Vol. 569 No. 5
5 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if all Government policies are poverty proofed; if the submission of CORI on the forthcoming national action plan for social inclusion has been drawn to her attention; her views on its claim that poverty is not taken into account by the Government in the policy formation process; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18130/03]
Since 1998, all memoranda for Government and key policy initiatives, upon which significant policy decisions have to be made, are required to be poverty proofed. The primary aim of the poverty proofing process is to identify the impact of policy proposals on people experiencing poverty so that this can be given proper consideration in designing the policy.
The office for social inclusion in my Department has been mandated to develop a more effective poverty proofing process. In doing so it must ensure, particularly in light of the findings and recommendations in the review of this process published by the National Economic and Social Council or NESC, that it is appropriately operational in all Departments. Work on this key area is now under way. The Office for Social Inclusion is also currently engaged in co-ordinating the preparation of Ireland's National Action Plan against Poverty and Social Exclusion, 2003-2005. All member states of the European Union are required to submit their national action plans to the EU Commission by 31 July 2003, which will contain their strategies to meet clear objectives agreed at EU level designed to combat poverty and social exclusion and the specific resources to give effect to these strategies.
The preparation of the plan for the period 2003-05 is now well advanced and has involved an extensive process of consultation, organised in conjunction with the Combat Poverty Agency. This consultation process has included four regional and three national seminars as well as a public invitation for written submissions. The submission from CORI is one of almost 70 submissions received in response to that invitation and sets out its views on what should be contained in the national action plan. All the submissions received, together with the outcomes of the wider public consultation, will be taken into account in the context of the ongoing preparation of the national action plan and its implementation.
I do not agree with the CORI view that poverty issues are not taken into account in policy formulation. The emphasis placed by Government on employment as a route out of poverty has been very successful with significant and sustained reductions in unemployment and increases in employment. The marked reduction in the levels of consistent poverty in recent years is largely attributable to this approach. However, side by side with that strategic approach, the Government has also invested heavily in increasing the levels of income support and services to those who are not in the active labour force, with record levels of investment in welfare payments and in child benefit payments.
Additional InformationThe increases provided for in the 2003 budget protect or enhance, in real terms, the standard of living of all social welfare recipients. It must be recalled that this budget was introduced at a time of great economic uncertainty and the scale of investment in the welfare area underlined the Government's commitment to protecting those at highest risk. I look forward to making progress on meeting the income adequacy targets contained in the NAPS, and now restated in Sustaining Progress, in the budgets over the period to 2007.
Why does the Minister think a reputable organisation such as the CORI Justice Commission would state that the Government's claim that poverty is taken into account in policy formulation is not supported by the empirical evidence? Is the Minister aware that the CORI Justice Commission submission identified two areas which illustrate the Government's clear lack of commitment? Is it the case that about 60% of those living in poverty are in households headed by a person who is not in the labour force? Will the Minister concede that the Government in its recent budget failed miserably to honour a strong commitment it made to raise the lowest social welfare rates in that budget? Furthermore, the CORI Justice Commission says that because so many of these households are headed by people who are not in the labour force, the Government's strategy of focusing on creating jobs for those people must, by definition, be a failure.
The Government fails to appreciate the changes in the distribution of poverty over the past decade and therefore it has tried old and trusted ways as opposed to the new concepts that are now becoming available. The Minister of State will not accept this but CORI put forward the idea that the Government failed those people who are on the lowest social welfare payments in 2003, on the basis that they are less well off in 2003 than they were in 2002, when inflation and rent increases and myriad related cost increases are taken into account in the shopping basket.
I assume that this came from an article in The Irish Times which was a response not necessarily to the NAPS income but to a launch, in which I participated, of a study on the relationship between poverty and inequality by the Combat Poverty Agency and the Equality Authority. That is based on a technical methodology of poverty proofing. I do not agree with CORI, particularly on a number of issues, for example, that poverty proofing has not worked because it is a new methodology. All other Departments are taking it on. My Department led this through the social inclusion unit and it is aware of this and keen to pursue it. Where an independent group comes from is its business, just as any Member of this House can have an independent view on anything.
It is difficult to accept the particular issue that CORI raises because I agree that when one looks at how employment has had an effect in reducing poverty it is quite difficult to see that supporting unemployment schemes and so on is the wrong thing to do but it is not the only thing to do. That is why we are also looking at other types of income support, of steps to progress, moving into education, training and all of those issues, new family support services – two pilot projects have almost completed their work. There is significant intervention which is positive and working well in moving people on who would perhaps have been left and never supported. I do not agree with CORI although it does make relevant points which would always be taken into consideration.
