total full-year cost of the scheme to some £580 million per annum. This reflects the value the Government places on the scheme as an effective vehicle for tackling poverty.

Is the Minister not embarrassed that a reputable UN committee has delivered a report of this nature? Does he take pride in the fact that the report has cause to highlight the inadequacy of welfare benefits and, in particular, that child benefits are not sufficient to cover the costs of bringing up a child? Does he not believe that when the country is awash with money we should be getting away from that kind of report and he should be able to convince his ministerial colleagues to give him the necessary money to turn this around? Does he accept that the CORI figure of £900 million would eliminate poverty entirely?

At the end of the day social welfare increases are one of the ways in which people can be brought out of poverty. I will give the Deputy some figures to illustrate what we have done since coming to office. Old age contributory pensions have increased by 23.1% over that period. Non-contributory old age pensions have increased by 26.7%; widow's pension, under 66 years, by 14.1%; widow's non-contributory pension has increased by 14.8%; unemployment benefit and disability benefit, 14.8% in both long-term unemployment, UB and DB; short-term UA has increased by 16.2%. All those percentages are well in excess of the rate of inflation and of anything given by the previous Government when inflation was somewhat higher. I accept the report. Obviously we must do more. That is one of the reasons we looked at the reasonably conservative benchmarks laid in the national anti-poverty strategy in relation to targets that must be reached in order to eradicate and reduce poverty. Many of those targets have been met but we are not satisfied with that. We set new, more ambitious targets to reduce the number of those in persistent poverty to under 5% by the year 2004. We are well ahead of that. We are all practical politicians. Even the Deputy must be speaking tongue in cheek because the reality is that over the past number of years the level of poverty has reduced dramatically.

The Minister does not live in Dublin.

I am a practising politician as is the Deputy. Please let me finish.

These are Priority Questions. The Deputy should not intervene.

I accept that there are people who have fallen behind and have not been able to compete for jobs. At the end of the day, the best way out of poverty is to provide somebody with a job. This Government's record on job creation and getting people off the live register is incredible. More than 80,000 people, one-third of the live register, have gone off the register since we came into office.

This is ridiculous.

I know the Deputy does not want to hear this because it is unpalatable and does not suit his political agenda.

On a point of order, it is 3.05 p.m.

The Deputy is not in order. These are Priority Questions. We have had much disorder.

We have been listening to this waffle for the past year.

At the same time the population has increased by 80,000.

The time for Priority Questions has concluded. We now proceed to Ordinary Questions.

The Minister waffled his way through. It is time we had—

I gave the facts to the Deputy.

Before proceeding to Ordinary Questions I find it necessary to remind Members that the Chair has no option but to implement the time limits adopted by the House and unanimously agreed by it. I intend to do so and remind the House that, in Ordinary Question time, the time limit for each question is six minutes. The Minister has two minutes for his initial reply and there are four minutes for supplementaries. In that four minutes neither a Member nor the Minister can exceed one minute when asking a supplementary question or making a supplementary reply. I ask Members to respect the decision of the House and abide by these rules.

Top
Share