The reality of poverty and inescapable debt for certain families has been highlighted in a report commissioned by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice. The study, published as the Coalition Government prepares its spending estimates and Budget for the year 2005, is timely.
And it should be of considerable assistance to the new Minister for Social Welfare, Mr Brennan, in making the case for a more generous approach to some of the most deprived people in society.
Nobody will deny that during its seven years in office this Government has made considerable progress in raising the ceiling on welfare payments, particularly for old age pensioners, and that the extent of real poverty in our society has fallen. But, as this research shows, social welfare payments for certain categories of family still fall short of what is required to cover basic needs. In a society that has grown wealthy in little more than a decade, the gap between rich and poor has widened and vulnerable families have become locked into a vicious cycle involving moneylenders and debilitating debt.
There are political and societal choices to be made here. And those well-heeled individuals who choose to ignore the reality of continuing poverty must be confronted with the unpalatable truth that "most-at-risk" parents simply cannot provide basic necessities for their children, never mind make provision for emergency situations. For them, the cost of childcare is prohibitive and is a huge barrier to improving their incomes.
Three types of families were studied: a lone parent with two children, an unemployed couple with two children and an elderly couple on a non-contributory pension. Welfare payments to the first two families resulted in shortfalls of between €23.62 and €6.29 a week. The elderly couple had a surplus of €66.08, without any provision for rental, mortgage or care costs. The study examined the price of hundreds of goods and services to establish the absolute minimum cost of running a home. But no allowance was made for spending on alcohol, tobacco, pets, savings, insurance or unexpected illness.
Amongst its recommendations, the report suggested increases in social welfare rates, the provision of affordable and accessible childcare and the institution of long-term insurance schemes for the elderly. The latter two objectives may take time to realise but, in our growing economy, there is a duty of care on the Government to provide most-at-risk families with the income required to pay for the basic necessities of life. Otherwise, the Government's post-elections commitment to more socially caring policies was so much bunkum.