Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 30 June 2016
8. Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social Protection his plans to draw up a new national anti-poverty strategy; the timeframe for the completion and publication of the strategy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18816/16]
Amharc ar fhreagraThe purpose of the question is to ask the Minister if he intends to draw up a new anti-poverty strategy. The previous strategy has lapsed.
Unambitious targets were set in a programme, which not have been met. Does the Minister intend drawing up a national anti-poverty strategy? If so, to what timeline is he working? When can we expect the strategy?
The national action plan for social inclusion 2007 to 2016, NAPinclusion, identifies a wide range of targeted actions and interventions to achieve the overall objective of reducing poverty. It was published in February 2007. The plan adopts a life cycle stage approach with goals set for each life cycle group: children, people of working age, older people, people with disabilities and communities. The plan also includes the national social target for poverty reduction.
NAPinclusion was updated in 2015 for the extended period of 2015 to 2017 to reflect new challenges, which are different from when the plan was drawn up in 2007, and to reflect current policy responses to poverty. These include a greater focus on modernising the social protection system, improving effectiveness and efficiency of social transfers and strengthening active inclusion policies to address employment and social challenges. The updated plan sets out 14 high-level goals across the life cycle. In addition to the required updating, the timeframe of NAPinclusion was extended by one year to 2017 to coincide with the timeframe for reporting on the interim national social target for poverty reduction, which is to reduce consistent poverty to 4% by 2016. We will have the statistics on that only in 2017.
My Department plans to undertake an independent review of the structures and delivery of NAPinclusion during the period 2007 to 2017. The review will be carried out during 2017 in accordance with the priorities of the Government. Consultations on a national anti-poverty strategy beyond 2017 will be informed by this review.
I thank the Minister for his reply. We are all conscious of the scale of poverty in this country and how the poverty rate has increased in recent years. The current rate of consistent poverty is 8%. The greatest scandal in that context is that almost 140,000 children live in consistent poverty without enough food, heating or clothing. In addition, other cohorts such as lone pensioners, single long-term unemployed people and those dealing with mental health problems and addiction are adversely affected. Does the Minister accept the targets that were set were not ambitious enough? Does he further accept the State is a long way from meeting those unambitious targets? Is he prepared to commit to the production of a national anti-poverty strategy that sets targets not just for his Department but for all Departments, with timelines for the actions that will be taken to meet these targets?
The 8% rate of consistent poverty relates to 2014. I expect the 2015 rate will be lower and I will have that figure in November. I do not know what is the rate for 2016. Even in 2005 during a boom period, the rate was 7% but it has worsened in the past ten years, largely as a consequence of the great recession.
The targets, which are to bring down the consistent poverty rate to 2% by 2020 and to lift 90,000 children out of poverty, are ambitious. No country in the western world has ever managed to eliminate poverty because these figures are based on relativities and median incomes. However, if we achieved those targets, it would bring us into line with the Nordic countries and if Ireland were to move from being a middle ranking country in the European Union when it comes to poverty to being up there with the Nordic bloc, that would be a great achievement and that is the ambition.
There are various references to poverty and child poverty, in particular, in the programme for Government but the notion of going with an integrated framework for social inclusion is not adequate. Does the Minister accept an overarching strategy with clear targets that involves every Department is needed? All the anecdotal evidence indicates that the Department will fall far short of the target set for 2016. Is he prepared to give a commitment to ensure poverty proofing of all major budgetary decisions? In recent years, many additional charges and taxes have been brought in with no consideration of people's ability to pay and this has largely impacted on those who are least able to pay. According to the Department's figures, over the past two budgets, the lowest quintile benefited the least from them. Does the Minister accept anti-poverty budgeting is needed? Is he prepared to press that issue with his Cabinet colleagues?
I accept a cross-government approach is needed to this and, as I pointed out earlier - the Deputy agreed with me - it is not all about welfare payments and transfers. We compare well with other countries when it comes to welfare payments and transfers but where we are doing poorly is in the area of services. Many people on low income have to pay for services they would get free in other countries. In addition, a good well paid job is better than any social transfer and, therefore, one has to take into account all those factors.
It is my intention to have a new national anti-poverty strategy to replace the one that has been extended to 2017.
There is a programme for Government commitment regarding plans for poverty proofing of budgets and I will press it with my colleagues, but we will probably not necessarily agree on how it should be done. Increasing pensions, for example, benefits one decile the least, which comprises the poorest people in the country. There are many perversities that people would not necessarily appreciate. The Deputy probably does but many other people do not. One way to do nothing for the poorest 10% in the country, for example, is to increase pensions, but I would like to do so. Some people believe a tax cut is a transfer to people who are in work or who are middle class and better off. My view is a tax cut is just giving people back their own money and it should not be included in these calculations.
That is very simplistic.
