Society of St Vincent de
Paul Submission on
Equality Budgeting
To the
Joint Oireachtas on
Education and Social
Protection
25th September 2013
For further information contact:
John Mark McCafferty, Head of Social Justice and Policy
Johnmark@svp.ie Tel 01 829 9013 / 087 236 3995
1
Equality Budgeting
As a new and emerging approach to budgets, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul (SVP) understands
equality budgeting as set out by our colleagues in the campaign of the same name as follows:
‘Equality Budgeting is an approach to economic policy-making and planning that places equality at
the centre of decisions concerning public expenditure and income. Through equality audits and
impact assessments, Equality Budgeting provides information on how different sections of society are
impacted by specific economic policy measures. The objective of Equality Budgeting lies in ensuring
this information is used to reduce inequalities and to achieve the best equality outcomes for specific
disadvantaged groups, but also for society at large.’
This is from the campaign’s homepage and it helps inform our approach to the issue. We are
experienced in budget submissions and analysis but are in the process of building up our knowledge
of the frameworks and benefits associated with such an approach. Over 60 countries have either
used or are developing equality budgeting, including the United Kingdom, South Africa, Canada,
Tanzania and Uganda.
Benefits of Equality Budgeting
As outlined above, the intended benefit of equality budgeting is its ability to inform future policy to
tackle inequities and to maximise policy outcomes for various sectors of society, within a more equal
society. As the largest charity of social concern in Ireland SVP has a long standing interest in
achieving better outcomes and better access by vulnerable groups to critical public services such as
social welfare, education, health and housing. Established economic policy-making and planning are
insufficient tools for evaluating the social impact of budgets or indeed building strategies around
future ones. Equality Budgeting appears to address social policy and justice objectives by fulfilling a
number of key tasks:
- evaluating the impact that public expenditure and resources have on specific groups in society
- understanding who benefits from economic policy measures - and also who doesn’t
- placing equality at the heart of the planning, design, implementation and review cycle of economic
policies
- improving transparency in budgetary processes and economic decision-making
We are aware of unintended outcomes which arise when policy decisions are made without the use
of robust analytical tools. The absence of poverty proofing has had negative impacts on households
in the domestic waste charge area, for example. The policy, brought in almost ten years ago by the
Department of the Environment, affected poorer households disproportionately, compounded by
inconsistent approaches. This issue was raised by our volunteer members; the vast majority of which
are engaged in household visitation. Through their work and the cases they bring to us, we get an on
the ground perspective of the impact of poorly planned policies and cuts to income supports and
services on people we assist. And in terms of education, the cumulative and on-going charges for
families with school going children, books, uniforms, voluntary contributions, trips and equipment
are concerns for the people our volunteer members work with. In accessing services, people’s ability
2
to pay has to date paid little to no role in either central or localised decision making and equality
budgeting is, we believe, a key way of addressing this.
Impact of recent budgets
The combination of rising unemployment and cuts or changes in social welfare schemes has hit the
poorest households hardest. SVP is most concerned that the poorest children are suffering
disproportionately, with 9.3% of children (106,827) living in consistent poverty. The most recent
Growing Up in Ireland research reveals just how early inequalities in outcome for these children
begin, with children from poorer households experiencing more obesity, more behavioural issues
and poorer educational achievements than those in higher income families.
The 2010 and 2011 budgets saw a drop of 4% in working age social welfare payments each year with
the Supplementary Welfare Allowance cut by 4% and then 5.3% over the same period. Changes to
eligibility and entitlement have steadily eroded both access to and the duration that people can
receive payments.
Reforms to the Jobseekers Benefit and Allowance have curtailed access to these payments and it is
clear that atypical workers, a large cohort of whom are women and lone parents, now have less
entitlement to the full payment as contingency has increased with more social insurance
contributions needed to fulfil eligibility.
In 2009, 260 contributions were needed to get 15 months payment on Job Seekers Benefit. That
period of payment has now dropped to 9 months. For those with less than 260 contributions the
payment period decreased from 12 to 6 months.
The most recent change in February 2013 now stipulates that those on Job Seekers Allowance must
be unemployed for 4 out of the previous 7 consecutive days in order to qualify for the payment
(previously it was 3 out of 6 days). This makes it harder for those with zero hour contracts and
atypical hours to qualify for payment.
Changes to the Rent Supplement Scheme has impacted on people on social welfare renting in the
private sector with single people now having to contribute a minimum of €30 a week towards their
rent and couples paying a minimum contribution of €35 per week. This puts great pressure on very
inadequate incomes.
In its Social Impact Assessment of some of the main welfare and direct tax measures in Budget 2013,
the Social Inclusion Division found that households with children, and in particular lone parent
families were worst affected by the measures assessed. It should be noted that the Social Impact
Assessment is a partial assessment of budgetary measures, as the impact of cuts to services is not
included. Our concerns about the impact of cuts on one parent families are addressed below.
The National Economic and Social Council (2013) report on the Social Dimensions of the Crisis: The
Evidence and its Implications, reports on trends in poverty in recent years. In 2010 and 2011 the gap
between the median income of people at risk of poverty and the poverty threshold increased,
demonstrating deepening poverty. Consistent Poverty, At risk of poverty and deprivation have all
increased. In Budget 2013 although basic welfare rates and income tax rates remained unchanged,
reductions in Child Benefit and the Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance and the
3
abolition of the standard PRSI allowance have impacted more on low income households. There was
a slight decline in income inequality from 2004-2009 followed by a slight increase and then a
fall/levelling out thereafter.
Although Callan et al (2013) report that the overall impact of income related direct tax, welfare and
public sector pay policies from October 2008 to the 2012 Budget have resulted in the greatest losses
for those on higher incomes, and lower losses for those on lower incomes, it should be noted that
Budget 2012 involved greater proportional losses for those on low incomes, Budget 2013 is not part
of this analysis and this analysis does not include the impact of access to services. The impact of
budgetary measures on access to services as well as on income is a key consideration when assessing
who is disproportionately impacted by particular policy measures and who is experiencing inequality
as a result of specific measures. Households with the fewest resources have the least capacity to
cope with reduced incomes, and may therefore be more reliant on quality, affordable and accessible
public services (NESC 2013). Charges for the Drugs Payment Scheme, medical card prescription
charge, school transport, the reduction in funding for the Treatment Benefit Scheme, capitation
grants for schools, increased charges for third and further level, increased charge for CETS are all
examples which may affect those on low incomes.
The Impact of One Parent Family Payment Changes
Of all the demographic groups in Ireland lone parent households experienced the highest levels of
consistent poverty (at 16.4%), and relative poverty (at 28.4%) in 2011. 56% of this group
experiences deprivation. Explicit changes to eligibility, earnings disregards thresholds and other
changes to the social welfare schemes which lone parents access accounted for this deterioration in
their status. The reduction in the earnings disregard for the One Parent Family Payment results in
income losses for lone parents in receipt of the payment who are in employment. Analysis shows
that a lone parent with one child earning €200, €300 and €400 a week will lose €72.12, €52.12 and
€32.12 respectively due to the changes in the interaction between One Parent Family Payment and
employment. This is a counter-intuitive and regressive measure.
Lone parents have been extensively affected by recent budgetary changes as the decreases in child
income support payments also affect them. In comparison with their situation in 2009, people
parenting alone have suffered an income loss of €847.60 even before the reductions in the universal
Child Benefit payment and changes to secondary benefits such as Rent Supplement and the Fuel
Allowance are factored in.
This is of great concern to SVP as people in one parent families are the largest group we help. SVP is
also concerned at the very gendered outcomes these changes are having on women in their roles as
primary carers and how this role is impacted upon at the point that they migrate to Job Seekers
Allowance. SVP is so concerned at the deterioration in this cohort’s access to an adequate income
and adequate and quality child care, activation and support that we have commissioned research
with some of the one parent families being helped by the SVP.
Inadequate Incomes
Through our on-the- ground work by volunteers SVP knows that thousands of households are
struggling on inadequate incomes which do not allow them have a minimum essential standard of
4
living. Our members witness at first hand just what damage this does to individuals and families
who must live lives on the margins, unable to meet the costs of their very basic need for food,
heating, housing, education and health. These are the families which experience heightened levels
of stress and chaos caused by an unforeseen event such as sickness, job loss, bereavement, or an
unexpected expense. Sometimes the breakdown of a much needed appliance can be enough to tip a
family over the edge into uncertainty and worry. Some, unfortunately, resort to a moneylender in
these circumstances storing up further and often drastic problems for themselves.
The Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice (VPSJ) provides policy makers with informative
reference budgets which clearly show how many households live on incomes which do not allow
them to have a minimum essential standard of living. The methodology reflects all the various
outgoings of households of various types and shows that there are still many large sections of the
population living on incomes below all of the officially accepted poverty lines. Recent work from the
VPSJ shows that:
1. The Irish taxation and social welfare systems are not working coherently to support those on
the lowest incomes
2. Social welfare transfers provided an income which allowed for an Minimum Essential
Standard of Living in only 11 of the 208 households examined (various combinations were
analysed).
These findings point to a critical failure of integrated policy which could be addressed through
implementing an equality budgeting process.
Conclusion
As part of our pre budget campaigns for Budget 2013 and Budget 2014 the SVP has sought to
highlight the impact of the economic crisis and austerity on those who are struggling throughout
Ireland. We have published a booklet of case studies entitled ‘The Human Face of Austerity’ and are
in the process of concluding a campaign called ‘Make Your Voice Heard’ which asked members of
the public to share their stories about how austerity and cuts have affected their lives. The reality of
life on a low income, people’s concerns and fears about the future, their feeling that the measures
to date have placed a disproportionate burden on the people who can least afford it and their need
for hope have come through very strongly. Equality budgeting, if used to reduce inequalities and
improve outcomes for disadvantaged groups and society at large, is a useful tool in this regard.
5