I welcome Mr. Gerry Mangan, director, and Ms Catherine Hazlett, principal officer, from the social inclusion unit in the Department of Social and Family Affairs and Ms Joan O'Flynn, programme manager, from the Combat Poverty Agency. I draw their attention to the fact that while members of the joint committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.
Office for Social Inclusion: Discussion.
Mr. Gerry Mangan
The delegation from the Office for Social Inclusion is delighted to brief the joint committee on the future of the office and, in particular, its integration with the Combat Poverty Agency. I propose to read the statement circulated to members and then take the opportunity to discuss the matter with them. I look forward to hearing their views and comments which will be fully taken into account in the future development of the division's role.
The establishment of the new division will be the result of the integration of the Combat Poverty Agency and the Office for Social Inclusion. The future role of the new division must be seen in the context of the national anti-poverty strategy that has evolved since the first strategic plan was introduced in 1997. The multi-faceted nature of poverty and the wide range of policies and measures needed to tackle it illustrate why a strategic approach is necessary. Without a strategy each policy area may operate more or less independently and without the necessary degree of integration with other policy areas needed to achieve optimal outcomes. The current plan, introduced in 2007, involved wide consultation with the social partners and other stakeholders. However, the current financial and economic crises are likely to have a significant impact on tackling poverty and social exclusion compared to the economic situation that obtained from 1997 to 2008. A major overall task for the new division will be to work with stakeholders through this strategic process in meeting the current challenges.
One key outcome of the strategic process in the period since 1997 has been the mainstreaming of poverty reduction for the relevant Departments and agencies. Each Department now has a clear poverty focus through having goals, objectives, targets, clear commitments to measures and resources, and indicators to measure progress. The process also clarifies where an integrated approach may be necessary. Mainstreaming is supported by the governance structures that lead and drive its implementation, and monitors its progress. A Cabinet sub-committee, chaired by the Taoiseach, oversees the process and is directly supported by a senior officials group with representatives from relevant Departments.
The Office for Social Inclusion has a co-ordinating and support role in all aspects of the strategic process. It works with social inclusion units in relevant Departments and, through the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, with social inclusion units in the local authorities. Internationally, the office represents Ireland on the Social Protection Committee of the European Union, the European Committee for Social Cohesion of the Council of Europe and the working party on social policy of the OECD. Its other support functions include research, the development of data strategies, poverty impact assessment and communications.
The Combat Poverty Agency has had a major and pioneering role in the development of policy to reduce poverty and its implementation since its establishment in 1986-87. Key functions include raising public awareness of the nature and causes of poverty. The agency has had a major role in providing policy advice for the Government and other stakeholders. Its extensive research programme during the years has been an important evidence source for raising awareness and policy advice. Another important reference source is the close relations the agency has built with other stakeholders, especially the community and voluntary sector. The agency has sponsored projects which test and evaluate innovative approaches to tackling aspects of poverty and has supported initiatives which promote the involvement in decision making processes of groups experiencing poverty. The learning from these activities has made a significant contribution to raising awareness and the provision of policy advice.
The integration of the Combat Poverty Agency and the Office for Social Inclusion into a new division will result in more streamlined and cohesive support for the strategic process for social inclusion. Combining the knowledge, experience and expertise of both bodies will greatly strengthen their capacity to assist in advancing the ongoing development and implementation of the NAP inclusion process. The details of how this will be achieved are being worked out by the Combat Poverty Agency and the Office for Social Inclusion in the context of drawing up a foundation document and strategic plan for the new division to apply for the next three years to 2011. The drafts will be submitted for the consideration of the board of the Combat Poverty Agency and for approval to the Secretary General and senior officials in the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the senior officials group on social inclusion, the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and, ultimately, the Cabinet sub-committee. During the course of this process there will be consultations with the social partners and representatives of other relevant stakeholders. The aim is to ensure as far as practicable that all the various interests which the new division will serve will have an opportunity to have an input into the strategic plan.
An ongoing task of the new division will be to develop a clearer understanding of the changing nature and causes of poverty This includes identifying the groups in society which are vulnerable to poverty such as people who are unemployed, lone parents, people with disabilities, older people living alone, and the variety of reasons that may result in persons in these groups becoming at risk of poverty or consistent poverty. It includes assessing the effectiveness of the various policies and supports in terms of their impact on improving the standard of living and overall well being of people experiencing poverty. Application of the life cycle approach which focuses on children, people of working age, older people, people with disabilities and communities provides a means of developing a more integrated approach to policy development and implementation. An integrated approach is likely to achieve more effective outcomes. The promotion of well functioning links at local level and between national and local levels is of critical importance, as these are an essential part of achieving more effective outcomes.
Stakeholder involvement in the development of strategies, monitoring progress and providing feedback on policy effectiveness and implementation is a core part of the strategies. Much of this involvement is achieved through social partnership and in negotiations on partnership agreements. The social partners are represented on national review groups and the NESC and the NESF. These are an important source of valuable policy direction. The Social Inclusion Forum, organised by the NESF, in collaboration with the Office for Social Inclusion and the Combat Poverty Agency, provides an opportunity for dialogue between the community and voluntary sector and people experiencing poverty and officials from relevant Departments and agencies. Views are exchanged on the effectiveness of policies and their implementation and emerging issues.
A priority role for the new division will be to raise awareness of the incidence of poverty, its causes and nature. This will include information on the challenges to be met and, in particular, the situation of vulnerable groups. It is also important that information is provided on the measures being taken to meet the challenges, the level of resources being applied and the progress made.
As preparation of the foundation document and strategic plan is still at a relatively early stage, the following provides an outline of the likely specific functions of the new division. This is largely based on the functions of the two existing bodies. It is hoped, nonetheless, that it will provide committee members with a framework that will assist them in advising on how best the new division should develop and evolve.
The new division will have a significant role in the provision of policy advice for the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and the Government. The advice will be evidence based. It will focus on ensuring, as far as practicable, that the eradication of poverty is a clear objective for relevant policies and their implementation. Such policy advice will relate to vulnerable groups and both urban and rural areas of disadvantage. It will also relate to services that directly help people who are experiencing poverty such as social welfare, education and training, health and housing, and those that more indirectly provide support such as transport, sport, arts and culture. A key objective will be to ensure the policy advice is fully taken into account in policy development and implementation.
The following are the main sources of the policy advice which the new division will use. People experiencing poverty and those who work with them are in many ways the most expert on the effectiveness and comprehensive nature of the services they receive. It is essential, therefore, that existing structures are used to best effect and new procedures are introduced, where necessary, to regularly receive this feedback across all policy areas. The feedback may come in the form of proposals for new policies, reform of existing policies and schemes, and better implementation. Consultation will be with the social partners, the wider community and voluntary sector and, as far as possible, directly with people experiencing poverty.
A second source of advice will be based on good quality research. The new division may undertake research directly, commission research, collaborate on research with Departments and other stakeholders and on international research. The aim should, as far as possible, be geared to addressing current, concrete issues and challenges with the research results being directly applicable to current policy development. The new division will use the framework of the EU social inclusion process to learn from other countries' successes and share what has worked well in Ireland.
The Office for Social Inclusion has responsibility for monitoring implementation of the national action plan for social inclusion. This involves reporting annually on progress being made in achieving the goals, objectives and targets in the NAP inclusion and the social inclusion chapter of the National Development Plan. It will be further strengthened by using the findings from the consultation process and research. A more comprehensive and direct application of the poverty impact assessment process will also result in determining how effective policies and their implementation are in eradicating poverty.
Research and monitoring are very much dependent on the availability of data. A technical advisory group with wide representation advises the office on how best to improve data availability. This function will continue to be a priority for the new division. The use of indicators is also essential for both monitoring and evaluation research. They are used to measure policy inputs, outputs and outcomes. A range of indicators have been developed by the European Union for use by member states and will be applied in Ireland. Further indicators in relation to long-term goals for each stage of the life cycle will be developed as agreed in Towards 2016 — Review and Transitional Agreement 2008-2009. The new division will be responsible for co-ordinating this process in collaboration with relevant interests within Government and, particularly, the social partners and the community and voluntary sector.
Developed countries face common challenges in trying to successfully tackle poverty. A whole range of policies are applied to meet these challenges and there is much to be learned from shared experience of implementing these. Much of the knowledge, experience, expertise and the best practice arising from these processes is analysed and made available for use in policy development by international organisations such as the European Union, the Council of Europe, the ILO and the OECD. A key task of the new division will be to ensure this information reaches policy makers, other stakeholders and the wider public.
The European year for combating poverty and social exclusion, 2010, is among the important international developments relating to poverty and social exclusion in recent years. Both bodies — the OSI and the CPA — have been designated jointly as the national implementing body for the year and will continue in that role when they form the new division. During this year there will be a comprehensive focus on the current realities of poverty and social exclusion, particularly in the context of the recession. A programme of events will be organised, involving the relevant stakeholders and including people experiencing poverty, to provide for reflection, discussion and debate on the various realities of poverty and how best they can be tackled in the current economic climate. A similar process will be occurring in the other 26 member states and the whole process is being co-ordinated by the European Commission. The main outcomes of the year will include raising awareness of the nature, extent and causes of poverty, the challenges to be met and the solutions considered most appropriate in current circumstances. It is also envisaged that the year's outcomes will inform in the longer term the development of the role and functions of the new division and, in particular, the strategic plan to be drawn up in 2011.
The strategic approach to combating poverty and social exclusion developed in the past ten years requires the level of functional support from the new division outlined in this presentation if it is to succeed in using resources to best effect in making progress in reducing poverty. The new division will also need to help in promoting closer collaboration on tackling poverty between Departments and agencies, between national and local government, with the social partners, community and voluntary sector and with people experiencing poverty. The new division combining the experience, expertise and commitment of the staff of the two bodies should be equal to the task.
I welcome the witnesses to the meeting. Having listened to the presentation I am no more convinced now of the merits of the decision made, than I was some months ago. I take the bona fides of Mr. Mangan at face value in terms of the work he is doing and his belief in the benefits of it. However, I am still not convinced of the common sense behind the decision.
The committee formed a view on the matter some months ago, which was sent to the Minister. If ever an indication of the role of the committee was needed, it was provided by the fact that we received no response. All parties at the committee agreed a view which was not taken into account in any way, shape or form.
At one point in his presentation, Mr. Mangan stated the aim was to ensure as far as practicable that all the various interests whom the new division would serve would have the opportunity to make an input into the strategic plan. That should have occurred six months ago before the decision was taken. All the stakeholders would have had the opportunity to be involved.
I take on board the point made concerning negotiations with the social partners and the role of the office in that regard. I very much support the social pillar of the social partnership process. The former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, made the decision to invite the social pillar to the process. However, the people represented in that pillar are hand picked by the Government. If one is involved with a voluntary or community organisation, one does not have the opportunity to make the case that one's group has a good deal to say and wishes to be at the table also. There are 17 different groups for which I have the greatest respect. However, even these groups would admit that they do not necessarily cover the entire spectrum which should be covered by the social pillar. If that is how the delegation formulates policy, it does not necessarily include everyone who should be involved in the process. I caution the delegation in that regard. It should have a wider remit in terms of the groups it considers.
This brings me to the point about the role of the Combat Poverty Agency. In March 2008 the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Cowen, launched a health and communities programme in County Offaly. This provided me with a real idea of the work carried out by the agency. Almost every relevant organisation in that area of west Offaly was involved. At the time the agency was lauded and there was talk of the great work it did and how it brought everyone together from the ground upwards. Suddenly, six months later it was gone.
I am not convinced of the role of the delegation's office, which is part of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. I ask the delegation to explain how it intends to interact with that system, with local authorities, with the Health Service Executive and with Leader programme companies. I recognise there has been some cohesion in respect of the Leader programme. I also ask the delegation to explain how it intends to interact with the partnership companies, because there are hundreds of such organisations and the Combat Poverty Agency had links with them. I have concerns as to how that will be maintained and brought forward.
I refer to Mr. Mangan's analysis. His comments were excellent but I have doubts about the prospects of everything taking place as suggested, which is a concern. I wish to know more about the strategy and plan. When will it be in place?
My greatest concern regarding the presentation is related to policy advice. The most important aspect of the Combat Poverty Agency was its independence. Any person, community group or politician of any political persuasion or none, could approach the agency and receive a fair, reasoned assessment of the position from a poverty perspective in a particular area. Mr. Mangan has clearly stated that the new division would have a significant role in the provision of policy advice to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and to the Government. What about everyone else? Where is the independent advice if others wish to seek information from the office? For example, what is the position if we require advice to do our work? What is the position if advice is required by a community group or if anyone else involved wishes to receive independent advice? The door of the Combat Poverty Agency is now closed, but is the door of the Office for Social Inclusion open? The delegation has clearly stated its responsibility is to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. I seek fairness and independence in the approach of the office and the way in which it operates, which is not evident from the presentation.
Given everything that has taken place in recent months and years, the recurring message is that we should not permit self-regulation. The banking sector comes to mind immediately. No sector of society or group should be allowed to regulate itself. However, the office intends to establish this process based on its strategic report and will then monitor the area. Surely there should be independent monitoring of the work of the office. We should be able to see clearly that if someone is involved in directing that the office will do X, Y or Z, then someone else should determine whether it achieved X, Y or Z. Whether that will be in train is not clear from the delegation's presentation.
When we discussed the closure or submerging of the Combat Poverty Agency before Christmas, the Minister repeated in her defence that the agency outsourced many reports in any case and commissioned work from the ESRI or someone else. However, the reports were still independent. I submitted a parliamentary question on the matter and eventually received a reply from the Minister. I asked what research was carried out by the Department and the Office for Social Inclusion in the past five years. Some 67 reports commissioned and paid for were carried out by external bodies, some by the ESRI but in most cases by consultants, whereas only 24 reports were carried out in-house. The cost of some of these reports ran into hundreds of thousands of euro. One of the cheapest reports was that which recommended getting rid of the Combat Poverty Agency. Who will do this work from now on? Where will the reports come from? Will they be done in-house by the office or will they be farmed out to consultants at great expense?
Where are the savings in getting rid of the Combat Poverty Agency? The Minister has admitted there have been very little. However, the Department is spending significant amounts of money commissioning reports from elsewhere and in many cases the reports are not published. There are reports on many issues such as family policy, expenditure reviews, household benefits and deregulation to which we do not have access and which we cannot examine. However, if such reports had been commissioned by the Combat Poverty Agency, I or anyone else would have been able to make contact and request a copy or get it from the website. There is a major issue concerning the fairness of what is being done and the independence of the office. I wish the delegation well in its endeavours, but it must prove itself in that regard and it has not done so to date.
I welcome Mr. Mangan and his colleagues. The committee has already made its views known in respect of the Government decision to close the Combat Poverty Agency. The committee held a lengthy discussion on the matter and decided, on a cross-party basis, to convey its view to the Minister and to oppose the proposal to close the agency. For this reason it is quite insulting for the delegation to appear before the committee today and say it is interested in hearing our views and comments and to say those views would be fully taken into account in the future development of the division. The division completely ignored the cross-party views expressed by this committee. The delegates have a cheek to come here this morning and claim that they listen to members and are influenced by what we say.
A joint committee would not normally discuss policy matters with civil servants. However, the social inclusion unit played an active part in the process surrounding the sham review of the role of the Combat Poverty Agency and its subsequent gagging and incorporation into the Office for Social Inclusion. The unit did not simply do the Minister's bidding. It was actively involved in the preparation of the review, the one-sided assessment contained in it and the rubber stamping of decisions. It participated in the sham claim that the review of what the Combat Poverty Agency was doing and the assessment of the best place for its location in the future were serious. The delegates seem to be expressing the views of their unit, as well as those of the Minister in their actions. For that reason it is fair that members should question them on why they were prepared to go along with the decision which we all view as a retrograde one.
All budgets must now be poverty proofed. This proofing is done by the social inclusion unit in its assessment of the budget. I read the unit's five page review of last year's budget. It was timid and self-serving. Many of us would not expect a unit within the Civil Service to be critical of its Minister. However, reading this assessment, one would imagine there was not a serious problem of poverty, that the Government was doing an excellent job and that the budget was very good for people living on the margins. Many found the meek assessment offensive to those living in poverty. Its meekness makes the case for an independent agency to research and raise awareness of poverty. If this is the sort of critique of Government policy we can expect in the future, it is too bad for those who depend on agencies such as the Combat Poverty Agency to speak on their behalf.
Mr. Mangan spoke about raising awareness. The fact that he and his colleagues are civil servants means they will not go out on a limb to criticise Government policy. That is why it is critically important that there be an independent agency which knows the business, researches it thoroughly, is fearless in criticising the Minister and not afraid of the implications for individual promotions or the future of the unit. It is hard to accept that officials of the social inclusion unit will have a serious role in raising awareness of poverty because that would entail criticising their boss. We have yet to see civil servants who are prepared to stand up and criticise their current boss.
In the so-called review of the Combat Poverty Agency the unit criticised the agency for not fulfilling its remit. How will the unit fulfil its remit in a better way than the agency did? How many jobs will disappear as a result of the closure of the agency? What was the rationale for the decision to close it? Last year there was considerable talk about budgets being cut, which was understandable given the economic climate. The Minister told the committee that no saving had been made by the closure. In that case, what was the point of doing what the unit had agreed to do?
What is the social inclusion unit's reporting mechanism? Members of the committee are agreed that independent research on poverty is essential. We have all depended heavily on the work of the Combat Poverty Agency and other agencies, pre-budget, post-budget and throughout the year, to assist us in the committee's work. We do not have the individual or party resources to do that research and depended on regular reports from the agency. I do not know how we will manage without that resource. The quality of our work will be affected. What are the unit's proposals for research in the coming year and can the independence of that research be guaranteed? The choice of topics for research will also be critical. The Combat Poverty Agency was able to do this, based on its first-hand experience on the ground. It did not operate in an academic ivory tower. It had first-hand experience through its various projects, which it brought to prioritising the areas which needed to be researched. The delegates will not convince the committee that they have similar experience. They have been in the Department for a long time and do not have any involvement at the coalface where people are experiencing poverty on a day-to-day basis. How will they prioritise research?
The Government is committed to eradicating consistent poverty by 2016. Has this target been abandoned? How will the new division ensure it will be met? As we approach the European year for combating poverty and social exclusion in 2010, the Government has closed our own well regarded, respected, experienced and foremost agency in this area. What preparations have been made for next year? There has been almost no mention of the matter from the Department. Many other member states have well advanced and detailed programmes. What is the Department doing in preparation for it?
I ask members to note that it was a Government decision to abolish the Combat Poverty Agency. I also remind them that officials cannot comment on that policy. Civil servants can only report on facts. The officials present may not comment on the budget in terms of Government policy.
The Chairman has made the point I wished to make. Civil Service personnel cannot comment on Government policy; that is why we appreciated the independent advice of the Combat Poverty Agency during the years. The agency was free to speak out and advise us.
The situation is more frightening than it has been for many years; more people are experiencing poverty and never has independent advice and scrutiny been needed more. As previous speakers said, the committee does not have the funding or the expertise to obtain the information the Combat Poverty Agency was able to give us. This is causing much of the anxiety we have expressed to the Minister. I have nothing personal against any of the delegates; I am merely stating facts. For a relatively small sum of money, the work of the Combat Poverty Agency was invaluable, not only to the Government but to independent groups and Oireachtas committees. The delegates may not like hearing our views on the agency but we depended on that organisation. Much of the advice the agency gave helped guide this committee towards proposals that, ultimately, were implemented to ease poverty to the benefit of many.
I look forward to reading the comments of the delegates because I may not be present to hear them, as I must speak on the recapitalisation project in a few minutes. That project is another indicator of the serious problem the country faces. I support the comments of previous speakers on the great work the Combat Poverty Agency did. We are anxious that it will not be accessible to us, or anyone else, in the future, which is not the fault of the delegates. However, as the Chairman rightly said, they are part of the system and not in a position to be impartial.
I thank the Chairman. I welcome the delegates as individuals and have nothing personal against them but I share the views of my colleagues in expressing my disappointment at the fact that the Combat Poverty Agency has been absorbed into their organisation. I am very worried about how I will communicate with the Office for Social Inclusion. Last year I had great interaction with the Combat Poverty Agency and found it accessible and easy to deal with. I accept that Ms Hazlett has spoken to this committee about other matters, including energy affordability and so on. The Combat Poverty Agency worked with NGOs and I considered its role related primarily to research; it focused on the progress of community groups and real issues such as whether people could afford to eat and keep warm.
I am very upset about this document because it is aspirational and full of flowery language but contains nothing. I was offended when Mr. Mangan said "the new division will have a significant role in the provision of policy advice for the Minister for Social and Family Affairs." He went on to say we were in a recession — as if we did not know that — and that "there will be a comprehensive focus on the current realities of poverty and social exclusion, particularly in the context of the recession." The document contains no serious strategy, action plan or point of view that will help a person facing a decision on whether he or she should eat or stay warm, nor will it help the new poor — people who own many properties, yet have no disposable income. The Office for Social Inclusion may be completely out of touch, which is why we should have retained the Combat Poverty Agency, as it was in touch with the people.
I am sorry to focus on the negatives and wish the delegates well but a good resource has been lost. As Deputy Shortall said, the committee unanimously agreed that the Combat Poverty Agency should not be subsumed into the Office for Social Inclusion. Since the office was set up, what meetings have been held with the likes of the HSE and the local authorities? Will Members of the Oireachtas be informed of the plans of the office, especially given the current serious economic environment that has seen increased unemployment? There are people on the dole who have never been unemployed and some do not know how to cope. There has been a breakdown in society and the country is nearly bankrupt. Mr. Mangan has said that this year the Office for Social Inclusion will focus on those affected by the recession; it should have done so by now and outlined a plan for Members of the Oireachtas. The office exists to create policy. I wish to hear the views of the delegates.
Deputy Charlie O'Connor took the Chair.
I apologise that the Chairman had to leave to attend another engagement.
I welcome Mr. Mangan and thank him for his presentation which gave us a flavour of the discussions that took place at various levels on the direction of the social inclusion division. Unfortunately, we are where we are in this process. The system is being reviewed and this discussion will feed into the review. What will emerge at the end of the process will offer a stronger way of addressing social inclusion.
We do not need to be told of the situation we are in; poverty and social exclusion will be huge issues in the immediate future. The Combat Poverty Agency had over 20 years' experience in dealing with these issues, while the Office for Social Inclusion has over ten. Merging these groups will help us to find a way through the problems we will experience in the near future. I welcome the opportunity to have an input in this process.
On a point of order, I am concerned that only one member representing the Government is present, apart from the Vice Chairman. This seems to be a pattern at meetings of the committee; as soon as a meeting is under way, Government members leave the room.
With all due respect, that is not a point of order.
Please let me finish.
I did not interrupt the Deputy.
I am just saying this is not acceptable.
If the Deputy wishes to call for a quorum, she should do so.
Please allow me to finish.
I was in the middle of making a comment.
I do not want to interrupt proceedings but I intend to call for a quorum, unless Government Deputies and Senators attend the meeting. They should be present to hear the presentation.
I understood the Deputy wanted to raise a point of order. However, as it was a reasonable point, I allowed her to make it.
Fair enough. Everybody is entitled to call for a quorum.
I will do so in 15 minutes if members do not return to the meeting.
Based on what the delegates said during the presentation, I have a fear that we may over-analyse and over-research issues. As Deputy Enright said, we have reports on reports on problems. Given the experience of the groups present, they should know what the problems are. While I understand the need for ongoing analysis and assessment of outcomes and goals, I caution against diverting scarce resources away from actions. A lot of research has been done, both nationally and internationally, which should be used as much as possible without diverting resources away from actions. I look forward to the outcome of the review of the way the office will do its business in the future, as well as the final report.
I, too, register my disappointment at the integration of the Combat Poverty Agency and the Office for Social Inclusion. People on the margins depended on the agency to protect their interests. The agency was a truly independent body which articulated the views of people on the margins. In the first two months of this year a further 60,000 have been added to the dole queues and the agency is needed now more than never. What savings will be made by the amalgamation of the two bodies? Will the combined office do a better job than the agency? How will society as a whole benefit?
There has been a lot of criticism of the presentation but it is very difficult to come before a committee such as this bearing bad news. The Combat Poverty Agency has been gagged and removed at the stroke of a pen. I agree with the points made by Deputies Enright and Shortall which were very constructive and well thought out. The agency always operated independently within communities and was always the voice of the most vulnerable, with whom we deal on a daily basis. It beggars belief that, having sat at this committee some months ago and registered our complaints that the agency was being removed from the community, the decision was made in any event. That is a reflection on the Government's thinking about many agencies which work in communities. The loss of the Combat Poverty Agency is another way of putting the lid on the bad news coming from communities. Communities and public representatives will regret the decision which will be seen as a huge mistake on the Government's part.
We often listen to presentations and react to them. As Senator McFadden said, however, our job as a committee is not just to listen to presentations but to act on them and offer alternative solutions. The time for presentations is over — we must begin to put our own views across as a committee. When we have made representations, they have not been listened to. Sadly, that is reflected in what has been discussed. It is not nice to bring bad news but that has been the job of the delegates. What has happened is not a reflection on their work but of what is happening in government.
I also welcome Mr. Mangan. It should not be assumed that I am not in agreement with some of what my Opposition colleagues have said. That is politics and democracy. A year ago we could have said, "Poverty has not gone away, you know" and the announcements today and yesterday confirm this. We all want to understand the approach of the Department to social inclusion and the issue of poverty.
A number of important questions have been asked. What is the status of the staff of the Combat Poverty Agency? I always appreciated the briefing material and research we received from the agency. Is the Department committed to continuing to provide that information? As the delegates are civil servants, they will be under a little bit of pressure but it is reasonable for members of the joint committee to expect the material of which I speak to continue to be made available to us.
I also support the point made by Deputy Shortall on the European year for combating poverty and social exclusion, 2010 but it does not seem to be on the radar. What efforts will the office make to bring it to people's attention in the coming months? These are difficult times and, as I told someone this morning, I have never been busier in terms of calls to my packed-out clinic made by people to raise issues that were not issues a year ago. There is a new poverty trap and people are being affected, as some of us were in the past. I was made redundant three times and it helps me to understand what is happening. I was walking around Tallaght first thing this morning and people were asking me about a reference and where they could get a job. We could talk all day about the Combat Poverty Agency but the buck stops with the Office for Social Inclusion and we expect its staff to be responsive.
It is right that members should express their concerns and that the system should be made to work.
With all due respect, in spite of the Vice Chairman's comments, he was part of the decision to close down the Combat Poverty Agency and he cannot walk away from that.
I am not walking away.
The Vice Chairman is attempting to play both sides of it.
I am not going to be silenced by "makey-uppy" socialists.
I am just saying the Vice Chairman should accept responsibility for it and not give us this bleeding heart stuff at this stage trying to distance himself from a Government decision.
Deputy Shortall plays the bleeding heart also.
The Vice Chairman should be honest about it and not play both sides of the ball.
I will not be lectured to by "makey-up" socialists either. I am entitled to make my views known and I protect other people. I will not be——
The Vice Chairman should accept his responsibility for the decision.
Nobody interrupted Deputy Shortall.
Deputy Shortall is posturing.
I will not listen to that kind of garbage.
The Deputy should try to rise above politics. I invite Mr. Mangan to make his contribution.
Mr. Gerry Mangan
I hope what I say will be accepted in the spirit in which it is given. I welcome the comments that have been made, robust and all as some of them were. They will be taken into account although the decision that was made about the amalgamation of the Combat Poverty Agency with the Office for Social Inclusion cannot be altered at this stage. It will help us greatly to determine how the new entity will evolve and what will be its functions. I hope this type of feedback will continue to be provided and I expect that it will. It is very important for us to hear the views of the committee. It is clear that it received a good service from the Combat Poverty Agency and that it was highly valued by the committee. I hope it will be possible for that service to continue to be provided through the new division, perhaps in a somewhat different way, but we hope that the ultimate impact will be the same. That is our clear ambition.
I will not stray into the policy dimension of what has happened but it is important to outline briefly the role of the Office for Social Inclusion. It may have been explained to Members during the Oireachtas debates that this was part of a Government decision and our task was to play our part in carrying out that decision. The Minister and the Department had a responsibility for the Combat Poverty Agency. The office had specific responsibility for liaison with the Combat Poverty Agency so it was inevitable that we ended up providing a secretariat for the review group. The review group was carefully chosen. It was chaired by a former Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and comprised senior officials and it thoroughly examined all aspects of the agency.
In the Office for Social Inclusion we always felt that one outcome would be a closer or better developed relationship with the Combat Poverty Agency. What was at issue was what form that would take. Ultimately, the review group made a recommendation to inform the decision of the Minister and the Government in that regard. We are happy to move on with our colleagues in the Combat Poverty Agency to try to ensure that the best of what each entity has to provide will be strengthened. Overall, we hope to provide a better service for what all members recognise is an extremely difficult period currently in terms of eradicating poverty. To date, the process has been going very well with our colleagues in the Combat Poverty Agency. We are satisfied that the people in both bodies will work very well together with the same degree of commitment we have had previously. That is important. We are conscious at all times of the need to listen to people's concerns and to act on them in so far as is possible.
One point that came through in the debates and the responses we received is the issue of independence. People valued the fact that the Combat Poverty Agency exercised an independent role. Clearly, as civil servants our capacity to act independently and, in particular, to criticise the Government is constrained. That is something Governments of all kinds value because it means that we can provide confidential and objective advice in so far as we can. That is one of the strengths of our position.
How do we know that if it is confidential?
Mr. Gerry Mangan
It can be seen in the outcomes and implementation of policies.
And the integrity of the procedure.
Mr. Gerry Mangan
That is what we try to do. We have been given a specific mandate, that as far as possible we must ensure that we listen carefully to all the independent advice that is available from the social partners, the community and voluntary sector and expert groups and that we channel it to policymakers, Ministers and the Government.
Working within the governmental system one of our great problems was to listen to and accommodate all the advice we received and to ensure it was properly processed and channelled in the right way. We very much welcome the contribution of the Combat Poverty Agency to that work. That is one of the ways its experience and competence will come into play and that the relationship that it built up with the community and voluntary sector will continue to be developed. We will encourage it to do so. The advice will perhaps go through in a different way to policymakers rather than in the public manner it did in the past.
Can Mr. Mangan explain how that process will work? He appears to suggest that the staff from the Combat Poverty Agency will do X work and that the Office for Social Inclusion is on the other side and it will continue to do Y. I presume that is not the case, but will Mr. Mangan explain how the process will work?
Mr. Gerry Mangan
I cannot give a definitive response because we are still considering the matter. It will emerge in the strategic plan. We are trying to operate and develop a life cycle approach. One of the things on which we require much advice is how best we can have an integrated approach to the provision of services and supports to people with different life cycles, namely, children, children in families, older people and people with disabilities. We have to find a mechanism to get that advice. We get it already through a range of ways, for example, the social inclusion forum and various representative organisations and meetings with Ministers and voluntary groups. It is fair to say we feel that system could be better structured and better developed. We look forward to working with our colleagues in the Combat Poverty Agency in that regard.
We do not get advice just for the sake of it. That is a vital element in policy development. The taxpayer funds services, which are provided to a large number of people and it is essential that we hear back from them about how good or bad they feel the service is and how it is being implemented. That type of feedback is essential if we are to improve services and get better value for money. It is not just an optional extra or something we do for the sake of appearances. It must be a core part of the policymaking process.
As a small unit we are conscious that we did not succeed. We did not have the resources. All Departments do it on a sectoral basis but we hope to make our specific contribution on an integrated basis. In addition, we wish to bring home to policymakers and those who implement schemes the importance of getting that feedback.
We learn from abroad because many other countries are trying to do that also. In fact, many countries look to us because they see us as having gone farther down the road than they may have. It is very important. I have no doubt this is an area where the experience of the Combat Poverty Agency will be of great assistance.
There are many sources of independent advice. This committee is a major source of independent advice. Public representatives are an important source. We receive a constant stream of advice and criticism and we respond to that. That is extremely important. The analytical reports from the Central Statistics Office, the ESRI and others are also important sources of information.
I accept what Deputy Brady said. He asks if we are over-analysing. That is always a danger but it is still very important that we get an analytic response, in addition to the response we get from the community and voluntary sector, and from people who provide the service. The views of Members of the Oireachtas and international responses are also extremely important.
The independence of our research agenda has been referred to. Research contains a range of elements. Feedback from users of the service is important. Some issues require academic research. For that, one goes to people who have analytical and statistical expertise because they will produce research which will meet requirements we do not have the resources to fulfil. We are talking about huge amounts of money. My Department alone spends €20 billion per year. It is essential that we are clear as to how effectively it is being spent. Whatever research is needed, it is only a minor fraction of what we spend and, therefore, we must ensure that it is done.
We were asked how we will meet the targets. I do not wish to comment on policy. However, the targets remain valid. They were worked out in consultation and the Government and the public expect us to meet them. The targets have not been revised but given the extent to which the economic basis on which they are made has changed, it may take longer to meet them.
Does the target of 2016 stand or not?
Mr. Gerry Mangan
It has not been revoked. The 2016 target remains. In the current situation I cannot say it will not be met. It has not been withdrawn, to my knowledge.
Does Mr. Mangan expect to meet it? He has responsibility for the target.
Mr. Gerry Mangan
I do not have responsibility for it. Various Departments and Ministers share the responsibility for making the resources available to meet the target. It is merely for my office to measure the progress made in achieving it and to look at the obstacles to achieving it. The target can only be achieved if the necessary resources are made available. There could be a problem in that regard, given the current economic situation.
Have the necessary actions been taken to ensure that we are on target at this stage?
Mr. Gerry Mangan
The most recent survey done by the Central Statistics Office, the EU SILC survey, used the 2007 figures, which are the most recent available. It showed that we are well on target to meet the 2016 target. It also showed we are on target to meet the 2012 target, which is between 2% and 4%. At that stage, policies were achieving what they aimed to achieve.
The year 2007 was a different country. We are keen to know the current position.
Mr. Gerry Mangan
I accept that. We can only rely on surveys done by the CSO. The next one will be done at the end of this year and will be based on the 2008 figures. I cannot predict what the targets will be. In the current situation, I cannot say they will be met. That is the situation.
We expect that the two bodies will formally amalgamate by 1 July. That is the current target. The functions of the new body will be laid down in a foundation document, which is currently being prepared, and in the strategic plan. We are in the process of consulting with the staff of both bodies and we are planning to consult stakeholders. We hope that work will be completed by 1 July or shortly afterwards.
A number of members mentioned the European year for combating poverty and social exclusion in 2010. The year has not received much publicity. A national implementation body has been established. At present, the Combat Poverty Agency and the Office for Social Inclusion are, jointly, the national implementation body. When the new division is formed it will continue in that role. That is the first step.
We had a first meeting of an advisory committee this week. A programme for the year must be ready for submission to the Commission by 15 May and there will be a more detailed programme of events, for which we will receive partial EU funding in December and January. According to the Commission framework which we have received, the events are not expected to commence until March 2010 but we hope to have a launch before that. We are keen to ensure that the year will provide an opportunity for a real debate on the means to reduce poverty and social exclusion in the coming years. The debate will take place in tandem with similar debates in other member states. We see this debate as an opportunity for our organisation to clarify our role and contribution.
I will ask my colleagues, Ms Catherine Hazlett, principal officer in the Office for Social Inclusion, and Ms Joan O'Flynn, programme manager for the Combat Poverty Agency, to make some comments.
Ms Catherine Hazlett
Some members asked about this year's programme for the integration process and about the staff of the Combat Poverty Agency. We have a project plan to integrate the two offices. Under the legislation, the staff of the agency will transfer into the Civil Service. The plan provides for the integration of the two offices and the staff of both offices will join together. The Combat Poverty Agency has a staff of between 21 and 25 and the Office for Social Inclusion has a staff of nine. The Combat Poverty Agency has a budget of approximately €4 million. Like most of the Civil Service, the office has a small administrative budget, of which approximately €80,000 is earmarked for research.
What is the total budget for the office?
Ms Catherine Hazlett
For research we have approximately €80,000. We have another €60,000 for administrative costs. Our budget is not singled out as the agency's budget is because our payroll and staff costs are part of the Department's overall budget.
Ms Hazlett does not have a figure for the unit.
Ms Catherine Hazlett
During the current six-month period we are integrating the two budgets and staffing cadres. The project plan has a couple of strands. Mr. Mangan has already spoken about the strategic plan. The board, the Office for Social Inclusion and the staff are involved in that.
Another strand deals with the straightforward logistical issues, such as premises, relocation of the staff of the agency to one of the Department's offices and IT, as well as practical arrangements for the transfer of agency staff to the Department. Another strand relates to the work on hand. Both the Combat Poverty Agency and the Office for Social Inclusion have work plans for this year. We are at the point of converging the two work plans. From July, we will have one plan for the rest of the year.
Research has been mentioned. We have had a research programme in the office for a number of years. The most recent publication was the Social Portrait of Communities. Deputies may have received that report or notice of it. We made it available on the web. We plan to complete that series of research projects.
Another publication entitled A Social Portrait of People with Disabilities is due for publication, as well as further analysis of the EU SILC report. Our programme for the rest of the year and into 2010 is to complete that series. In addition, Ms Joan O'Flynn will tell the committee about some of the research projects in hand in the agency. The immediate priority is to complete the research programmes and fulfil the commitments of our work plans for this year.
From the beginning of July, we will have one business plan incorporating the strands which Mr. Mangan talked about, namely, policy advice, research, consultation and communication. That must be informed by the strategic plan, which will involve a great deal of shared expertise and communication.
Ms Joan O’Flynn
I thank the members of the committee for their comments about Combat Poverty. They were well heard and much appreciated.
I will inform the committee about three initiatives which are coming down the line in the next couple of weeks and I will refer to the European year for combating poverty and social exclusion. We have a research programme within Combat Poverty. There will be three outputs over the next period. The first will be a policy discussion paper on over-indebtedness. We will look at that in the context of the impact of the current economic situation on low-income households. Second, over the last period we have undertaken a study of the cost of school books. We hope to produce that within the calendar year. The third output will be a study of the survey of income and living conditions in Ireland, which tells us about the experiences and levels of poverty in the country. It will, specifically, look at the relationship between people in poverty and medical card eligibility. That is currently under way, with specific reference to 2007. These tasks are currently in hand.
As members know, 2010 will be the European year for combating poverty and social exclusion. The year has three high-level aims. One is to reinvigorate the political commitment to eradicate poverty. The second is to raise public awareness of poverty and the third is to give voice to people experiencing poverty. The third of these aims has been raised by members of the committee. We are at an early stage in forming the programme for the year and we expect there will be a high level of engagement with organisations working with people experiencing poverty and with the social partners. One of the pieces of work recently commissioned is to engage the European Anti-Poverty Network to undertake a consultation with organisations working with people in poverty to get their input into the design of the year. We hope to extend that to other organisations and directly engage with people experiencing poverty in shaping the year and having their input into that.
I asked how it is intended to prioritise research projects? Who will decide the issues to be researched? I accept that work is currently in hand, as Ms O'Flynn has said. When that work is completed how will areas of work be prioritised?
I also asked about awareness raising. What work is planned in this regard? Finally, what is the reporting procedure for the unit?
What role does Mr. Mangan have in the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion? Who from the Department is directly involved in informing the sub-committee?
Mr. Gerry Mangan
Many of the items chosen for research emerge from the process. For example, when we receive the new SILC results from the Central Statistics Office we may find aspects which require further research. Interaction with other Departments might lead us to undertake a research project with a cross-cutting remit. For example, a project concerning children might involve the Departments of Education and Science and Health and Children.
That does not answer the question. In the new unit, will everyone sit down and decide on research priorities? The Combat Poverty element of the unit would have different priorities from that of the Department.
I have concerns about the new structure. Political priorities change. If a scandal occurs in a particular area or a need is suddenly identified, a Government Department will be under pressure to produce a piece of research to address the issue. Combat Poverty could look at areas of difficulty which were significant but not of immediate political interest. I am concerned that the second type of research might not be given the same priority as the first. Can Mr. Mangan assure me that it will not happen?
Mr. Gerry Mangan
Any research proposals will be discussed by the new division and put forward. I cannot predict what will happen but there will be an openness to all proposals. The Combat Poverty Agency has a tradition of research and I hope proposals from that side of the division will be accepted. At this stage, there is nothing to suggest that its type of research will not be supported. As far as possible, we will ensure that research has a strong practical dimension. If policy is being developed, research projects must directly assist the policy making process. That will be another dimension.
Research of both kinds is important. One needs blue skies research into emerging issues. Both sides will have to get proper support. That is the approach we will adopt. It is difficult to say what the outcome will be, because we will have to get support at senior level and resources to fund the research and so on across the board.
What work is proposed this year with regard to raising awareness?
Mr. Gerry Mangan
We expect to receive input from the Combat Poverty Agency on how we can best ensure there is proper consultation. I gave an outline earlier of how consultation can be effective.
I did not ask about consultation. What work is the Department planning this year to raise awareness of poverty? In other words, how will it carry out the role the Combat Poverty Agency would have played in creating public awareness of the issue of poverty? What work does the office plan to do in that regard?
Mr. Gerry Mangan
We have not finalised our plans. The Combat Poverty Agency work will continue, at least until July and perhaps beyond that. Our aim, in terms of preparing our business and strategic plan, is to work out how best awareness raising can continue. We have a more modest way of doing this through the social inclusion forum and through meeting groups in the context of the plan, social partners and whatever.
The purpose of those forums is to create awareness in the Department. Groups working at the coalface come in and make the Department aware of issues. What does the office propose to do to make the general public aware of poverty?
Mr. Gerry Mangan
We have not finalised that yet. What the Combat Poverty Agency has to contribute on that front will be very much part of what we will do. We are prepared to acknowledge that the resources we had were not strong on the public awareness side. We create awareness mainly through our website, which gets a high number of hits. We also create awareness through producing reports.
It is the people who do not want to hear that we need to make aware of the problem of poverty, not the people who would be checking the website to find out about it. It is the people oblivious to it that need to be made aware of it. I understand, there are no plans with regard to increasing awareness yet.
What is the reporting procedure for the unit? To whom does the office report and does it have a link to the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion?
Mr. Gerry Mangan
I am a member of the senior officials' group and Ms Hazlett is the alternate on that. We operate within that context. If issues arise relating to social inclusion, we prepare a report for the senior officials' group and the group decides whether it should go forward to the Cabinet committee, depending on its importance.
Is it not the case that the Cabinet sub-committee on social inclusion did not meet between February and November last year? Is that because the senior officials' group did not produce material for the Cabinet sub-committee to consider? It seems extraordinary in the context of the country's problems that the Cabinet sub-committee did not meet for ten months.
Mr. Gerry Mangan
Individual members of the committee are kept fully informed and meet as a group a number of times a year. The senior officials' group meets six or eight times a year and in time, a full meeting of the Cabinet sub-committee takes place and it deals with whatever has been brought forward from the senior officials' group or other issues Ministers want to raise. That is how the system works.
Therefore, there was nothing urgent for a ten-month period last year.
I accept we are in the early stages of the new entity and that it has not yet prepared a business plan. I suggest we invite the group again before the summer break so it can outline for us its research programme for the coming year, its plans for creating public awareness of poverty and any other business it may engage in.
While this is an important issue, the reality is that unemployment is sky rocketing and there is significant pressure on the social welfare budget. Therefore, we should not spend any more time on this issue, but let the civil servants ——
Does the Deputy not think we should spend time on the issue of poverty?
I do, but not on questioning the independence of groups or offices or on who is working where or who is making the decisions. We will have upwards of 500,000 people unemployed and they need practical answers from us.
Does the Deputy think there is too much research in the area?
We have spent enough time dealing with the issue. The civil servants have given a good account of themselves today, but they have been treated with disrespect by Deputy Shortall in particular who laughed aloud at some responses. The social welfare budget is €20 billion, but the pressure on that will increase. We are spending an inordinate amount of time on a decision taken on what is an important issue, but something that is only a very small part of the Department's overall budget. We must examine that budget and discover where efficiencies can be made, such as in the area of fraud. This committee must keep its focus on the unemployed.
I want to make a point in response to Deputy Byrne, who was not here for the entire presentation. The issue with regard to what the Office for Social Inclusion does is that it advises the Government on policy with regard to poverty. We want to know how the office operates and its priorities. We know its job will get much harder as the numbers of unemployed and of those experiencing poverty rise. Therefore, it is important the office has a plan.
We do not have the luxury of going to a Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting on a Tuesday night to give our views. This committee is the only opportunity the Opposition has to influence, guide and ask questions about the policy. It is important, therefore, that we give time to this. I second Deputy Shortall's proposal and would like the group to return. I do not wish to show any disrespect to the group, but as civil servants its members are aware of how the committee system operates. They have been here before and appear quite happy to answer our questions. This valuable process must continue.
While I do not wish to disagree with Deputy Byrne, it would be reasonable to return to this issue. The committee will deal with its work programme at our next meeting and it would be reasonable that we agree then to invite the group to return within the timeframe suggested. I hope that will be all right.
Perhaps I should not say this in public session, but we need to examine our priorities at that meeting if we are dealing with this suggestion then. I am in general agreement with the focus of the committee, but that focus is not in evidence with the obsession with the issue of social inclusion today. The decision has been made and the work is going on. There are so many other issues within the Department that should be examined. If more fraud was combated, as has happened recently, we could save much more money. It is issues such as that on which the committee should concentrate.
It seems we need to raise awareness of poverty on this committee.
I invite Mr. Mangan to sum up for us.
Mr. Gerry Mangan
This has been a useful discussion and many important issues have been raised. I have been working in this area a long time and one of the main issues is the importance of mainstreaming the issue of poverty and keeping it at the top of the agenda. Many Departments are clear what direction they are taking and about what they are doing in this regard. One of our main jobs is to advance this process through the national action plans, reporting mechanisms, monitoring and evaluation. Research, consultation and the raising of public awareness will arise from this process.
We are very conscious in the Office for Social Inclusion that we will benefit greatly from the Combat Poverty Agency. Both the agency and our office, working as an entity, will work on advancing the process more effectively. None of us anticipated the difficulties we now face, but it is now more important than ever that we have a clear, strategic process in operation.
Some of my answers have not been as clear as I would have liked because we are still in the process of thinking through what needs to be done. However, we will be more than happy to return to the committee when we have a clearer picture of how the division will take place. In answer to Deputy Shortall's point, we will also have a clearer idea of how to raise public awareness.
I thank the delegation on behalf of the committee members and the Chairman, for whose absence I apologise. It has been a good, robust discussion and I thank my colleagues for attending.
The joint committee adjourned at 12.50 p.m. until Wednesday, 1 April 2009.