Mr. Robin Hanan:

I thank the committee for the invitation to put our point of view. We take as a starting point what is becoming accepted across the political spectrum, which is the statement in the new statement of Government priorities that the ongoing programme of economic repair will be accompanied by an equal emphasis on social recovery. We want to address how that needs to be done in a way that particularly addresses the position of people experiencing poverty. Our members are both national and local community organisations and they represent people affected by poverty and work with them on the ground. They report increased deprivation and hardship, which is difficult to convey in figures or in a short presentation. However, the CSO figures show that according to the deprivation indicator, which used to be considered a basic measure of those living right on the bottom line and unable to afford basic essentials, the numbers experiencing deprivation have doubled to a quarter of the population, including more than a third of children, and the number of people at work who are experiencing deprivation -for example, they are unable to afford to heat the house adequately or afford clothing and shoes - more than doubled between 2008 and 2012, which are the most recent figures.

We need to examine every aspect of the budget to see how it can address ongoing poverty. People experiencing poverty have been hit by a triple whammy of job losses and reduction in quality of work, with much more casual work and more conditions at work on the one hand; cuts in services as a result of the recession and the decisions taken; and cuts in eligibility for welfare, which have hit many people hard. They have made it harder for people to take up work.

We need to go back to the national anti-poverty strategy, NAPS, of almost 20 years ago, which is still Government policy, to carry out poverty impact assessments on every aspect of Government policy. At its best, poverty proofing was a relatively secretive system and quite tokenistic. We argue in our submission in more detail than I have time for in this presentation that it is important to open up this process. We would encourage Ministers to come to committees such as this, as they are required to under NAPS, and present the impact of each important decision in the budget process for better for worse on poverty and to argue their case. No one is trying to constrain government decision-making but we need at least to have a clear public debate on the impact on poverty. It needs to be comprehensive. It is not good enough for Departments to say, for example, the issue of direct provision for asylum seekers is outside the scope of poverty proofing or aspects of taxation policy do not need to be fully assessed. We need a public and open process.

The rest of the submission goes into more detail about our proposals on welfare levels and maintaining the basic level of welfare, proposals to restore some of the cuts in eligibility over the past number of years and making it easier for people to access quality work.