Examination of witness (Questions 107
- 119)
TUESDAY 16 JUNE 1998
Helen Johnston
Chairman
107. May the Committee formally welcome
Helen Johnston, who is the Acting Director of Combat Poverty Agency
in Ireland? May I say that from time to time this Committee has
reflected on the fact that although there is lots of interesting
news out of the United States and other far away countries such
as Australia about social security and poverty, we have recognised
that we have much to learn elsewhere in Europe. We are particularly
grateful that you have made the journey to London and you are
most welcome. May I ask you a question which invites you to explain
briefly the work that your Agency is doing in Ireland? We are
used to the idea of international bodies and European bodies making
highly principled statements about the need to combat poverty
or social exclusion or whatever it might be, but it would appear
that in Ireland you have taken one of these resolutions very seriously
and have thought about ways of making it a reality. It seems to
me a very ambitious piece of work. Could you briefly explain what
that work is?
(Helen Johnston) I have prepared something very
briefly which covers that so it might be useful for me just to
go through it. If you feel I am going on too long, just stop me.
May I say that I am delighted to have been asked to come here
today? The National Anti-Poverty Strategy (NAPS) which you have
referred to is a major initiative in Ireland to tackle poverty
and social exclusion through coordinated action by all government
departments and state agencies at national, regional and local
level. It intends to put the needs of the poor at the top of the
national agenda and seeks to create the conditions to enable people
to break out of the cycle of poverty. By way of background, this
was a follow up to the United Nations World Summit for Social
Development in Copenhagen in March 1995. Along with other governments,
the Irish Government endorsed a programme of action aimed not
only at eliminating absolute poverty in the developing world but
also reducing poverty and inequalities everywhere. Arising from
this commitment, the Irish Government approved the development
of a National Anti-Poverty Strategy. In so doing it set up an
Interdepartmental Policy Committee. The Committee was chaired
by an Assistant Secretary in the Department of the Taoiseach,
which is the Prime Minister's Department in Ireland. It included
representation by all government departments except for two, and
they were Foreign Affairs and Defence, which were not tasked with
addressing poverty. There were key relevant state agencies, including
the Combat Poverty Agency. The Committee then set out a programme
of work to develop the strategy and there was a number of stages
in this. The first stage was the development of an overview discussion
paper or background paper on the nature and extent of poverty,
social exclusion and inequality in Ireland; it was quite an all-encompassing
approach. The Comittee also invited submissions through public
advertisement on what the focus of a national anti-poverty strategy
should be and then it also produced a short discussion paper on
the kind of institutional mechanisms which might be required to
implement a national strategy. When these three documents were
produced they formed the basis of a broad ranging consultation
exercise. This included a number of regional seminars. At the
end of that process and assimilating all the information, the
Interdepartmental Policy Committee identified five key themes
on which the strategy should be based. These were: educational
disadvantage, unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment,
income adequacy, disadvantaged urban areas and rural poverty.
Interestingly, more than half of the submissions emphasised that
addressing educational disadvantage was a key strategy in tackling
poverty. A key feature of the five themes is that they focus on
causes and consequences of poverty and that they cut across departmental
boundaries. This cross-cutting element is seen as an important
dimension of the strategy but could be difficult to implement
in practice. To finish on this development stage, when the five
themes were identified, five working groups were set up under
each theme, chaired by a relevant member of the inter-departmental
group, and including social partners, (that is the trade unions,
employers and farmers), other representative interests in that
area and community and voluntary groups. They prepared background
papers and undertook consultations. They arrived then at policy
objectives and actions which the strategy should address under
each of those themes. This took place from start to finish over
a two-year period. On the basis of all that information, the Interdepartmental
Policy Committee published a strategy entitled "Sharing in
Progress" on 23 April 1997. This is the document which was
produced. I am not sure whether you have seen it but there is
an actual policy document. At that time it was produced by the
coalition government which was made up of three parties—Fine
Gael, Labour and Democratic Left. The strategy contains an agreed
definition of poverty, a brief analysis of the causes and identifies
those most at risk and then sets out a global target for poverty
reduction. It also sets targets under each of the five themes
and then policy objectives and actions under each of the themes.
It sets out the structures and mechanisms which are required to
implement strategy and is set in a ten-year timeframe from 1997
to 2007. That is the background.
108. Thank you very much indeed. I should
also have thanked you for your written paper which we found very
helpful. May I ask about your place as an agency within government?
Reading your paper I was struck by the rather fearless way in
which you said that here you had a strategy, here were your targets
and the recent budget was rather disappointing in terms of the
poverty impact. That is what you were implying.
(Helen Johnston) Yes.
109. You were obviously able to say that.
Can you talk about the integrity of the Agency or the independence
of the Agency?
(Helen Johnston) Yes. Combat Poverty Agency is
a state funded body. We were set up by statutory act dated 1986
in 1987. Our remit is to provide economic and social policy advice
on poverty to the Minister for Social Welfare and to government
more broadly. We have been in existence for eleven years. We have
four main functions: one is a policy advice function which I have
already mentioned, but that is supported by a research function.
We undertake commissioning research into the nature, causes and
levels of poverty. We have a project support function where we
can pilot projects on the ground and give them support and that
includes an evaluation role as well, to evaluate initiatives.
We have a public information and education role. We publish a
quarterly magazine. You may have received some copies of that.
We also publish most of the research which we commission, provide
resource materials and we do some curriculum development work
with the schools as well. Those are the three main functions and
that all feeds in to policy advice and we submit policy documents
to the Minister.
110. You say you were set up by statute.
(Helen Johnston) Yes.
111. Do you think that is important in terms
of your independence?
(Helen Johnston) I do not know whether it is important
in relation to our independence, but it is important for us as
an agency to be set up. Interestingly a review was undertaken.
It started in 1995 and was published in 1996. It was commissioned
by the Department of Social Welfare and it was an external commission.
They said one of the key features of the agency was that we had
a foot in both camps. We were able to link into the Government
and the policy side of things because that was our specific remit,
but given also that we had a remit to support projects and groups
working on the ground, we had a foot into what was happening at
grass roots level as well and it was quite unique that we could
bridge those two areas. It is a difficult line sometimes to draw
in terms of working with those people who are trying to address
poverty, but at the same time being able to stand back and critically
reflect on how we do that.
Mr Pond
112. Thank you for this very useful evidence
and for giving up the time to prepare it and to be here. May I
start by asking a question about the definition of poverty used
within the strategy? This is very similar indeed, almost word
for word, to the definition used by the European Council of Ministers.
It is set out in paragraph 3 of your evidence. "People are
living in poverty, if their income and resources (material, cultural
and social) are so inadequate as to preclude them from having
a standard of living which is regarded as acceptable by Irish
society generally". As far as I can see it is only the "Irish
society" bit which differs from the Council of Ministers'
definition. To what extent is it possible, do you think, using
that sort of definition or others, to get some comparative measure
across European Member States in terms of some of these social
indicators to see how each of the Member States is doing in moving
towards their different targets of trying to eradicate or eliminate
poverty?
(Helen Johnston) There are two parts to that question.
One is that in drawing up the Irish strategy, there was discussion
and consideration at an early stage about including a European
dimension and placing Ireland within that European dimension.
Given the ambitious nature of all we were trying to do through
the consultation process, as well as through the preparation of
background material, the focus remained on Ireland and that was
not included.[6]
We would still see the Irish dimension as being very much a part
of the European dimension, particularly when you look at the economic
move towards European Union and EMU and so on on the economic
front. The second bit is putting that into practice. In terms
of our data collection—and I have outlined that in my paper—we
are quite reliant in the National Anti-Poverty Strategy on a national
household income survey which has been carried out in Ireland
starting in 1994 and every year subsequently called the Living
in Ireland Survey. That is part of the Europanel survey which
has been commissioned by Eurostat in all the European states.
As you are probably aware, they produced a report last year based
on their 1993 information on levels of poverty across Europe.
That information will be able to put Ireland in a comparative
situation with other European countries as well. It is useful
to look at those relative dimensions but I also think that it
is important to focus on what is happening in Ireland because,
as you know only too well, the economic, social and political
contexts are quite different in each of the countries and it can
be dangerous to try to emulate too closely what is happening in
another country. It is useful to learn from what they have done
and how they have done it, but it would not necessarily always
work in Ireland. You need some sort of considered view of what
is happening elsewhere.
113. We are very well aware that Ireland
has recently overtaken the UK in terms of national income per
head. Perhaps it is salutary that if we take another definition
of poverty, which is more precise but still relative, that is
those with an income of less than half the average, from your
evidence it seems that roughly one in five of the Irish population
would fall into poverty in that definition as against about one
in four of the UK population. So maybe there is a link here between
economic success generally and prosperity and how the poor have
been treated. If we take those sorts of targets, and within the
strategy there seem to be very explicit targets for reducing the
extent of poverty using those definitions, that contrasts rather
sharply with the approach of the Minister for Welfare Reform here,
who told this Committee that he felt that using those sorts of
measures of definitions of poverty and attempting to set up targets
to reduce them was not a helpful or workable way forward. Do you
feel it is realistic to establish those targets in the way that
the strategy does and do you think that you will be able to achieve
those targets over time with this strategy?
(Helen Johnston) In answer to the first question,
yes, it is useful to set those targets. You can debate and argue
about how relevant and how appropriate they are, but if you have
them there you can then work towards them. It is a ten-year strategy
and part of the work of the evaluation and ongoing review is to
look continually at how useful and relevant the targets are. It
may be at the end of the ten-year period that the targets may
have been altered or changed slightly because of the changing
political, economic and social context, or because of improved
data collection or because of improved analysis about how you
actually measure poverty. It is useful to have a starting point
and a direction which everyone can focus towards and then alter
them as you go along or review them, adjust them. Your second
question was ...?
114. Do you think you can achieve these
targets?
(Helen Johnston) Who knows? We certainly can achieve
them if the economic situation continues as it has been or even
at a more modest rate, but perhaps not if there is a major downturn
in the economy. If there is the political commitment to achieve
them, then yes, but there are many uncertainties there.
115. You talked about a starting point.
Do you think the British welfare reform Green Paper represents
a good starting point for us in developing something which in
the longer term might look rather like your anti-poverty strategy?
(Helen Johnston) I am not sure that I am that
well placed to comment on your own Green Paper. Certainly it is
useful to set out success measures. I myself would have some questions,
only because I am not as familiar with what the long-term view
is of that. If there is some way in which the success measures,
the 32 across a range of areas—and the range of areas is
very useful—would be able to be brought together or if there
is some focus in terms of what you are actually trying to achieve
... At the moment, as I read them, you are trying to improve a
lot of things. Where do you intend to go with them at the end?
What kind of society do you actually want to achieve through reaching
those measures? Some of them are related to improving the quality
of life, however that is defined, which is what I believe this
kind of work should be aimed at doing. Some of them are about
improving the way things are delivered and so on. I just wonder
how they all fit together. That is just a reflection I have. For
example, the one on truancy is admirable in itself and we have
that as part of our strategy. Truancy is only one element. People
are not going to school but it is related to other elements such
as early school leaving, such as educational disadvantage. We
have started a bit further back in asking what the main causes
of poverty are. One is lack of educational achievement. Therefore
you need to tackle educational disadvantage. How do you need to
do that? You need to do that in a whole range of ways, right from
pre-school, right through primary school, secondary school and
even then on to third level. Truancy is only one small bit of
that whole wider picture. You have a success measure there of
truancy, but I am not quite sure how it is linking to the other
measures which are within the paper.
Ms Stuart
116. I think what I am asking you is whether
size matters? If you take the UK context, there are all sorts
of things which you can do in Scotland but somehow you do not
seem able to do in the rest of the country and the answer is quite
often that in Scotland you have a smaller population and people
live in communities. I am wondering, coming back to Frank Field's
view that very specific target setting may not necessarily be
the appropriate way forward, whether it may be something which
is peculiar to the United Kingdom context, that, given the lack
of cohesion within communities, the difference between urban and
rural circumstances may lend themselves to different and probably
more abstract targets and that if you deal with Ireland, as I
perceive it, having more cohesion, that you can come up with more
specific targets. Tell me I am wrong.
(Helen Johnston) I am not sure that I do follow
that line of argument. On urban and rural, in the National Anti-Poverty
Strategy we found it extremely difficult to set targets in those
areas for a range of reasons, one of which was the unavailability
of the relevant information. For rural areas we do have some information
about poverty and social exclusion but rural poverty tends to
be more hidden and it is much more difficult to address on a national
level. You can do certain things at a national level, but there
are also things which are particular to the location in which
someone is living. A lot of that relates to service provision
in a rural area, the availability of jobs. In the urban areas
it is much more about concentration and cumulative disadvantage
and whole communities which are becoming alienated. How do you
address that problem? I feel the National Anti-Poverty Strategy
is weak in those two areas but it is important that those two
dimensions are recognised. Part of the challenge now in implementing
that is to look at how we can measure improvement in those areas.
Maybe the urban one is slightly easier there than the rural one
because there is already a number of projects going on at an integrated
level in very disadvantaged estates. The rural one is more difficult.
In terms then of asking whether the UK is too big to have a strategy
like Ireland, I am not sure that it is. Your information bases
are much better than ours. You have a number of national surveys
running and you have a number of academic departments and leading
academics who are working in this area. I suppose the trick is
to try to bring all that information together to make sense of
it. There is a lot of debate going on, which is very helpful,
about how to measure poverty and what information source you use.
That may make it more difficult to come down and say this is what
we are going to go for.
117. May I ask you a very specific thing?
What is the takeup rate of benefits in Ireland? Do you find you
have a problem, as we have in the United Kingdom, coming back
to the one million pensioners who do not claim their income support?
Do you have similar problems that the benefits are there but people
simply are not taking them up?
(Helen Johnston) Yes, we do have that problem.
I do not have the scale of it off hand. The major benefit we have
difficulty taking up is family income supplement, which is like
your family credit for low income families in work. We have had
particular difficulties for a whole range of reasons on that one.
For other benefits, yes, there are some takeup difficulties. Various
measures have been put in place to address those but sometimes
you have to look at the particular benefit and the reasons why
there is low takeup. It may just be the complicated procedures
or it may be what the benefit has to offer is not what some people
want.
118. My question was really sparked off
by one of my constituents who came in and gave me this booklet
in a surgery. It is something you produce apparently on the benefits
for the over-60s. They said that was why the UK pensioners do
not claim their benefits, because they do not have what they have
in Ireland.
(Helen Johnston) In consultation processes what
continually comes up is the lack of information. We do not know
what we are entitled to. We do not know how to find out what we
are entitled to.
119. So you do have the same problems despite
being much more accessible.
(Helen Johnston) If you do find out what you are
entitled to, it can be difficult to process the claim. Yes, there
is that issue. A lot of efforts have been made and the Department
of Social Welfare, particularly through their local offices, have
been making a real effort to address that, but also there is a
whole range of citizens' advice organisations and voluntary organisations
who are working hard to do that.
6 The role of the National Economic and Social Forum
(NESF) is to develop economic and social policy initiatives, particularly
initiatives to combat unemployment, and to contribute to the formation
of a national consensus on social and economic matters. The Forum
has an independent Chairperson, appointed by Government, and is
drawn from 3 broad strands: government, the traditional social
partners, and the so-called "third strand" comprising
women, the unemployed, the disadvantaged, people with a disability,
youth, the elderly and environmental interests. The Forum publishes
and submits all its reports to Government. Back
|
