Vol. 499 No. 3
72 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs the consideration, if any, he has given to updating and increasing the targets set out in the national anti-poverty strategy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2617/99]
The national anti-poverty strategy, NAPS, was launched in April 1997 with the overall target of reducing the proportion of households in poverty from 9 to 15 per cent to less than 5 to 10 per cent by the year 2007. NAPS also set targets under five key themes: unemployment, educational disadvantage, income adequacy, disadvantaged urban areas and rural poverty.
In relation to the overall target, the Economic and Social Research Institute will publish a report around Easter on poverty trends between the years 1994 and 1997. This, along with other relevant reports and research, will inform the future direction of the strategy and provide us with the updated information necessary to refocus our efforts on those most in need. The introduction of poverty proofing also ensures that the NAPS targets are kept in mind as policy is being designed. The strategy is of ten years duration and targets will be periodically reviewed to reflect developments over time.
With regard to progress on unemployment, for example, considerable headway has already been made towards the NAPS target of reducing the unemployment rate to 6 per cent by the year 2007. The average rate of unemployment for 1998 is estimated at 7.4 per cent. This also represents considerable progress towards the target of 7 per cent unemployment by the end of year 2000 set out in the employment action plan. It is the target of the Government to reduce it further to 5 per cent. Long-term unemployment for the period March to May 1998, the latest figure available, was 3.9 per cent with the NAPS target of 3.5 per cent almost achieved.
Regarding income adequacy, the 1999 budget brought all rates of payment up to the minimum rates recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare. It is intended, in the context of NAPS, to consider the issue of income adequacy in its broad sense, having regard to employment, taxation, budgetary constraints, etc. In this regard, my Department intends to examine the role of social welfare rates and the appropriate future direction of social welfare payments now that the commission's minimum rates have been achieved.
While the NAPS targets for rural poverty and disadvantaged urban areas are framed in the context of the previous themes – educational disadvantage, unemployment, inadequacy – a range of specific actions related to the spatial dimension of poverty are also being pursued. The forthcoming White Paper on Rural Development will deal with rural development as a multidimensional integrated process. The paper will set out a statement of the overall objective to be achieved together with a broad policy framework and the institutional mechanisms to achieve it. Other issues such as rural transport, rural resettlement and farm incomes are also being examined at present.
Urban disadvantage is being tackled on a number of fronts, through programmes such as the area based partnerships, the URBAN programme, the national drugs strategy, the young people's facilities and services fund and the integrated services project. Revision of strategies that impact on poverty and social inclusion issues is considered each month by the Cabinet committee on social inclusion and drugs while the NAPS interdepartmental policy committee meets regularly to review progress on the NAPS. Any updating of the NAPS targets will, therefore, be considered thoroughly in these fora.
Does the Minister agree it is fair to state that since the rainbow Government introduced the national anti-poverty strategy in April 1997, following which the Minister took office, he has not shown much interest in co-ordinating all the objectives across the territories he outlined? For example, in relation to income adequacy and the consistently poor, the Minister mentioned the reduction of the 9 to 15 per cent target to 5 per cent by 2007. Given the massive growth rates of recent years, is the Minster prepared to lower that figure further and reach it by 2002?
The Minister mentioned the spatial dimension of poverty and urban blackspots. Does he agree it is fair to state that the strategy on which the Government has embarked in dividing the country into two regions will mean that counties and districts, such as those represented by the Minister and me, and others, which are the most deprived urban areas in the country, will face massive cuts in EU support under programmes such as URBAN, horizon and their successors? The Minister mentioned rural economies and rural poverty.
I ask the Deputy to conclude as the time for questions has expired.
The Minister has not addressed the issue of rural poverty.
Rural poverty was one of the first issues I raised when the Combat Poverty Agency met me for the first time. I asked the agency to specifically concentrate on the issue of rural poverty. It is currently carrying out a survey of farm incomes. I am happy to be the Minister who assisted in bringing forward the farm assistance scheme which will help people with families with low income farms.
I do not agree with the Deputy's allegation about NAPS. This issue is to the fore in my Department. The Government introduced one of the most significant and sought after ideas in NAPS, which was to poverty proof Government decisions. This is currently in vogue. The best way out of poverty is to provide people with jobs and that is what the Government has done. The unemployment target in NAPS has been almost reached and it is estimated the unemployment rate will be down to 6.5 per cent this year. The Government has achieved this under NAPS.
Regarding rural poverty, does the Minister accept it is a good idea, in light of the current climate, that people already receiving small farm social welfare payments should be removed from the scheme or have their amounts reduced? The Minister previously noted the small number of people who have applied for assistance. However, it is serious that people already receiving payments are being removed from the scheme.
I regret it was not possible to deal with Question No. 69, which was No. 3 on the priority list. Under the rules of the House it was not possible to take the question because it was not reached in the time available. However, I am happy to tell the House that today I obtained Government approval to bring the farm assistance scheme closer to the current date, in view of the difficulties in the farm sector, at an extra cost of £5 million.
I am glad my question had some effect.
I am delighted to tell the Deputy that the Government is reacting to the difficulties facing farmers.
It is reacting to my question. I am delighted.
This initiative in my area is one of a number of measures which will be announced in the near future. Undoubtedly, the Deputy will compliment the Government on its achievements in that respect.
Why are people being removed from the scheme?
