Vol. 543 No. 3
12 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs his views on the call made by the general secretary of ICTU (details supplied) at the annual meeting of the four pillars of the PPF on 26 July 2001 for a reduction in the income gap and wider measures for social cohesion; the steps he intends to take to address the issues raised by the general secretary; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26820/01]
40 Mr. Bell asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs his views on the recent claim made by the justice commission of CORI that the Government had betrayed Ireland's poorest people at a time when the gap between rich and poor had widened; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26826/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 12 and 40 together.
One of this Government's key objectives is the creation of an inclusive society where everyone has the opportunity and incentive to participate in the social and economic life of the country. The progress made in the fight against poverty in recent years can hardly be described as a betrayal of Ireland's poorest people. On the contrary, independent research undertaken by the Economic and Social Research Institute has shown that the level of consistent poverty fell from 15% in 1994 to 8% in 1998. We can expect that this trend will continue when the figures for 2001 are produced shortly. We are therefore well on our way to achieving our target of reducing the level of 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 which has been made in reducing the numbers of unemployed has had, and continues to have, a very beneficial impact on the overall numbers in poverty. Since June 1997, the live register has fallen by 44% and we will continue to work to meet the new challenges that recent events have put our way.
It remains the case, of course, that social welfare payment rates are a central factor in determining trends in poverty. Budget 2001 provided for significant expenditure in respect of a range of social welfare measures with a full year cost of £850 million compared to £403.3 million in the previous year. In conjunction with taxation reforms, some of which will benefit those on lower earnings, budget 2001 has had a significant impact on the lives of those experiencing poverty. Allied to these developments, this Government has invested significantly in the public services and has specifically targeted poverty reduction through programmes such as the National Development Plan 2000-2006 and the RAPID, Clár and provincial towns initiatives.
Of course, the trend in numbers falling below relative income lines is a matter of concern to this Government. There can be no doubt that sustained increases in relative income poverty can be an early indicator of future problems regarding social exclusion and this needs to be kept under continuous review. While it will be appreciated that I cannot pre-empt the forthcoming budget, I can assure the House that our commitment to the creation of a fully inclusive society will be further underlined when the details of the budget are announced.
On the first public opportunity that I have, I congratulate David Begg on becoming general secretary of ICTU. It is another phase in one of the most distinguished trade union careers in Irish history. I look forward to his administration which will be a good one for Irish workers. Is it not amazing that, after 14 years of social partnership, in one of Mr. Begg's first public speeches in his new position, he finds it necessary fundamentally to criticise Ireland and com pare it to a country like Denmark? Denmark has had a Labour government for most of its modern history and David Begg says of it, "The levels of social cohesion—"
No. It has had a Labour administration for most of its history.
The Deputy is the conservative. He wants to give the carer's allowance to the rich.
We spend 16% of our national income on social protection. The rest of the EU spends 26%. That says it all. The Minister has presided over the most miserly social welfare administration in Irish history.
No other society has been as successful in turning around a situation as this society has.
We accept that.
The general secretary of ICTU has his play to make but I hope that he will insist that, for a change, when public pronouncements are made they are aimed at helping the less well-off. Over the years, union officials have always talked about tax but they have not talked so much about those on social welfare. No other society, when it is compared with any other European country, has been as successful at turning itself around. Unemployment was at 18%. Half of the population was reliant on social welfare. Now, due to the policies implemented by all Governments, but primarily by Fianna Fáil-led Governments, we have the lowest unemployment rate in the EU. Some 320,000 people who would otherwise have had to rely on social welfare have got jobs in the past four years.
I repeat that the reason we come the lowest in terms of spend on social protection is for two good and simple reasons. They are that we have the youngest population and the lowest unemployment rate.
And the lowest pensions in Europe.
The Deputy's party presided over no increases for old age pensions.
I would ask the Minister to address his remarks through the Chair.
Shame on the Deputy.
He is taking off again.
I am enjoying this.
I hate to interrupt the Minister's ard fheis speech. He nearly believes it himself. The Minister is right, we have the lowest unemployment rate in Europe but we also have the highest rate of relative income poverty and that is an issue we must address. Does the Minister not believe it is essential that future rises in social welfare should be related to growth in income instead of indexation alone? Growth in general income next year is expected to be about 8.5% whereas inflation will be between 3.5% and 4%. If we continually link it to inflation we will continue to increase the gap between the poorest and the well off.
The Minister is correct in saying that countless national plans have done much good for our country but the poor are not part of those plans.
Yes.
The first question the Minister had to answer today was about benchmarking. If we had a commitment on benchmarking for the next seven years we could really lift people out of poverty, instead of the nonsense in which the Minister is indulging. The fundamental issue is lifting people out of poverty by directly linking social welfare payments to income growth.
I do not agree that the less well off do not have an input in the creation of policy. They are represented as the fourth pillar in the existing partnership agreement. In that respect, they are there to make an input into policy but the pronouncements of some groups do not take that into account. They try to hide away from the fact that 320,000 people who would have relied on social welfare are now working. They hide away from the fact that record increases in child benefit have been given to people on social welfare, and they hide away from the fact that social welfare recipients are now in receipt of social welfare increases much faster than they were before this Government took office.
Rubbish.
The Minister should accept the report. He should be brave and put it up to the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy.
We need to have an honest debate on this matter. Is the Minister suggesting that continuing a policy of linking social welfare rises to inflation is the way to go? Social welfare increases should be linked to general wage levels in the economy. That is the only way we will improve the record on relative income poverty.
Why did the Deputy's party not do so when it was in office?
The Minister should address the issue.
The Deputy should leave aside the amounts of money that were available, we are talking about relativity. He cannot have it both ways.
It is obviously getting to the Minister.
Please allow the Minister to answer the question.
Last year, on every social welfare mark we were at least two percentage points ahead of average industrial earnings.
But relative income poverty is the issue.
Last year we were double the rate of inflation.
Does the Minister accept the principle?
In every budget since the Government took office we have given real increases over the rate of inflation.
The Minister is dodging it. Is that not the truth?
That is the answer.
The Deputy's party was making up for the previous year's inflation.
I am talking about the future.
In its pre-budget submission, the Combat Poverty Agency has rightly said that for the first time last year there was some movement towards giving rises in social welfare income and benefits in line with income increases. There was a move on it, although it was surreptitious because the Minister may have been afraid to face the Minister for Finance openly. The wheel has now come full circle, so why will the Minister not agree to a minimum income standard of 27% of the gross average industrial wage, rising to 30%? The Labour Party is committed to that so why will the Minister not announce that today? He should face up to any other elements in Government who are not prepared to do this.
Everything is taken as given when it is an agreed position. Certain members signed off on that 27% and then publicly sought more.
That was the majority.
Because of that difference, ultimately, it is a matter for the Government to square the circle.
Yes.
The Government has been entirely successful in squaring the circle in this regard.
Is the Minister for it or against it?
For four budgets we have been ahead of the rate of inflation. We have given real increases to people on social welfare and will continue to do so. When we win the next election we will continue to do that.
Let the people decide.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.
