JOINT COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND FAMILY AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 25 Mar 2003

Vol. 1 No. 5

National Anti-Poverty Networks: Presentation.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Ray Dooley of the Children's Rights Alliance, Ms June Tinsley, policy officer of the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, Ms Mary Keogh of the Forum for People with Disabilities and Mr. Seán Regan of the Community Workers' Co-operative.

I remind members and visitors to switch off mobile telephones if they have not already done so. I also remind the visitors that while the comments of members are protected by parliamentary privilege, theirs are not.

I call on Ms June Tinsley to make her presentation.

Ms June Tinsley

I am June Tinsley from the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed. I am here with Ray Dooley of the Children's Rights Alliance, Mary Keogh of the Forum for People with Disabilities and Seán Regan of the Community Workers' Co-operative. We are here to represent the ten national anti-poverty networks. Some of our other colleagues are in the Visitor's Gallery. These networks are supported by the Combat Poverty Agency national anti-poverty networks programme.

Later in our presentation we will explain the work undertaken by the networks. First, we thank the joint committee for this opportunity to meet it and to discuss the issue of addressing poverty and social exclusion in Ireland. We hope to use this opportunity to highlight the role of the community sector in general and the work of the anti-poverty networks in particular in addressing social exclusion and poverty in the 21st century and to build better links with the committee. This is particularly timely, given the current review of the national action plan against poverty and social exclusion and the ongoing challenges facing Irish society.

Before we proceed with the main presentation, it is necessary to be clear that poverty and social exclusion are not simply about money, although it is very important. Poverty is multidimensional and encompasses such issues as access to services, education and participation in decision-making. The national anti-poverty strategy states that people are living in poverty if their income and resources - material, cultural and social - are so inadequate as to preclude them from having a standard of living which is regarded as acceptable by society in general. As a result of inadequate income and resources, people may be excluded and marginalised from participating in activities that are considered the norm for other people in society. Such activities could be social, political and cultural. Poverty eradication and bridging the rich-poor gap are now recognised internationally as the overarching issues facing humanity, as identified last year at the world summit on sustainable development.

I will hand over to Mary Keogh, who will outline the current challenges facing Irish society.

Ms Mary Keogh

The joint committee is, no doubt, aware that despite the recent economic growth of the Irish economy and improvements in the lives of many, Ireland is still the second most unequal society in the developed world, next to the USA. Some 22% of Irish people lived in relative poverty in 2000 compared with 16% in 1994. The EU joint report on the NAPSInc 2001 notes concern at the growing income disparity between rich and poor in Ireland. We have many serious social problems, such as increasing numbers of homeless and on local authority waiting lists and a two-tier health system.

Certain groups of people are particularly vulnerable to poverty and social exclusion. These are now recognised in fora such as NAPS, CPA and NESF. Among the issues facing these groups are: that Ireland has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the EU, with more than 90,000 experiencing severe deprivation; that Traveller illiteracy rates are estimated at 85% and infant mortality among Travellers is three times that of the settled community; that 25% of households living in consistent poverty are headed by lone parents, whereas only 13% of all families are headed by lone parents; that the low weekly cash payment received by asylum seekers of €19.05 effectively precludes their participation in Irish society, while limited integration measures result in the ongoing social exclusion of many refugees; and that homelessness continues to increase. In 1999, Government figures showed that there were 5,234 homeless - double the number for 1996. Government figures for March 2002 have still not been released, but there is every indication of an even greater growth in homelessness. Gender inequality is still a significant issue, with women from marginalised communities, and older women in particular, experiencing social exclusion, particularly in respect of the labour market and decision-making structures.

It is widely recognised that while employment-based strategies alone will not secure the elimination of consistent poverty, unemployment is one of the key determining factors for households in consistent poverty. Unemployment currently stands at 4.5% and is increasing and approximately 80% of people with a disability are unemployed. This, combined with the extra cost of disability, inadequate services and isolation, leads to high levels of poverty and exclusion of people with disabilities. All the issues of exclusion and inequality are compounded for disadvantaged communities in rural areas, where access to information and services is severely limited.

These matters were not adequately addressed during the era of the Celtic tiger and are now at risk of being set aside. Despite being one of the best performing economies in the EU, Ireland spends less on social protection than any other EU member state.

It is also important that the work that has been done in recent years is not undermined in short-sighted attempts to save resources at the expense of the most vulnerable. Such an approach will lead to even more exclusion, increased alienation of marginalised communities and a breakdown in social cohesion.

I would like to hand over to my colleague, Ray Dooley, to talk about the work of the anti-poverty networks.

Mr. Ray Dooley

The ten organisations in the national anti-poverty programme are all national representative and co-ordinating bodies made up of independent member groups and-or individuals who link with each other on common or shared issues. We share a number of characteristics. We have a national focus and structure. We each have a strong anti-poverty focus, either focusing on particular target groups or addressing the issue of poverty more generally in Irish society from particular perspectives or models of operation. We work actively to involve local communities affected by poverty and disadvantage in our structures and activities and play a role in building local capacity to tackle poverty at the local level. We have national membership bases that can give voice to disadvantaged marginalised groups in local, regional and national fora. We have mechanisms to ensure members are informed and consulted about the activities and policies of their national representatives. We are each constituted as a formal legal entity and a number of us have charitable status. We seek to inform policy at a national level and we work in partnership with other networks and groups.

The ten national anti-poverty networks are the Community Workers' Co-operative; Irish Traveller Movement; Forum of People with Disabilities; One Parent Exchange and Network; Irish Refugee Council; Irish Rural Link; Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed; Children's Rights Alliance; Older Women's Network and the European Anti-Poverty Network. More information and contact details on each of these organisations is given on the national anti-poverty networks programme brochure that has been circulated.

While we are each engaged in quite distinct though complementary activities, a number of common roles can be identified, including: representation - each network is involved in representing its membership and-or the community sector in various fora and policy arenas; policy development - all are involved in the development of policy proposals either dealing with the needs of particular target groups or addressing more general issues of poverty and social exclusion; advocacy - a common feature of the networks, related to policy development, is our advocacy of policy and-or operational developments aimed at tackling social exclusion; information development and dissemination - we play an important role in ensuring the dissemination of accessible information to our members, to the community sector as a whole and to broader society; capacity building - many of us are engaged in a variety of capacity building measures, with our own members, with the broader community sector and with statutory agencies and local development bodies. Examples include seminars, workshops, conferences and training and education programmes; public awareness on poverty and social exclusion - the networks play a key role in raising the general level of awareness of poverty and social exclusion in Ireland, via public campaigns, newsletters, briefing papers, etc. and through resourcing other organisations in the community sector - we play a key role in supporting and resourcing other organisations within the community sector. This may involve joint activities, provision of specific supports, assistance, advice, etc.

The anti-poverty sector, including the national networks both locally and nationally, is important in ensuring that the experience and voice of excluded communities and their organisations are fully articulated and inform decision making and policy making, particularly in relation to anti-poverty and social inclusion measures. Such a voice acts to ensure that programmes and strategies are properly focused, targeted at those most in need and effective in achieving their objectives. The value of such a voice, and its independence is recognised both nationally and internationally as crucial to a healthy democracy and good governance. An example of this from the Government White Paper - Supporting Voluntary Activity states:

An active Community and Voluntary sector contributes to a democratic pluralist society, provides opportunities for the development of decentralised and participative structures and fosters a climate in which the quality of life can be enhanced for all.

A further example from UN Agenda 21, Chapter 27 entitled Partnership with NGOs states:

Non-governmental organisations play a vital role in the shaping and implementation of participatory democracy. Independence from government and other sectors of society is one of their major attributes.

The Commission on Promoting the Role of Voluntary Organisations and Foundations in Europe recognised that community sector organisations:

now play an essential part as intermediaries in the exchange of information and opinion between governments and citizens, providing citizens with the means with which they may critically examine government actions or proposals, and public authorities in their turn with expert advice, guidance on popular views, and essential feedback on the effects of their policies.

Such a role also adds value to other programmes and initiatives by ensuring they are informed by an anti-poverty analysis.

Mr. Seán Regan

The national anti-poverty strategy and the national action plan against social exclusion are called NAPS and NAPSInc which can be confusing.

The community sector played an important role in bringing about the first NAPS, national anti-poverty strategy, in 1997 and in informing its review two years ago. While the outcome of that review was disappointing in many respects, the community sector remains committed to ensuring that its targets are met and that its future development is fully informed by the experience of those living in and tackling poverty on the ground.

Our NAPS has formed the basis for the Irish national action plan against poverty and social exclusion, NAPSInc. The NAPSInc review currently under way is designed to move NAPS into line with the NAPSInc and remove this confusion. The community sector intends to play an equally pro-active role in this review. The importance of supporting the role of organisations such as the anti-poverty networks is explicitly stated as one of the objectives of the NAPSInc under the heading, "To mobilise all relevant bodies". It states its purpose as:

To promote, according to national practice, the participation and self-expression of people suffering exclusion, in particular in regard to their situation and the policies and measures affecting them.

Each national network will, together with the rest of the community sector, engage its members in the review of the NAPSInc. While this work is ongoing some of the issues likely to be highlighted include: the need for clear strategies for the eradication of poverty, including the reduction of relative poverty, and clear implementation strategies for achieving these targets; the critical importance of having annual budgets support rather than undermine anti-poverty strategies, targets and timetables; the adoption of a rights based approach to addressing poverty and the recognition of the importance of the participation of people experiencing poverty and social exclusion and their organisations in decision-making and policy development and a commitment to ensuring that their autonomous voice will be supported.

The central challenge of addressing poverty and inequality is recognised nationally in the NAPS, at EU level in the NAPSInc and globally at the UN World Summit on Sustainable Development. It is also a matter of international law as set forth in two treaties to which Ireland is a state party. Both the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the UN Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights stipulate the right to an adequate standard of living.

As always, however, those experiencing poverty and social exclusion have the weakest voice and least power. It is therefore a challenge to us as a society to ensure that these voices are supported, heard and acted upon. At times of economic difficulty this voice becomes particularly unpopular as those with more power and influence work to ensure that their interests are protected and that the dissenting voices of the excluded are silenced. Yet this is the very time when the issues of poverty and social exclusion should be most central. It should be a guiding principle in all civilised societies that the most vulnerable are protected first. Unfortunately, recent and current experience in Ireland suggests that this remains a challenge for Irish society. The national anti-poverty networks look forward to building on the links established here today and to working with the joint Oireachtas committee in addressing these challenges into the future.

We expect the committee will hold hearings on NAPSInc. While this is not the time to go into detail we look forward to having an input in the hearings and deliberations on the future.

Chairman

I thank Ms June Tinsley, Mr. Seán Regan, Ms Mary Keogh, and Mr. Ray Dooley for their presentations which were detailed and useful. Members will now raise any questions they have.

Deputy Carty

I welcome everybody here today and thank them for their presentations. As chairman of a county development board I have had the experience of being at some of the different conferences.

When so many organisations are involved there is often cross-representation. Would it be better if it was more confined and there were not so many bodies doing the same type of work? I note that NAPS has taken into consideration that rural poverty is different from urban poverty. There is quite an amount of poverty in rural areas especially in the type of constituency I represent. The poverty relates to lack of services rather than lack of money as the people often live in remote areas. Is there much work being done for those people?

Mr. Regan

We do not feel there is duplication of work. We all focus on specific target groups or issues. We work together well and where there is an overlap we co-operate on it. I should not talk for others but each group has a different agenda and different issues to be addressed. Sometimes there is a common issue of disadvantage but disadvantage in poverty is a multi dimensional issue. Each group experiencing exclusion is entitled to its own voice and perspective on that.

It is a basic principle of community work and the approach we take to work collectively. Hence all ten networks co-operate where appropriate. We also co-operate with groups that are not in the national anti-poverty networks programme to avoid any duplication and to ensure that best use is made of what is admittedly very limited resources.

In terms of rural versus urban poverty, Irish Rural Link is one of the anti-poverty networks in the programme. My organisation, Community Works Co-operative, also has a focus on rural poverty. There is a difference between rural and urban poverty. It has only been in the last eight or nine years that there has been a concentration on this issue. The two organisations in question, Irish Rural Link and the Community Works Co-operative, were the first to hold a conference on the theme of rural poverty which was held in Cork in 1996.

There are issues such as service delivery to be addressed. We need to get away from simply imposing urban models of service delivery on rural communities. There are different dynamics and issues in each community. By definition, there are less people living in rural areas and the value for money aspect comes into the equation and there may, therefore, be a higher per unit cost in service delivery.

The rights-based approach is adopted by us and by many of the organisations. People and communities are entitled to a basic level of service, irrespective of where they live. An isolated rural community with a low level of population should not be precluded from a decent level of access to services such as health and education, for example. There are challenges in terms of how to make it as cost-efficient as possible, but cost efficiency should not be the only consideration.

The community sector has much experience in being able to develop innovative methods. One example of this is the rural transport initiative where community groups that have access to funding can develop new ways of dealing with transport problems in rural areas. That is a good example of how community groups with local experience and good imagination can develop new initiatives. The imposition of urban models of delivery on rural areas will not necessarily work.

Deputy Crawford

I thank the delegation for its very useful introduction to our discussion. I congratulate the members on their co-operation as a network because it helps to overcome some of the problems raised by the previous speaker. The separate groups can come together and speak with one voice on many major issues.

The reports are quite frightening in terms of housing and poverty in general. I wish to speak about rural poverty. There is limited travel access in rural areas. The rural bus services are very often owned by CIE and the buses are on the road for a time in the morning and then for a short while in the evening, five days a week and for a limited number of weeks in the year. That system should be looked at in a broader manner because a valuable asset is being under-utilised. At least the private operators give a service such as bringing people to bingo, for example.

Some issues are worrying and I ask the members of the delegation to comment on them. Apart from the issue of free travel in rural areas, there has been a cutback in CE schemes. Many CE schemes supported groups which provide a service to the elderly in day care centres. I wonder how long that service can be continued on a purely voluntary basis without the support of the CE schemes.

The back to work schemes are no longer available, to all intents and purposes, because an applicant must be five years out of work and that may force people into very difficult situations. I know of a man who has been seriously ill but who is now working. He has been assessed on medical grounds and must decide to either sign off disability or sign off work because it has to be one or the other. He is certainly unable to return to full-time employment, but he was working 11 or 12 hours per week with handicapped people. He has been told, in no uncertain terms, that he can no longer do that. There is a technicality in the regulations which does not permit him to work. We are trying to get around that by changing him over to disability allowance, but it is ridiculous that the rules are so rigid and that they do not take common sense into account. I did not receive a very pleasant reaction from some of the personnel with whom I dealt on this case and that annoyed me.

I welcome the group and my colleague, Deputy Ring, will deal in more detail with some of the issues. We will support their efforts. I wish to mention intellectual disability because the funding seems to have dried up for that area. In such a short time since the Celtic tiger roared, it is crazy that 80% of persons with disabilities are unemployed. At the first sign of problems with finances, that area is the first to feel the cuts.

Ms Tinsley

The cuts in community employment schemes are obviously very close to our hearts in the INOU. I agree completely with what has been said in respect of the cuts in rural areas. They have a knock-on effect on the achievement of the NAPS target to eliminate long-term unemployment by 2007, which was in An Agreed Programme for Government. Cutbacks in CE and the eradication of the back to work allowance make the achievement of that target even more difficult.

As has been stated, there is definitely a difference between urban and rural poverty and that is also the case in terms of urban and rural unemployment. Ms Keogh may wish to speak about disability.

Ms Keogh

I concur with Ms Tinsley's point about the community employment schemes. Many of the services that have been provided within the community sector to disabled people have come through community employment. I cite the example of personal assistants who deliver a key role in enabling people with disabilities to work and live in the community like everybody else. We have a concern about cutbacks that may impact on that service.

Disability issues have undergone quite a change in recent years. We have passed through what is called the mainstreaming process and we are coming out the other side and realising that this process might have failed when it came to the provision of services for disabled people. The demise of the NRB has seen its translation into FÁS, Comhairle and the NDA. I do not know what interfacing is happening between the new organisations. There needs to be co-ordination of the work dealing with disability. There is an historical background to the fact that it is probably one of the most unco-ordinated sectors in many respects.

The cutbacks in funding for the intellectual disability sector are being opposed by people who say that they will not accept them any longer. There is a protest planned for 10 April and it is sponsored by NAMHI. People are beginning to say that they will not accept the situation. Once again it is back to the individual case of a disabled person having to fight tooth and nail to get a service to which he or she should be entitled by right.

Mr. Regan

I concur with what has been said. I will tie in CE with other issues of disadvantage in rural areas. In a previous incarnation I used to be a community worker in the Connemara Gaeltacht. A few years ago FÁS there did a survey of the people on CE schemes who were clients and who had not moved on to employment. The main reason they had not done so was lack of transport. So CE is essential, especially in a rural area where there are not the other services and supports needed to access employment. Simply cutting off CE without having other supports there to allow people to have a choice is seriously problematic in rural areas.

Deputy D. Wallace

I also welcome the representatives of the national anti-poverty networks and I thank them for their presentations. Based on my background and constituency, I have been biased in favour of the less well off in the community. Many of my colleagues in all parties feel likewise. It is disappointing that with all the efforts and the genuine concern of many people at all levels including at Government level we still have this problem. There have been extensive efforts over the years to try to address the poverty issue here.

I was glad the delegation acknowledged it was not just about money. It relates to education, health and many other sectors. What has been outlined today clearly shows that our job must continue. It is very important for us to listen to people like the witnesses here in order to continue with the work we are doing. There are competing interests and people must be vigilant at all times. I will continue to do whatever I can at this committee and at all other levels of political life to ensure the voices of those most in need are heard.

At one stage a number of years ago an economist at a conference said the more affluent we become the more people fall by the wayside. It is an indictment of us that we could do so well and yet with all the efforts and ambitions, some people can fall by the wayside. While things have improved for people in many sectors, where does poverty begin? I again thank the delegation for its presentation. We will continue to do whatever we can and continue to highlight the needs of that sector of the community.

Deputy Callanan

I welcome the delegation from the anti-poverty networks. Some very startling figures have been presented to us showing that Ireland has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the EU with 90,000 children experiencing severe problems. I would like the witnesses to elaborate on that and to outline what they believe to be the real cause of that. They also mentioned that homelessness was continuing to increase. Does the huge increase in alcohol consumption have a big bearing on that? Are separated men being badly looked after and left out in the cold? In many cases of marriage break-up, the mother and children keep the family home. At times the man is left to find his own way. In cases of alcohol abuse is there any link up with the health agencies?

Mr. Dooley

I will speak briefly on the issue of child poverty. According to the most recent statistics there are approximately 90,000 children living in consistent poverty or severe deprivation. There are also, inclusive of that number, 250,000 Irish children who are living in what is called relative income poverty. While both statistics are quite troubling the severe deprivation statistic is the most troubling of all. The national anti-poverty strategy includes a commitment to reduce that figure, which is now 8.3% of the population of children in Ireland, to 2% or if possible to zero by 2007. We are working to make sure there really is an action plan that will achieve that objective by 2007.

In terms of dealing with the causes of it, just like any other aspect of poverty the causes and the symptoms are multi-dimensional. In terms of income adequacy, it is a lack of income in the household in the first incidence that describes the poverty. To deal with that there needs to be not only child benefit but an additional increment of child income support provided. That increment which had been supplied in the past, child dependant allowance, has been kept frozen for several years. There is a commitment in the national anti-poverty strategy to do something to replace that with some other form of assistance, but unless that is done we will continue to see huge numbers of children living in income poverty.

On the health side, the commitment to extend the medical card to another 200,000 people with an emphasis on families with children is an extremely important commitment on which to follow through. We expected that two years ago and again last year and it continues to be deferred. The health of children, particularly those whose families do not have the money to pay the GP on a regular basis, is directly affected. This is not just our opinion; the chief medical officer of the Department of Health and Children in his annual report identified that as perhaps one of the most important steps that could be taken to improve the health of poor children.

In terms of why so many children are in poverty, children, those under the age of 18, lack political power. We like to believe, as do all societies, that we place children first. When it comes to the decisions about how to allocate resources, best efforts on the part of people who make those decisions often do not succeed in delivering the resources because more powerful interests have come first. By the time it comes to deciding what will be provided to children, most of the pie is already eaten up. It happened this year with the budget when the final decisions that were made about child benefit were framed in terms of whether to give money to carers or the elderly or whether it should be put into child benefit. This is the kind of competition that does not serve children's interests or society's interest. To deal with it, one has to identify the needs up front and take steps initially. If we really believe children ought to be put first we should address their needs in the first part of the budget process and not at the end of the line when all the resources have been distributed.

Mr. Regan

I am conscious that I am talking a great deal. There were some questions about homelessness. None of us here are experts on homelessness, but I will give some of the facts of which I am aware. In terms of alcohol, it is sometimes possible to confuse cause and effect. Members will be aware that people living in fine big houses also drink a great deal. So simply because somebody drinks does not mean that causes homelessness although it may be so in occasional cases.

I do not know about the separated men. However, I know that at the time of the last budget organisations like Simon and Threshold, which deal directly with homelessness, identified the causes of increasing homelessness as the inadequate level of social welfare increases and the capping of the rent allowance for the first time in a long time. In order to get the local authority to pay and give a rent allowance supplement, a person on social welfare who cannot afford housing, must get rent below a certain level and that threshold has been increased every year to a certain level. This year it has not, so that rent allowance has been capped. That means organisations like Simon and Threshold, which try to put people into social housing are finding it harder this year to find accommodation at a sufficiently low rental rate to qualify for the rent allowance. That will also increase the number of homeless people on the streets.

The freezing of the social housing budget is also causing a problem. In the context of the current discussions on the new national partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress, there are serious concerns among organisations such as Simon and Threshold that it will impact negatively on social housing. There are very solid commitments around affordable housing in terms of delivering 10,000 units, which is to be welcomed. However, there are no targets in respect of social housing or addressing homelessness. The targets with regard to affordable housing are fine for those who find it more difficult to buy a house, but for those who will never be able to afford to buy a house and those who are homeless, the absence of any solid commitments is a matter of serious concern. The proposed agreement contains only aspirations in respect of those more immediate problems and will actually have a negative impact. I am sorry that I do not have more details, but none of us are experts in that field.

Deputy Ring

I apologise for being a little late due to delays in traffic. In the absence of a DART service in Mayo, we have to travel by car. I welcome the delegation and I have a few questions for its members. I have had discussions with a number of groups and associations that are concerned about current Government thinking in respect of the continuation of those groups. I would welcome the comments of the delegation on that.

I am concerned that Government, regardless of who is in office, may not wish to have such organisations out there representing the voice of the poor, who have been let down by politicians in the past. Statistics show that 22% of Irish people were living in poverty in 2000, as compared with 16% in 1994. Despite the general expectation that growth in the economy would result in fewer people being marginalised, more people are actually moving into the poverty trap.

My second question relates to Travellers, with whom I deal on a regular basis. I have great regard for those Travellers who make an effort on their own behalf, especially in the matter of getting their children to school. I have to condemn county councils and Government for the fact that people are still living on the side of the road, without basic facilities such as running water, toilets and refuse collection. Travellers have told me - I simply quote the observation, rather than making a point - that they perceive themselves as being even further down the line as a result of the influx of refugees, who seem to be regarded as being more important. I ask the delegation to comment on that and I emphasise that I am not making any criticism of refugees. The concern which Travellers have been expressing to me is that they have lost out because organisations that were assisting them have moved on and left them behind.

I wish to refer to another matter on which I could make political points. However, I will refrain from doing so because the issue is too serious. Following the recent budget increases in social welfare payments, inflation has been running at almost 6%. As my constituency colleague, Deputy Carty, can confirm, people in local authority housing are having their social welfare increases clawed back through increased rent payments as a result of income reassessment. In terms of calculating rent payments, I understand there is an allowance of €16 per family, which has not been adjusted in line with inflation. In practice, people who are getting an increase of €8 or €10 in social welfare are losing €6 or €7 in additional rent payments to local authorities. There is no point in giving people an increase in social welfare payments in one month and, in the very next month, having it taken from them in extra rent payments. They are falling further behind than ever.

On the issue of refuse charges, I must support Deputy Joe Higgins. In my constituency office yesterday, I had up to 40 callers who were simply unable to pay their refuse charges to the town council or the county council. In my county, the local authorities are not very keen on operating the waiver system. We are facing a situation where people will take to the streets in protest on this issue. My basic point is that all of us have failed because, despite the economic benefits of recent years, more people are falling below the poverty line rather than being taken out of that category.

I agree with the earlier comment that money is not the only issue. Education is also a major factor. If I may refer to the particular example of a family by whom I am visited every week, even if they were given €2,000, they would spend €2,050 and never get themselves out of the poverty trap. This is despite my attempts to get them to avail of the services of MABS and other agencies in terms of education, household budgeting and generally coping with payments. That problem will have to be taken on board to a much greater extent and the organisations represented on the delegation have a key role in that regard. I hope the Government will not target those organisations with a view to "taking them out". If those organisations are not there for the people concerned, they will be totally neglected.

My final point relates to disabilities. Some 80% of people with disabilities are unemployed. Even the Government has failed to fulfil its own quota in that regard and that should be highlighted to a much greater extent. If the Government does not lead by example, how can we expect the private sector to employ people with disabilities? The public service is in a good position to provide suitable jobs for people with disabilities, many of whom are highly skilled and computer literate. Most local authority buildings throughout the State are newly constructed, with wheelchair accessibility. However, the State has failed to meet its quota and that issue should be tackled.

I again compliment the voluntary groups on their work. I hope that no Government will target them, but I am concerned, from what I have heard, that they are being targeted. If they are not there for the unemployed, the weak, the sick and people with disabilities, who will be there for them?

The USA is the only other country with more people on the poverty line. I cannot accept a situation in which the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class is squeezed out. That is what is happening in this country. We have become mean during the past ten years, thinking only of ourselves rather than those worse off than us. I hope we can have some fresh thinking in that regard and better consideration for the less well-off.

County councils need to change their approach to refuse charges. Health boards should revise their position on guidelines for medical cards. The point has been well made in respect of the difficulties encountered by people on social welfare to qualify for medical cards under the current guidelines of €135 for a couple and €16 or €18 per child. That is outrageous. At the very least, the guidelines should be adjusted to maintain the position of those already in the system, as a higher priority than bringing in another 200,000. In the case of the over-70s, the decision to issue medical cards irrespective of income was not well thought out. Instead, we should target the weaker sections in society, with particular reference to families, children and those in difficulties. I hope the voluntary organisations will continue their good work and become even more vocal. They will be needed in the future.

Mr. Regan

Yes, there is much concern, at national and local level, that the voice of those who offer an alternative or critical view is being less valued and more marginalised. The community and voluntary sector is apparently to be seen solely as a service delivery arm of the State. In a healthy democracy, while acknowledging the role of Opposition parties in the Dáil, there must also be recognition of organisations representing marginalised groups such as Travellers, people with disabilities and others, both in the context of service delivery and in raising and developing policy issues.

The concern to which the Deputy referred is being experienced on the ground, particularly in respect of the long-term impact. Existing groups and structures are doing a great deal of work in support of marginalised groups. However, will it be the case, five or ten years down the road, that we will be even further back and that we will have to start all over again to re-establish or replace those groups and programmes?

Traveller organisations and refugee groups are generally very clear about working in solidarity with each other. It can sometimes be a case of divide and rule and of using one group as an excuse for the others. That may be true on the ground and it is problematic with regard to disadvantaged communities. It might be said that some groups cannot be given what they need because resources must be allocated to other groups. The organisations involved, particularly national organisations, are very clear that it is not a "them or us" situation. The various organisations have common agendas and try to work together rather than being at odds.

Deputy Connolly

I thank the delegation for its presentation. There are a lot of facts and figures to mull over. I was particularly interested in the observation that while people generally associate poverty with a lack of money, it is not all about that. What measurement tools does the group use and how accurate are they? Could semi-reclusive people living in rural Ireland - those who live with few services and hoard money - be classed as living below the poverty line? There may be people like that caught in what might be called the "poverty of mind" trap.

The apparent contradiction between the situation in 1994 and 2000 is also interesting. Some 16% of people were living in relative poverty in 1994. That was followed by the Celtic tiger years of affluence, but, despite these, relative poverty had risen to 22% by 2000. What is the current level? Are we still going in the wrong direction? Some groups, such as Travellers, will remain permanently in the poverty trap. What is the view of the delegation in that regard?

I note the suggestion that 90,000 children experience severe deprivation and I am sure, therefore, that others must experience moderate deprivation. It is a startling statistic. This is supposed to be one of the most affluent countries in Europe, yet we can talk of 90,000 children experiencing severe deprivation. Nonetheless, we still aspire to ending poverty by 2007. Does the delegation feel that is achievable? It is certainly desirable, but I have doubts about its attainment.

Everybody wants increases in children's allowance, etc. How does the delegation rate the benefit of providing free school meals? If a child was well fed, would that take him or her out of the poverty trap? Instead of giving money, children could be given food at school in a targeted way. Some people over the age of 70 were targeted and given medical cards. It would be more beneficial to give medical cards to schoolchildren, particularly those attending national school. Children should have medical cards in their own right and I would like to hear the delegation's views on that.

It was said that 80% of those with a disability are unemployed. Public service Departments were to employ a particular percentage of people with disability - something like a 3% minimum. How are those policies operating, if at all? I know of some county councils which employ less than 1%. Is this just a token gesture or is a real effort made to employ those with disability?

Some people might like to see the groups represented here go away. I say to them that they should not go away because they are doing a great job in highlighting these issues and should continue to do so. Nobody likes to see statistics stuck in their face regarding 90,000 children experiencing severe deprivation. The delegation should continue with its work and I congratulate its members on that work.

Chairman

How can an almost 30% increase in relative poverty between 1994 and 2000 - when economic growth rates were way beyond those of our European partners and the envy of the world economies - and a further rise in the interim be accounted for? One of the presentations stated that unemployment is one of the greatest contributors to consistent poverty and that we are dealing also with relative poverty. Does this mean that there is a greater increase in the promotion of individualisation, where people worry about promoting themselves as opposed to the community? In a time of rapid growth, is the individual more focused upon than the wider community group? It is our responsibility to ensure a greater degree of inclusiveness and to bring people forward. Is there any explanation for the escalation of relative poverty by over 30% in that period in light of the indications from the delegation that the problem has probably grown in the years since that figure was last calculated?

I congratulate Irish Rural Link for the good job carried out with regard to promoting access and equality in rural areas. Some of the greatest problems for rural people are inaccessibility, remoteness, removal from services and the lack of a public transport system. These issues contribute to a feeling of poverty in people's minds as much as anything else. A free travel pass is of no great benefit to people who live on back roads in secluded rural areas.

I hope the network continues to articulate ideas as it has over recent years. Coming together as it has is worthwhile and all of my colleagues on the committee have indicated they would wish the network to continue with its good work. The Government and all politicians are fully aware of the concerns expressed to the committee.

Mr. Regan

With regard to the Chairman's questions and those of Deputy Connolly, there are two measures used in Ireland for poverty: consistent poverty and relative poverty. Relative poverty is based on average industrial earnings. Those below a certain percentage of that are in relative poverty. Consistent poverty involves those suffering deprivation as a result of that.

I do not have the figures in my possession, but over 50% of the population move into relative poverty at some stage of their lives. Many get out of it due to improving their earnings or otherwise. Consistent poverty involves those suffering real deprivation in terms of lacking access to adequate nutrition, clothing or housing and who suffer that as a result of their relative poverty.

I and most of my colleagues suspect that relative poverty is still widening and this is a reflection of the distribution of resources. There would be less consistent poverty now than before the Celtic tiger years, but there is widening gap in that those in the upper echelons of society are moving further ahead. They have gained most from the Celtic tiger, as has been demonstrated by the ESRI, the Central Statistics Office and the Combat Poverty Agency. Successive budgets during the period of the Celtic tiger, while giving some and often real increases to those at the bottom, gave larger increases to those at the top. The gap is widening and this is of huge concern in that society is increasingly divided, with an upper group who increasingly do not relate to those at the bottom. That division has serious implications for the future of our society.

While employment has increased, much of that is at a low level of pay. There is a concern that those with jobs are poor, as well as those who are unemployed. People who are employed may be earning little more than social welfare rates. Some people are receiving low wages because they are happy to work rather than receive unemployment benefit, even if this means that they live in poverty.

Mr. Dooley

Some people would probably say, although they may not want to, that the growth in consistent poverty is a by-product of the economic boom that is not accompanied by an effort to redistribute income and wealth. There are those who might argue that this is what happens if one follows the Boston social model, rather than the Berlin one. Having spent a reasonable amount of time in Boston, I suggest that the city of Houston would provide a more appropriate comparison. There are quite progressive social policies in place in Boston. An increase in consistent poverty is to be expected, in some respects, when there is economic growth in a free market society and when Government does not take steps to ensure that a level of equality of resources remains. It results from an accumulation of decisions and a lack of decisions. Basic deprivation decreased, however, with respect to child poverty during that period. It fell to a point that 90,000 children were still living in deep deprivation at the height of the boom. The number has probably increased because times have worsened since then.

The existence of a high level of consistent poverty can also be attributed, in part, to the failure to take steps to ameliorate the worst impacts of economic growth. Housing is a classic case in point. Homelessness doubled during the boom because housing was priced out of the reach of many people, who were then driven from their communities because they could not afford to purchase homes. Members know better than I that options that were once available to their parents are no longer available to young people growing up. The marketplace will not provide a solution to this problem and it will depend on whether the Government chooses to do so or not.

Ms Tinsley

I was asked if I think the figure of 22%, in 2000, will increase and I would like to make some brief comments in that regard. There will be major concerns if inflation rises more rapidly than wage levels. People are not necessarily better off as a result of a small increase in social welfare, when inflation is taken into account, and they may be stuck in a poverty trap as a result. People might end up homeless as a result of the changes in the rent supplement, which will again result in problems leaving the poverty trap.

Employment is a major way of getting people out of poverty, although it is not necessarily the only way. It is widely known that if the barriers to employment faced by certain groups are not addressed, those in the groups will remain in poverty. I agree with my colleague that the target in the national anti-poverty strategy can be achieved. If the strategies that have been outlined by the Government are followed, the figure of 22% will decrease rapidly. We hope that this will happen during the life of the anti-poverty strategy. Our organisations will continue to lobby for the implementation of the strategy.

Ms Keogh

I will make a few comments about disability and poverty. We have always advocated that the cost of disability should be incorporated, but this has not yet been recognised. Having a disability means that one incurs extra costs. The latter might involve obtaining specialised transport to get one from place to place or adapting one's home because one does not qualify for grants.

With regard to the question of the possible failure of the State in respect of employing people with disabilities, we need to take a step back. This matter illustrates the importance of the anti-poverty networks. One of our key roles involves capacity-building. There could be difficulties with people with disabilities gaining employment because there are those who may feel that they may not be able to work because their self-esteem is so low due to their being institutionalised and excluded for so long. That is an important matter in respect of which we must continue to work. Regardless of the services the State may provide or the legislation and strategies that may be put in place, if people feel they do not have the right to work or lack the self-esteem to allow them to take up employment, we will continue to fight a losing battle.

Chairman

I thank the members of the delegation - Ms June Tinsley, Mr. Seán Regan, Ms Mary Keogh and Mr. Ray Dooley - for their useful, thought-provoking and informative presentation. The exchanges that took place in the discussion, including a large number of questions and comments, were enlightening and useful. The committee will focus on a number of the issues that have been brought to its attention. We look forward to further participation from the various organisations in the near future. Mr. Regan referred to NAPSInc, which we may have to deal with in fairly extensive detail. I thank the delegation for its attendance and its useful and comprehensive presentation.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.20 p.m. sine die.