OPINION:Combat Poverty ceases today as a State agency developing and promoting measures to combat poverty in Ireland. But all is not lost . . .
THE CLOSURE today of Combat Poverty after 23 years in existence would be a welcome development if it coincided with the achievement of its mission: a “poverty-free” Ireland.
Regrettably, this is not the case. Poverty remains a reality in Irish society, with 5 per cent of the population experiencing basic deprivation and more than twice that number at risk of poverty.
Of even greater concern is the fact that 7.4 per cent of those under 18 years and 20 per cent of people in lone-parent households are deprived of basic necessities.
Furthermore, the current economic downturn introduces new poverty risks.
Rising unemployment and reduced hours of work means that more people will be exposed to low income. Reductions in social expenditure, such as the elimination of the early childcare supplement and the cutbacks in the school books scheme, will reduce the key supports for vulnerable families.
Meanwhile the fall in the consumer price index is unlikely to be of help to low-income families since the bulk of the adjustment is targeted at home-owners with mortgages.
What then is the legacy of Combat Poverty?
In a forthcoming review of the work of Combat Poverty, Mary Daly, professor of social policy in Queen’s University, Belfast, and adviser to the European Commission on social policy, highlights some of the leadership roles played by Combat Poverty.
At the outset it has acted as a repository of knowledge and expertise on poverty and related conditions. It has used this to comment on policy and public debate about poverty.
From the agency’s community activity and evaluative research it has been able to interpret the impact of programmes and policies, offering new insights and learning as a direct result of this work. In many ways the agency acted as a bridge, linking the community and voluntary sector and policy decision-makers at local and national levels.
Outside of Ireland, Combat Poverty was a significant contributor to international policy reviews and exchanges about the Irish experience.
Combat Poverty’s work has contributed to the significant improvements in basic living standards and the notable decline in overall poverty levels over the last two decades. More generally, the agency has contributed to a seachange in the institutional approach to poverty since it was established in 1986. This has seen poverty move from being a peripheral issue to a mainstream concern of public policy.
For example, poverty is now officially recognised and reported upon using national and European measures; groups campaigning on poverty have a voice at the social partnership table; and there is a robust policy framework for tackling poverty at local, national and European levels.
This is the past. What about the future policy response to poverty?
It is important to highlight here that the expertise of Combat Poverty is not to be lost but is to take a new shape through the integration of Combat Poverty to form a new, strengthened division on poverty and social exclusion within the Department of Social and Family Affairs.
The challenge now is to ensure that the legacy of Combat Poverty is maintained in the new division. We can identify four main challenges for the new division.
First, we need urgently to review the Government policy approach for tackling poverty, the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion 2007-2016, and adapt it to the new circumstances of a recession economy. In particular we need to update our research to identify emerging issues and new vulnerabilities.
Second, we need to provide a strong and independent commentary on the policy changes being considered by Government to deal with the economic crises. Here the policy instrument of poverty impact assessment is critical to ensure that any new tax increases or reductions in public expenditure are thoroughly reviewed as to their possible impact on poverty.
Third, we need to look at Government expenditure on welfare and related social programmes to ensure the best value for money. For example, the Government spends over €300 million on fuel subsidies for low-income households every year. Is this the best way of helping fuel-poor households, especially where environmental concerns are of greater relevance? Are there lessons we can learn from other countries in this regard?
Finally, we need to ensure that the voice of people in poverty is heard. In recent weeks we have seen the terrible consequences of ignoring the vulnerable in developing policy responses to poverty.
As society is undergoing dramatic challenges, it is more important that the voices of those in poverty are heard. This applies at national level, but also in terms of service delivery, whether it is in schools, health centres, welfare offices or social housing providers.
Combat Poverty leaves a rich legacy after 23 years. The best way we can respect this is to ensure its successor is as vigorous and active in driving the poverty agenda as was Combat Poverty.
Brian Duncan is chairman of Combat Poverty