Fight against poverty needs action

Comment:  Partnership deal positive but more ambition needed on poverty elimination writes Helen Johnston

Another partnership agreement represents an important opportunity to address social inclusion, which is complementary to, and not in competition with, economic development.

But is there enough commitment to poverty elimination within the agreement? Will it maintain the status quo on the issue or will it shape improvements?

Combat Poverty Agency, in its submission to the partnership agreement, called for the maintenance of employment, social expenditure and income support, as well as a commitment that those who benefited least from the recent economic boom do not bear the brunt of economic adjustments.

In particular, the agency encouraged the social partners to focus their efforts on meeting the following goals:

Achieve the minimum social welfare rate of €150 per week over the course of the agreement.

Enhance child income support.

Eliminate consistent poverty.

Reduce relative income poverty.

Provide universal access to early childhood education.

Meet previous targets on housing starts and completions for local authority and social housing.

Reduce health inequalities between rich and poor.

Ensure any taxation changes redistribute income towards those on lower incomes.

In meeting these objectives, Ireland needs to move to a "virtuous cycle" of reinforcing growth and inclusion. This will involve acceptance of the need for wage moderation to maintain competitiveness and taxation reform to fund social inclusion measures and public services.

From the social inclusion and poverty view point, the agreement contains some positive elements. Its primary advantage is that it includes social justice as one of three key elements and provides a commitment to spreading the benefits of economic expansion.

In the fine print of the agreement there is little new and its proposals are, on the whole, a restatement of existing commitments and aspirations contained in the National Anti-Poverty Strategy.

However, many of these commitments are of crucial importance to the effort to reduce poverty, in particular the special initiative to end child poverty, the intention to raise social welfare rates to 150 per week (in 2002 terms) by 2007 and the commitment to address long-term unemployment.

However, it is difficult to predict the precise economic impact the agreement will have on poverty, especially in the environment of economic and global uncertainty.

This agreement is a cautious document, with its primary goal of keeping the lid on inflation, while offering some safeguards for vulnerable people.

Some of the commitments need elaboration. The affordable housing initiative aims to increase the supply of houses by 10,000 but, while Combat Poverty welcomes this expansion in housing provision, it would like to see an increase in social housing available to people dependent on social welfare as well as others on low income.

The main cause of poverty has traditionally been long-term unemployment. We welcome and recognise that the economic success of recent years contributed to the drop in consistent poverty (consistent poverty fell from 15 per cent in 1994 to 5.5 per cent in 2000).

However, increased economic uncertainty has raised the spectre of this problem again and the initiatives aimed at low-skilled workers and supporting the unemployed returning to work are welcome.

Combat Poverty is anxious that the agreement should ensure that social welfare increases are in line with wage increases.

In the past six years, the bulk of tax gains were directed at those on higher incomes and, along with a narrow tax base, have widened the gap between people on higher incomes and social welfare recipients. Combat Poverty's analysis of the 2002 budget shows that its measures made progress in narrowing this gap and if the agreement leads to a continuation of that trend, then progress can be made in reducing income inequality.

There are countless arguments to support higher expenditure investment in health and education. To take one area, Ireland is well behind in the establishment of primary and preventative healthcare measures.

Against all Odds, Combat Poverty's in-depth study of family poverty in Ireland during 2002, showed that many low-income families had at least one member unable to work due to illness.

Ireland is a low-taxed country and a wider tax base would contribute towards the development of a more sustainable society where the level of public service is much improved.

People on low incomes depend on good-quality social services. Measures such as a clawback tax on land rezoning, a green tax on pollution, a reversal in capital gains tax and halting corporation tax cuts could generate some of the revenue needed for investment in the development of a quality social infrastructure in Ireland.

We have now had nearly 15 years of partnership agreements. They have contributed to increased economic and employment growth, to significant increases in social welfare rates and child benefits and reductions in levels of poverty. However, there was limited redistribution of resources or substantial investment in public services.

This partnership agreement maintains a focus on social inclusion commitments but these need to be implemented in full if Ireland is to work towards the elimination of poverty and a more socially inclusive society for everyone.

Helen Johnston is the director of Combat Poverty Agency