Mark
Durkan: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about some of the
indices, but surely that worry applies only where people are using
simply the local government wards as the areas of measurement. The
Noble indices provide for much more discrete and specific areas of
enumeration as well, which give a much more articulate mapping of
poverty, so that areas can be targeted for their poverty even if they
are beside much more affluent
areas.
Mr.
Dodds: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. However,
it is clear that under the Government’s neighbourhood renewal
strategy, the 36 areas identified for that seven to 10-year investment
are very large. There have been numerous complaints—I think that
the hon. Gentleman will accept that—about the identification of
those areas. They tend to cover places where there are large
concentrations of deprivation, and smaller areas of deprivation have
not been adequately covered as a result. There is an issue that will
bear closer
examination. I wish to
focus on education. The hon. Member for Aylesbury has already referred
to that, and I was delighted that he was able to come to north and west
Belfast yesterday to see some of the issues at first hand, to look at
the opportunities for economic regeneration at Crumlin Road jail and to
speak to the principals of a number of schools, teachers and others who
are acutely aware of the issues. They are at the coal face, as it were,
in some very difficult areas.
The hon. Gentleman will have
seen and other hon. Members will be aware that there are particular
problems in Protestant areas—Unionist areas—of this city.
I am thinking in particular of the weak community infrastructure. That
is not to deny that there are problems of deprivation in nationalist,
Catholic areas as well. Of course there are, and I am only too well
aware, as a former Minister for Social Development, of those problems
and the work that we did in tackling them. However, there are
particular issues in Protestant and Unionist areas that need to be
addressed. That is well recognised by the Government. Indeed, they have
addressed it specifically in the renewing communities initiative
published earlier this
year. The Select
Committee on Public Accounts, in its report last week on numeracy and
literacy in schools in Northern Ireland, pointed out some of the
problems, in particular the fact that only 4.4 per cent. of Protestant
children going through secondary school are achieving an A-C grade in
their maths GCSE. That is far less than their Roman Catholic
counterparts attain, far less than is acceptable and far less than is
attained elsewhere in the country. We have to do something about that.
Education is clearly one of the greatest avenues for getting people and
communities out of poverty. Our emphasis in those communities should
be, as far as possible, on education—giving kids and young
people hope, instilling in them a vision of getting out and beyond what
they are currently having to endure and exist in. What the Government
and all of us must do is look at ways in which we can ensure that
teachers, schools and parents in those areas are empowered to help
those children. We
know that not everything is about money, but a great deal comes down to
resources. The principal of Edenbrooke primary school in my
constituency, Betty Orr, of whom Ministers will be aware, has spoken
eloquently about some of those issues. Class size is important, and the
provision for special educational needs is a priority. More needs to
done with educational psychologists, so that children who need to be
statemented can be statemented early. Yesterday we spoke to Ann
Thompson, the principal of Currie school in my constituency, who said
that children can go from P1 right through to P7 and secondary school
and still be waiting for an educational psychologist to examine and
assess them. It is an outrageous that that should happen in this day
and age. More needs to be done on resources in that regard.
Reference has been made to
young children and early years. It is vital to intervene as early as
possible. As all the evidence shows, the earlier the intervention and
help, the more potential children and young people will have in later
life. Early intervention is an excellent investment. Reference has also
been made to Sure Start. I shall not rehearse all the arguments about
that, except to say that we in Northern Ireland are behind the rest of
the country in terms of Sure Start. It does not cover as many children
in Northern Ireland as in other parts of the country, only covering
those aged between nought and four, and a great deal more work needs to
be done. I welcome the extra investment that has been announced, but it
needs to go much further. The hon. Member for North Down pointed out
the inadequacies in that regard.
I would be grateful if the
Minister explained to the Committee in more detail the proposals for
children’s centres in the most disadvantaged areas. The report
highlights that as important, so I should be grateful if he told the
Committee just how much investment will go into the children’s
centres, what he intends they should encompass, what services they will
provide, and how they will be situated. What criteria will be used to
determine their
location? I should
like to mention older people and the poverty in which many of our
senior citizens live. The statistics show that our older people in
Northern Ireland are relatively more impoverished than anywhere else in
the United Kingdom. That needs to be taken on board. We need to remove
the barriers to older people continuing in work, and more needs to be
done to ensure that we tackle age discrimination. We need to ensure
that older people have the dignity in old age that comes from having
proper financial resources and independence.
The Minister
mentioned pensions reform and the Turner commission. I welcome many of
those provisions, but their implementation is still some time away.
They will not lift today’s pensioners out of poverty and
means-testing to the extent that is required. I urge the Government to
look at means-testing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford
mentioned. For many pensioners and people in poverty, means-testing is
a disincentive. They are put off claiming the benefits to which they
are entitled because of the complexity of the forms that they have to
fill in and because of the indignity that many of them
feel.
Lady
Hermon: Bearing in mind what the hon.
Gentleman has just said about pensioners and the poverty that they
endure in rural and urban areas of Northern Ireland, will he kindly
give a commitment this afternoon that, if and when the Assembly is up
and running again—and if, of course, his party is there in a
prominent position—he will campaign to have a commissioner for
older people, just as we have a Northern Ireland Commissioner for
Children and Young
People?
Mr.
Dodds: I am pleased to hear the hon. Lady raise that
issue, on which I am glad of her support. It is an issue on which my
party and I have campaigned for some time. The proposal has been in our
manifesto and it is something that we support. I remember addressing a
rally at the front of the City hall just over a year and a half ago,
with Help the Aged and Age Concern, at which we called for the
establishment of that post. I welcome her support, and I hope that her
party colleagues in the Assembly will do likewise. I am sure that she
will use her good offices to ensure that the message gets through, and
that they will support us.
I would like to say much more,
but I am conscious that others wish to speak. On benefit take-up, I was
talking about the importance of trying to streamline means-testing and,
wherever possible, to divest ourselves of it. I know that the
Chancellor is fond of means-testing; he thinks that the way forward is
through means-testing, tax credits and all the rest of it. However,
means-testing results in one in three people who are entitled to
pension credit in Northern Ireland not claiming it. That is a lot of
people.
I recently listened to a
presentation by the head of the anti-poverty unit in the Social
Security Agency. Mention was made of the pilot schemes that are under
way to try to increase benefit take-up. It is clear that when
statistics of that magnitude are involved, no matter what one does to
try to get more people aware of their entitlements—I have no
doubt that good work is being done, and pay tribute to those who are
doing that work—there will always be an enormous number of
people who do not claim. We therefore need to examine the matter.
Statistics on the extent of fraud and error in the social security
system are bandied about, and we need to clamp down on those things as
much as possible, but no mention is made of the fact that the
Government save hundreds of millions of pounds every year through not
paying out to people who are eligible for benefits the moneys that they
should get. More needs to be done in that regard.
I attach
great importance to the problem of fuel poverty. I pay tribute to the
Minister, because the Department for Social Development has put extra
resources into tackling it in recent years. Some 1,300 people die each
year as a result of cold. None of us should be comfortable with that
statistic, and we need to eradicate the problem. The rising fuel prices
of recent years are negating all the Government’s good work, so
we must pay attention to that issue. The winter fuel allowance has
remained static since 2000, at £200. Then it would have bought
an enormous amount of fuel for the homes of elderly people, but
nowadays it buys very little. It is surely about time that the
Government considered increasing it. I know of no other benefit or
allowance that has remained static for almost seven years, and the
Government cannot justify
that.
3.2
pm
Mr.
Eddie McGrady (South Down) (SDLP): First, may I give you a
warm welcome to Belfast, Sir Alan? We are very much honoured by your
presence—much more than we would be were we sitting in a more
common meeting room in Westminster. I endorse the thanks that you
extended to the Northern Ireland corporation for the hospitality at the
reception this afternoon.
We have before us a
consultation paper, rather than a statement of intent. It is a broad
blueprint rather than specifics on how the objectives can be achieved.
I consider it to be an outline of a plan, with the detail and the
methodology yet to be painted
in. The opening
foreword by the Secretary of State gave three objectives. The first is
to ensure that by 2020 no one in Northern Ireland is denied the
opportunities that they are owed. The second is the elimination of
poverty and social exclusion. The third is, as an overarching
objective, to halve child poverty by 2010 and to eradicate it
completely by 2020.
The date for halving child
poverty is four years hence, and the date for achieving the other
objectives is 14 years hence. The task is daunting and the scheme is
ambitious. We welcome and endorse it, but we are disappointed with some
aspects of the paper, more in respect of omission than commission. The
aims on the concept of social exclusion are acceptable to all public
representatives in Northern Ireland, but crucially there remains no
specific definition of poverty, as has been mentioned. That concern has
repeatedly been raised by us and by the social partners in Northern
Ireland. The document
pays inadequate attention to other serious issues. There is a serious
lack of acceptable timetables, an absence of measurable targets and a
complete silence on the strategies by which these important and
compelling objectives will be achieved. I would like to think that in
the weeks, not the months, ahead some flesh will be put on the bones of
these areas of concern in order that the document’s objectives,
which we accept, can be fully implemented.
The document aims to tackle
poverty throughout the four stages of life, or the cycle of deprivation
as it is called, from childhood to retirement. However, some key themes
have been overlooked, including the elimination of community
differentials and addressing the legacy of the conflict that we have
had for 30 years. Strangely, it also failed to mention that we can
build upon north-south co-operation and the available north-south
funding, especially in rural areas in the border regions, which are
deprived in comparison with their city
counterparts. The
emphasis remains on promoting employment as the main route out of
poverty, but it does not adequately address the needs of those who are
not, and will not be, in a position to take up employment due to
disability or caring responsibilities, for example. I would like much
greater emphasis to be placed on carers and greater provision to enable
them to provide adequately for themselves and the people for whom they
care. Carers make an enormous contribution to society, which fails to
support them in the tremendous work that they are doing which is so
cost-effective for the Exchequer.
Mr.
Dodds: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he
agree that one of the biggest benefits for carers would be to allow
them to continue to claim the carer’s allowance when they reach
pension age? One of the greatest complaints is that when women reach
the age of 60, and men the age of 65, they lose that allowance, which
is pitiful enough as it stands.
Mr.
McGrady: I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says,
but even to extend the carer’s benefit beyond pension age would
not fully address the issue. It would only be tinkering with what
carers really need. What is required is a complete reassessment of how
we support carers and, through them, how we support those for whom they
care. That would be of enormous benefit in helping us to address parts
of the poverty scenario.
As yet, there is no definition
of poverty. As a group, we have made several suggestions to Government
over the years. In response papers in 2004 and 2005, which were phases
of the new targeting social need strategy, we suggested that the
definition of poverty should be that of the European Union, which is an
income of less than 60 per cent. of the median, or some other equally
clear but simple definition. That would enable us to judge the relative
merits of the demanding, and sometimes conflicting, sectors, and the
social partners and the Government could get together on that
basis.
I subscribe to the views of many
of the speakers who also referred to the indices hiding pockets of
severe deprivation. I am aware of that on a day-to-day basis. Although
pockets in urban areas and cities can easily be identified as falling
well below the poverty margin, in rural communities they are not
readily identified; in fact they are completely disguised. In rural
areas there are many people—families or the older generation on
their farms—who are well below the poverty and income levels
that one would desire. However, they do not show up anywhere.
Government
funding is directed towards specific areas that are highlighted almost
like the ward system, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle said. It
indicates the poverty and deprivation in that ward. Scattered
throughout our country, right across the rural community, but
particularly in the border regions, however, an enormous number of
people do not have a decent standard of living, any prospect of income,
any adequate housing or any quality of life. We should be able to pick
them out and deal with them by whatever system we apply in order to
address our objectives.
Funding was
also mentioned. We cannot proceed meaningfully or truthfully with the
projects unless there is dedicated funding. My hon. Friend mentioned
the child fund and the social inclusion fund, which for whatever reason
were abolished, and we are now dependent once again on a cross-cutting
exercise among various departmental budgets. I note in the
report—perhaps I note from an absence in the report; I cannot
remember which—that there is no dedicated fund, and that those
tremendous objectives must be achieved within existing budgets. That is
just not possible. I may be wrong, and I hope that in the
Minister’s winding-up speech, he will tell me that I am horribly
wrong, and that there will be dedicated and extra funding to deal with
all the areas that he describes in his
report.
| 
