Vol. 573 No. 1
75 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her views on the recent Combat Poverty Agency annual report which highlighted the ongoing high levels of poverty being experienced by many citizens; the measures she proposes to take on foot of the report; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24203/03]
93 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her plans to alleviate a serious situation (details supplied). [24314/03]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 75 and 93 together.
In its recently published annual report for 2002, the Combat Poverty Agency addressed the issues of child and family poverty in Ireland. Drawing on published data sources, the agency estimated that some 5.5% of households experience consistent poverty. Consistent poverty is a measure devised by the ESRI to measure basic deprivation. It identifies the proportion of people below a certain income threshold who lack what are considered basic necessities to sustain a minimally adequate standard of living. This measurement greatly assists in identifying the most deprived and ensuring that special attention is given to their needs.
The reduction and eventual elimination of consistent poverty has been the priority goal of the national anti-poverty strategy since its inception. The progress being made has been documented by the 2001 "Living in Ireland" survey, the results of which will be published in the near future. These confirm that the proportion of people experiencing consistent poverty has almost halved – falling from 9.7% in 1997 to 5.2% in 2001, with the proportion of children dropping even more dramatically, from 15.3% in 1997 to 6.5% in 2001. The overall target, as I have said previously, is to reduce the proportion of consistently poor to below 2% by 2007 and, if possible, to eliminate consistent poverty by that date.
One of the Government's priorities is to continue to further develop policies that are achieving this progress, which include support for increased employment, improved income support in real terms, especially for children, and improved access to services, such as health, education and training, housing and accommodation.
The strategies for the development and implementation of policy in these areas are set out in the revised national anti-poverty strategy, "Building an Inclusive Society", of February 2002 and the national action plan against poverty and social exclusion, NAPS/incl., submitted to the EU Commission in July 2003.
The national action plan incorporates the commitments made in NAPS and in the social partnership agreement, Sustaining Progress. The strategies set out a range of targets in all the relevant policy areas for combating poverty and social exclusion. In addition, specific targets have been established in respect of groups identified as being particularly vulnerable to poverty, such as children and young people, women, older people, people with disabilities, Travellers, migrants and ethnic minorities.
Future policy development will be largely focused on the agreed special initiatives in Sustaining Progress, eight of which are of direct relevance to combating poverty, including the initiatives on ending child poverty, tackling educational disadvantage, supports for the long-term unemployed and other vulnerable workers, supports for carers, housing and accommodation and migration and inter-culturalism The newly established office for social inclusion in my Department, has overall responsibility for co-ordinating the implementation of the national anti-poverty strategy.
The Combat Poverty Agency submission again repeats that growing inequality will continue to increase and widen further unless social welfare payments are increased proportionately in line with the average industrial wage. The CORI report sets it at 30% of the average industrial wage. In the context of the NAPS review, to which the Minster referred and which set a target of €150 per week in 2002 terms, in order to achieve that and allowing for inflation, by 2007 she would have to ensure that the lowest social welfare rate was €183. How will the Minister achieve that, considering she only gave a €6 increase in 2003? Is it not the position, as the Combat Poverty agency stated today, that in order to deal with poverty and in particular to focus on child poverty, lone parents, unemployment etc., the payment will have to increase by €12? In order to meet the goal of €183 by 2007 the minimum increase the Minister will need to give this year is €14 per week for those categories. Is that achievable? If it is not, poverty levels will widen and escalate and this time next year we will be back with a CORI report, a Threshold report and a Combat Poverty report, which will rehearse the same statistics.
Under NAPS/incl., I have received much criticism for the fact that I had no new initiatives. The reason was that I wanted to address the initiatives of NAPS in the first place. I am not happy that we have been slow in some areas, not all of them, in addressing the targets set. The Deputies are suggesting it should rise to the CORI target of €183. I have disputed the level with Fr. Healy but it is within the parameters of €176 and €183. However, that is beside the point.
The Combat Poverty Agency has identified two areas – children and families – and that is the culmination of many of the pre-budget submissions. The lower baseline of payments will have to be addressed and brought up to a higher level in order to reach the NAPS income and indicators which have been set. It is an opportunity to have a pre-budget discussion and look at priorities which I hope will reflect those. Sustaining Progress aims to bring those on the baseline up and to target children and poverty, not necessarily on the basis of income but on other tangible interests, particularly in education and housing.
I am sure the Minister discussed child benefit when she met the board of the Combat Poverty Agency last week. Child benefit was one of the commitments that her Government gave before the last election and it was the first cutback in last year's budget. Every report has shown that if the Government wants to deal with child poverty and family poverty, 99.9% of money given to women for child benefit is spent on children.
What actions did the combat poverty board say could help families between now and Christmas? The Government must admit that last week's report was a damning indictment of the Minister, her Department and the Government, certainly on the basis that we have so many people on the poverty line. It is shameful after the past ten wonderful years that so many people are still below the poverty line. There are hungry children and the report is damning.
Since the introduction of the euro people on low income have had major difficulty dealing with price increases. Many of these people do not go on family holidays and are living from day to day. Has the Department undertaken any research on the impact of the euro on the index and the way in which it calculates poverty? Since the introduction of the euro people find it ever more difficult to live and the €6 increase last year was wiped away by increases in local authority charges and prices. Last week what two issues did the Combat Poverty Agency suggest could alleviate the problem of poverty between now and Christmas?
I am not going to advise the Deputy of the discussions I held with the Combat Poverty Agency board as that would break confidence with the board members. We did look at its pre-budget submission to which Deputy Penrose alluded, particularly targeting children and families on lower incomes. It is important that I indicate the parameters and the indicators set by the ESRI for the Department when we look at poverty, for example, someone who had to go without heating during the last year due to lack of money, who experienced debt problems arising from ordinary living expenses, or people who have availed of charity, not having particular types of meals, or went without a substantial meal on one day in the past two weeks. Those are the indicators used in ascertaining consistent poverty and on that basis we set targets within NAPS and the programme for Government. It is obvious that the general thrust of comment, even within my parliamentary party, has been on child poverty. We all agree with the Deputy that child benefit is very useful in addressing child poverty and it will be considered in the context of next year's budget.
Given that consistent poverty went down in the report and relative poverty went up should the Government not give up the pretence that consistent poverty has any value as a measurement? Is there any country against which the Minister can measure levels of Irish consistent poverty? Relative poverty is the internationally recognised and accepted measure of poverty. All poverty is relative. The distance between those on low income and those who are on average income and wealth levels and those who enjoy the most wealth in our society are the real indicators of poverty. Can the Minister ensure that all reports that come from her Department stress that point?
I will not broach the topic of child benefit and child income until one of my questions is reached later because then I might go into it in greater detail. In general terms the statistical presentation of information by the Department lacks a great deal of honesty. We have a wide disparity between wealth and poverty, one of the worst in the OECD and in the western world and we need to recognise that. I ask the Minister to recognise that we need measures to properly reflect that.
I do not agree with the Deputy's insinuation that the Department is not telling the truth with regard to the indicators used. One of the issues in comparisons with the EU is the demography of other countries where the emphasis is on old age pensioners because of the ageing population. Indicators in Europe do not take into consideration many of the additional supports available to people in receipt of a welfare payment, for example, free telephone and other free schemes. Not all of those are taken into consideration in the European context because in many countries those services are not provided so, therefore, it is very difficult to make comparisons between us and other European countries.
Some time ago in this House we discussed how we compare with other EU member states as regards the take as a percentage of GDP. Although ours is lower it reflects the demographics of our European counterparts as opposed to our support for those who are less well off. Government policy is to try to reduce the level of consistent poverty to 2% by 2007 and if at all possible to eradicate it on the basis of the NAPS targets, particularly when one looks at the lowest welfare payment being set in 2007 at €150, based on 2002 levels. We can disagree on how we calculate that. We are close as regards the €10, but I disagree that the indicators which I, my Department or the Government use for addressing poverty are untrue in any way. It would be disingenuous of anyone to say that we should not have any poverty in this country when compared with other countries because that is not comparing like with like.
