- ATD Fourth World

Comments on the National Action Plans for Social Inclusion of the 15 countries in the European Union

In June of this year, as a follow-up to the Strategy Against Poverty and Social Exclusion, the 15 Member States of the European Union presented to the European Commission their National Action Plans for Social Inclusion (2001-2003). These Plans are intended to show how the Member States will reach the Objectives in the Fight Against Poverty adopted at the Nice Summit in December 2000.

For our contribution to this Strategy, the International Movement ATD Fourth World has tried to look at the Plans from the point of view of the most disadvantaged individuals and families in Europe and see whether or not they will be reached by this new initiative to fight poverty and social exclusion. We have thus tried to highlight both the inroads that have been made and the risks posed by certain policies outlined in the Plans.

We must point out, however, that this document is not a complete and detailed analysis of all the Plans. It highlights examples from certain countries and certain policy areas but should not be used as an indicator of whether or not other countries are active in these areas.

The document is split into two parts: the first part covers questions of a general nature and then the second part looks at more precise topics.

A. General Questions

Definitions

There seems to be a general agreement about the nature of poverty and social exclusion across the European Union. The Plans demonstrate an appreciation of the fact that monetary poverty can be accompanied by other forms of deprivation and insecurity in areas such as employment, housing, health, education, culture and access to basic services. The Plans which rely solely on the monetary aspect of poverty are few and far between and thus, the use of a multidimensional definition of poverty is needed to meet with the Nice Objectives. Certain Plans, like that of Portugal, make the distinction between poverty (which prevents the satisfaction of basic needs) and social exclusion (which prevents access to fundamental rights and participation in social institutions). Generally speaking, however, the terms poverty and social exclusion are used in an inter-changeable fashion to describe situations where the accumulation of difficulties and insecurities leads to a lack of access to the resources, rights, goods and services that would normally benefit the majority of the population.

Some of the Plans add details which are particularly interesting. Both Ireland and Sweden make references to different kinds of deprivation such as “ not having two pairs of strong shoes ” in Ireland. It is “ enforced deprivation ” in this sense, combined with monetary poverty which add up to the Irish definition of “ consistent poverty ”. Germany underlines the fact that people who fall into poverty and social exclusion are those who do not have the strength to meet the demands and challenges put upon them by society. In the Netherlands, the accent is put upon combating a long-term lack of future prospects for the most vulnerable. In Finland, it is noted that poverty and social exclusion are closely connected with the fastest social changes (for example in the area of work) and that people can no longer be left assume their responsibilities or find solutions to their problems alone. Therefore Finnish society must also bear the responsibility for ensuring the rights of all it’s members to a worthwhile existence.

Elsewhere, many Plans explore the notion of poverty and social exclusion in the long-term. Luxembourg has an indicator that concerns people who have been living under the poverty threshold for more than 6 years. Many references are made to the long-term unemployed, to prolonged periods of indebtedness, to neighbourhoods or zones where poverty is persistent. The United Kingdom uses the term “ cycle of deprivation ” to describe how a combination of factors which drive poverty and social exclusion are passed on from one generation to the next. The Government commits to “ long-term solutions that will break this cycle ” and aims for their strategy to take effect over the next 10 to 20 years. Italy also remarks on the risks of poverty being reproduced within the family.

We find ourselves therefore with an ensemble of the elements which led Joseph Wresinski to develop the following operational definition: “ A person’s or family’s security rests on certain foundations such as employment, health, housing and education. When these foundations are sound, people are able to meet their responsibilities to their work, their families and their communities and to enjoy their basic rights. When the foundations are undermined, the insecurity that results can have lasting and serious consequences. This insecurity leads to chronic poverty when it affects several areas of life at the same time and when it becomes persistent. This in turn compromises the person’s or family’s chances of reassuming their responsibilities and of regaining their lost rights in the future. ”

The third Objective asks all countries “ To help the most vulnerable ”. On this point we would like to underline a strategy that appears in the French Plan : “ The French strategy to fight against exclusion relies on a transversal approach, looking to guarantee effective access for all to the same rights, and not on a targeted approach for this or that vulnerable group ”.

When looking at those who have been identified as being “ the most vulnerable ” in the Plans, there is little reference to people experiencing chronic poverty as in the Wresinski definition. What we do find, however, are references to “ the most deprived ” or to “ the most disadvantaged ”, particularly in the Belgian and French Plans, which allude to this population. Largely the Plans list diverse groups and types of people that countries have identified as being particularly vulnerable to poverty and social exclusion.

Most of the Plans avoid using very general lists in which we can often find up to 90% of the population apparently living in poverty and social exclusion i.e. women, children, young people, the elderly, the unemployed. Of course, many in these categories do find themselves living in poverty but we can’t say for any of the groups that more than half of them are excluded in this way. For this reason, and quite rightly so, the majority of the Plans are more precise about the groups facing poverty and exclusion and list those such as the long-term unemployed, young people without any qualifications or who have left school early, elderly people without an adequate pension, children who have been identified as being “ at risk ” etc. At the same time, certain Plans, like the Italian one for example, speak about vulnerable groups in their population without focusing necessarily on the most vulnerable. They prefer to have more far reaching vision and consider also those “ in social hardship ” and with a lack of services but not necessarily a low income. In the United Kingdom, many measures are aimed at the entire population living in what has been identified as a “ deprived area ”. Nonetheless, the Italian plan still emphasises that welfare policy priority lies with the “ neediest families ” and those in the most “ untenable situations ”.

We don’t want to go through all the lists in detail but rather outline a few interesting points:

• All of the countries speak about the homeless or more specifically, those that sleep rough on the streets. Effectively, a large majority of this group are living in chronic poverty.

• At the same time, we were quite surprised not to find more references to extremely vulnerable groups such as the very long-term unemployed, families who have had their children put into foster care or children’s homes and people with literacy problems. Many of the Plans speak about people in these situations but don’t go as far as naming them as being amongst the most vulnerable.

• The Portuguese Plan makes an interesting link between vulnerability and culture when it says that “ the poorest groups are those whom suffer the most judgement on the value of their identity ”.

Knowledge

It is essential to know more about the reality in which very poor families and individuals live. The Swedish Plan states quite simply that “ We don’t know enough about the living conditions of the most vulnerable groups but there are indications that their situation has deteriorated in several respects ”.

Many of the Plans rely on studies, analyses and research describing the situation of those living in poverty and social exclusion. The German Plan, for example, refers to the recent “ Report on Wealth and Poverty ” petitioned by the Government, which was the first of its kind to be produced in Germany. Plans such as those of France, Ireland and Italy, commend research that has been done in their countries over recent years whereas other Plans express the need for more investment in this area in the future. In Portugal, this is to be realised through the creation of a “ University Network on Poverty and Social Exclusion ” and in Spain through the writing by the Economic and Social Committee of a “ Report on Poverty and Social Exclusion ”. In the Netherlands the registration of the homeless in shelters is to be improved in order to foster a more effective policy for social integration and in Finland, a “ Centre for the Study and Monitoring of Poverty and Social Exclusion” is to be created to work in co-operation with NGO’s and universities. In Luxembourg it is “ a study on the multidimensional factors which generate poverty and social exclusion ” that is going to be launched and France, for their part, plan to strengthen local social observation structures.

However, in Belgium, a new avenue has been opened up in recent years: people with direct experience of poverty and exclusion have been treated as experts themselves and as such, the knowledge that they have as a valuable resource. The General Report on Poverty of 1995, that was petitioned by the Government and that has since been used as a basis for policy development, was written largely by people living in poverty. A body called the “ Fight Against Poverty, Insecurity and Social Exclusion Service ” has been set up to allow permanent dialogue between the Government and “ associations which give those who live in poverty a voice ”. The knowledge collected by this Service, in co-operation with the associations involved, was taken into account in May 2001 during an update of the General Report, which in turn can be found as an annex to the Belgian Plan.

Another approach which we think deserves further exploration, would be the use of opinion polls which ask people to identify the fundamental needs that they have which are not being satisfied.

The Place and Role of NGOs

Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have an important role to play in the implementation of policies proposed in all the Plans. The role of NGOs is implicit where the involvement of the voluntary sector is mentioned and, depending on the country, NGOs are also referred to in the Plans as associations, community groups or popular movements. In a number of countries, NGOs and the public authorities are already working together on joint projects to provide a wide range of different services and many of the Plans talk about programmes that have been put in place to facilitate their participation.

This said, there is a lot of variation in the ways in which Governments have sought the participation of NGOs in the process of producing the Plans themselves. None of the Plans outline concretely how NGO consultation, when it did take place, influenced the content of the Plans. This was the case even in countries such as Finland, where there was a series of meetings and discussions to prepare the Plans. Many countries (for example Austria) said that the lack of time provided to write the Plans prevented serious consultation with NGOs even if it was sought. Some, such as the Netherlands for example, express the desire to have a more profound involvement of the NGOs in the next Plans which will come out in 2003.

What will be the place and the role of NGOs in the follow-up and evaluation of these Plans? This point is also not clearly discussed in the majority of the Plans. For example, the Portuguese Plan outlines proposals to set up a “ Committee of Accompaniment for the National Plan for Social Inclusion ” but it doesn’t appear that NGOs will be represented in this commission. They will instead only be consulted at certain moments in time. In Ireland the “ Community and Voluntary Sector ” is recognised as being one of the Social Partners and since 1995 has been associated with the consultation processes surrounding Ireland’s National Anti-Poverty Strategy. Ireland states their intention to integrate the production and evaluation of the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion into this existing process. Furthermore, the Spanish Plan outlines plans for a “ State Council of Social NGOs ” which will be implicated in the follow-up of their Plan. We must hope that where countries have created bodies to move forward in the fight against poverty, such as the “ Social Inclusion Network ” in Scotland whose membership includes community representatives alongside members of the public, private and voluntary sectors, that they will be associated with the follow-up of the Plans even through this is not mentioned specifically.

The Participation and Self-expression of the People Concerned

For the International Movement ATD Fourth World this Objective, adopted at the Nice Summit, is central to the Strategy in the Fight Against Poverty and Social Exclusion. We looked at the Plans to see whether or not this view was shared by the Member States.

The first thing to point out is that the majority of the Plans pay very little attention to this particular Objective. This is despite the fact that we are often reminded that is an essential element in fighting against poverty and more precisely, as noted in the Italian Plan, that the people concerned should be involved not only in the implementation of policies but also in their conception and creation. However, there are rarely any specifications to be found as to what general methods should be used for this consultation to take place further than the occasional example of good practice. This said, both Belgium and the Netherlands outline concrete policies that have been developed in recent years in order to promote this type of expression and participation. These are the creation of the “ Fight Against Poverty, Insecurity and Social Exclusion Service ” in Belgium and the national “ Alliance for Social Justice ” in the Netherlands, membership of which includes associations of benefit recipients. In some countries the creation of “ places of citizenship ” for disadvantaged individuals and families is being looked into, for example departmental centres for access to rights in France and “ Citizen’s Bureaux ” in Luxembourg. By participating in an action entitled “ Cahiers 2000 ”, the Portuguese government has collected the experiences and expressions of the most disadvantaged individuals and families at a national level and subsequently contributed to the writing of the document “ 2000 - from Words into Action ”. The Irish government plans to offer “ particular recognition and support for organisations representing socially excluded groups ” and to involve “ those with a first hand experience of poverty ” in the follow-up of the Plan but again does not detail how this consultation is to take place. In Spain, subsidies offered under an autonomous communities programme are only granted to NGOs and groups who directly involve the people concerned. In France, priority is being given to recruiting young people from disadvantaged social groups to run “ Digital Public Spaces ” in order to promote more widespread access to the Internet.

Finally, it should be noted that certain associations which gather together groups of people in difficulty were consulted for the elaboration of the Plans or are mentioned as having a role in their implementation, for example, associations of people with disabilities, associations for the unemployed, associations which “ give those who live in poverty a voice ” (Belgium), and associations of benefit recipients (the Netherlands).

The Integration of Poverty into Different Policies (Mainstreaming)

Generally speaking, the Plans show us that in recent years, many countries have created bodies in order to improve co-ordination in the fight against poverty. These have been created at ministerial level, national and regional administrative levels or by bringing together various partners. Of particular interest are those which bring together both national and regional ministers such as in the Joint Ministerial Committee on Poverty in the United Kingdom, which includes Ministers from the UK government and the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In some countries, new bodies have been set up with the specific remit of following up the Plans.

One aspect of mainstreaming has been identified as being particularly valuable in recent years and that is the analysis of the impact on poverty of all different government policies. Ireland presents in their Plan the “ poverty proofing ” method which they have adopted and which evaluates the potential impact on poverty of policies at the design stage. In Portugal, university students will be required to follow courses and pass exams about the impact of government policies on poverty. In the Netherlands, it has been indicated that the evaluation of targets in the 2001 National Action Plan for Social Inclusion will be one of the components included in the 2003 budget and that embedding the actual trend in poverty and social exclusion in the mainstream budgeting process in this way, assures permanent monitoring.

Another of the Nice Objectives calls for the provision of social services to be adapted to the needs of those in situations of poverty and exclusion, and there are some interesting proposals made in the Plans with regard to this. In Spain, an annual training programme on social inclusion will become part of ongoing training for social sector professionals. In Ireland, training is being offered to help those who are responsible for administering social services to identify and work to eliminate the barriers to access to services for people experiencing poverty and social exclusion. In Sweden, skills development in social services is run closely involving clients and users organisations. However, certain policies, such as those in Denmark which plan to sub-contract essential social services to the private sector, run the risk of going in the a direction contrary to that of this Objective.

B. Comments on Precise Topics

Work/Employment

If the most disadvantaged are to benefit from the numerous actions proposed by the Member States with regard to work and employment, then certain conditions must be prioritised. Firstly, any pathways towards employment that are proposed must be of a long enough duration and must also take into account the living conditions and family situation of the individual concerned. Secondly, these pathways must lead towards the “ stable and quality ” employment that is specified in the Nice Objectives.

Many of the Plans place an emphasis on pathways where individuals are accompanied and offered support in their search to find work. This is the case in France (through the TRACE programme and “ qualification contracts ” for adults), in Greece and in Portugal. In France, there is more emphasis on the pathways towards employment when the individual has more difficulties. Nonetheless, there seems to be very little commitment from the Member States with regard to the duration of support offered in the form of these pathways (with maybe the exception of France who states that in general these will last for 18 months). In the Netherlands, voluntary work is seen as fulfilling an essential function in the social cohesion of society and can act as a first step on the way back to the labour market, which is particularly interesting as it gives people much more choice for their pathways. In some instances, it appears that schemes are far too short for the most disadvantaged to benefit from them. For example, a pilot programme for people more than 5 years unemployed in Ireland, offers training with an employer for only 5-6 weeks whilst still receiving benefits. Another aspect that worries us is the lack of reference in the Plans to the quality and stability of employment offered at the end of the pathways. On this and other points on the subject of the pathways, we would have liked to see much more detail in a lot of the Plans.

Employment and Guarantee of Resources

Many of the Plans tackle the problem of “ employment traps ” whereby going back into work and the subsequent loss of benefits and other allowances results in a person or family being worse-off than they were when they were unemployed. To overcome this problem, many of the Plans (including those of Germany, Belgium, France and Ireland) allow for a transitional period where benefits or allowances continue to be received for a certain length of time after finding employment. In the Netherlands, a special payment of more than 1800 Euros is made to someone who has been long-term unemployed and then goes back to work. In the United Kingdom, a system of tax-credits has been introduced to guarantee a better income to those in employment. In France, a change in policy direction is being planned with the intention of having certain allowances (for example housing benefit, health costs, tax exemption etc) that had previously been linked to the statute of the person, (i.e. the unemployed, recipients of minimum income etc) instead being linked to household income.

A number of Plans, however, indicate that there is an obligation to participate in programmes or accept employment or training opportunities offered, by linking them to benefit payments or income guarantees. Even with these obligations in place, the right to decent employment, as set out by the International Labour Organisation, could still be respected by offering stable and quality employment and at the same time taking into account a person’s right to choose their own job. However, these obligations could also force people into work that they have not chosen or into employment that could not be classified as “ decent ”. In practice, we have learnt from people’s experiences that where there are obligations of this kind, the tendency is that people are either forced into work or they face penalties for refusing work that they consider unsuitable. This can be the case in particular for people who live in extreme poverty and have the least choice because of a lack of basic skills and qualifications. Obligations of this type appear in the Plans of Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Finland and the United Kingdom without detailing whether or not the dangers detailed above have been considered.

Guarantee of Resources

The general level of resources currently guaranteed is judged to be insufficient in a number of the Plans which is why we find that this level is to be increased under certain systems. This is the case in Belgium, Ireland, Finland and Portugal. In Ireland, a working group has been set up to look into the development of a benchmark for adequacy and indexation of social welfare payments.

A lot of the Plans express a wish to make progress in the area of guaranteed resources. This is illustrated in Portugal where the Government wants to guarantee that everybody receives the allowances that they are entitled too within one month of the application date and intend to monitor the situation for those who do not receive them within this time-frame, with the goal of making this an effective guarantee. In Germany, as a number of people who have the right to benefits don’t claim them, they are considering introducing a system that has a guaranteed minimum income for existence. In Belgium, allowances will continue to be paid to the parents of dependent young people until they reach the age of 25 (notably when they receive the minimum income). In Austria, the mode of administering all benefits and allowances has been better co-ordinated by employing the “ One-Desk-Principle ”.

In Italy, the accent is placed on the extension of an experimental minimum income benefit scheme that has been tested in a number of municipalities. Spain is working to define the common criteria between regions and local authorities for the assignment, control mechanisms and level of their “ Minimum Income of Integration ”.

Many countries address the question of access to bank accounts for people with low incomes or those who receive state benefits as sometimes banks refuse to open accounts for these customers. In the United Kingdom and Portugal there are moves to guarantee access for all to basic banking facilities.

The Right to Housing

There are numerous measures proposed in each of the Plans with regard to housing, which shows that the writers of the Plans consider a lack of decent housing to be a strong indication of poverty and social exclusion.

In order for everybody to have decent accommodation, there has to be enough affordable housing for individuals and families on low incomes. Many of the Plans outline proposals to build, buy or renovate social housing however, the differences between the Member States in this area are currently quite marked. For example, in the Netherlands, 41% of all housing is social housing whereas in Greece and Portugal, it is vital that the building of new social housing takes place. In Spain and Portugal, this construction is linked to programmes to reduce the number of slums and develop community services for groups in social housing . This is in order to “ accompany the populations through the transitional phase ” and “ promote citizenship education ”. In France, programmes to renovate “ unhealthy ” housing have been put into place and in Spain, similar programmes are been run in conjunction with various vocational training projects and schools. In the United Kingdom, the emphasis is also on the quality of housing and making sure that set standards of decency are met. Crucially, however, giving people more choice about where they live is also mentioned as being part of the overall housing strategy in England and in Wales. In Sweden, the Government intends to oppose local authorities who wish to sell their non-profit housing to private sector companies. In Ireland, resources are to be allocated for public transport in poorly served areas as well for the construction of new housing. In the Wallonia region of Belgium, particular attention is paid to populations who live in holiday caravans (which should be used for tourism but which become a refuge for families on very low incomes) with a view to finding them more permanent and decent accommodation.

The majority of countries have developed particular measures for the homeless. Certain of these, such as France, have put in place programmes with a double emphasis on both personal support and financial aid to help people access decent housing. In the Netherlands, the prevention of evictions is seen as an important factor in preventing homelessness. In Belgium, the homeless ,or those at risk of becoming homeless, will have a certain priority in the allocation of social housing. In Germany, to avoid situations of homelessness, social services can take charge of back-rent owed. In Ireland, local authority costs incurred in the housing of Travellers are met by the Government. In England, United Kingdom, the Rough Sleepers Unit has been set up with the three-pronged approach of; helping those who are on the streets; “ rebuilding the lives of former rough sleepers ” and “ preventing people becoming rough sleepers tomorrow ”.

Furthermore, we can see in many Plans a preoccupation with the problem of social segregation whereby neighbourhoods where a large majority of the inhabitants are on a low income (regardless of their ethnic origin) become ghettos. Many countries have launched programmes, like that in Finland, to “ create a positive images ” of housing estates and diversify the population structure ” of those who live there.

However, it still seems that we have to go beyond these projects and programmes in order to make new advances in effectively guaranteeing access to decent housing for all. The French Plan approaches this question by experimenting in certain regions with a “ one-stop shop ” where the right to housing and the prevention of cuts in water and electricity supply are both addressed.

The Right to Healthcare

Due to the conditions in which they live, those in extreme poverty often suffer from a poor state of health. This fact is another which is taken seriously in all of the National Action Plans and numerous measures are proposed to improve the healthcare situation of people living in poverty and social exclusion. Rather than doing an in depth analysis of all of these measures we would like to highlight three points:

• Firstly, in order for the poorest populations to have access to healthcare, there has to be enough quality healthcare available. Certain countries, such as Portugal, have a target to increase the number of family doctors whereas others feel that the supply of health services in their country is sufficient. In the United Kingdom, everyone has the right to free healthcare through the National Health Service and a 10 year plan is in place to improve the quality of and access to this healthcare. The goal is to have equal access to the same quality of healthcare across the country as there are many inequalities at the moment.

• The first obstacle in access to healthcare is often a financial one. Certain countries, like France with its “ Universal Health Cover ”, propose solutions which promote access to healthcare and maintain the right to choose your own doctor. Other countries such as Finland, (where the Constitution guarantees social security and welfare to citizens and other residents in vulnerable positions), would like to make improvements in their system by offering more state funded dental care. This is an area which is very important for people living in extreme poverty in the majority of the Member States, as their teeth are generally in a very poor condition. Sweden underlines the fact that their universal social security system avoids the stigmatisation of disadvantaged people however, it should be verified that there is still real equality of access for all to healthcare.

• Another form of obstacle is more cultural and linked to the living conditions and experiences of those living in extreme poverty. On this subject, the Belgian Plan highlights the lack of research done about whether or not health policies have given “ the poor ” effective access to improved health. Other Plans look into this question of cultural obstacles and cite interesting initiatives such as the following: doctors who go out to treat people on the streets (Germany); the development of a system of communication using gestures for the administration of primary healthcare (Portugal); joint projects with NGOs working in the field of healthcare; actions which take into account the cultural and ethnic diversity of populations (Sweden); developing the social role of hospitals (France) and the development of health education in schools (Finland). This is really an area of action which would benefit from more exchange between countries at a European level.

The Right to Education

The question of education plays an important role in the fight against poverty and social exclusion and the majority of the Plans recognise its significance. Here we would like to draw attention to some of the actions undertaken by different countries in this domain:

• Many countries are very concerned about children who drop out of school early or who are at risk of doing so. The Plans of Ireland and Finland put forward methods which we find interesting and which are based on the early identification of these children and the development of actions help them to feel that they belong in school. Ireland includes the parents of the children in this process, which we find to be indispensable and aims to give better chances to disadvantaged children at primary school. The French Plan places the accent on schools which give children a second chance at education. Initiatives in one of the German Länder, try to group together and address all of the factors that can lead to children leaving school early. In Italy, actions such as “ street teachers ” and “ resource centres for early school leavers ” have been developed.

• In the United Kingdom, the overall strategy is to raise the standards of literacy and numeracy for all children. However in Scotland, there is an initiative called “ New Community Schools ” which is particularly targeted at excluded children and works on the principle that the potential of children can only be realised if all of their needs are being met. Thus family support, family learning and health improvement are all included in an integrated approach to overcoming the barriers to learning that these children face. Recognising that children can be disadvantaged before they reach school going age, the programme “ Sure Start ” in England offers similar holistic support to families in deprived areas from pregnancy up until children are aged 4 years old.

• The Belgian Plan concentrates on the costs involved for parents on low incomes. Despite the fact that education is free in principle, there are many school supplies that have to be bought and extra-curricular activities like school trips that have to be paid for by parents. The Belgian Plan outlines how the French-speaking Community intends to look into this question and to come up with solutions to the problem.

• Certain Plans (like those of Denmark and Portugal) offer training to all young people who are unemployed and don’t have any professional qualifications. In Portugal, these programmes are aimed at all young people under the age of 21 and in Denmark, the target is in 2010 for 95% of a youth class to complete “ a course of youth training ” of either an academic or vocational nature. It would be interesting to see whether or not these countries succeed in reaching young people who live in poverty and social exclusion. In Italy, there is particular attention paid to the education of young people and adults in prison.

• Many countries place great importance on the fight against illiteracy. This is notably the case in Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. It is our belief that the fight against illiteracy should have been mentioned specifically in the Nice Objectives. Only Ireland and England, United Kingdom, seem to be introducing strategies at a national level to address this problem. In the years to come, there needs to be much more attention paid to literacy campaigns of this type and more partnerships between Governments and other actors on the subject.

The Right to Culture

Very few of the Plans present any real policies to encourage the participation of people living in extreme poverty in cultural or creative projects despite “ allowing effective access to culture ” being an element of the Nice Objectives.. Certain Plans, however, outline funding for this area. Ireland mentions the report “ Community Arts for Everyone ” which follows up a programme that examined how the arts can be used for social and vocational integration of the long term unemployed. France presents “ Culture and Multi-Media Centres ” that will be made accessible for disadvantaged groups and Belgium states that it plans to present more details in this area in the 2003 National Action Plan for Inclusion.

The weakness of all the Plans with regard to this Objective should be noted as it is an absolutely essential element in the fight against poverty and social exclusion (for more details, see the publication: European Commission/International Movement ATD Fourth World, Culture and Human Activity for Overcoming Poverty, éd. Quart Monde, Brussels, 1995).

Family Solidarity and Children

Two objectives adopted at Nice are very important for the International Movement ATD Fourth World: Objective 2©, which concerns the preservation of family solidarity and 3(b), which concerns the social exclusion of children. The very nature of these Objectives requires Member States to go a lot further than simply allocating financial resources.

First of all, it is interesting to note that in their Plan, Portugal have worded Objective 2© in a slightly different manner: “ To put in place policies and actions of support for families with the objective of maintaining the family unit in difficult situations ”. This wording in fact corresponds with the expectations of many families living in extreme poverty whose children are placed into care. A large majority of the Plans approach this question in such a way as to ensure that parents are not deprived of their rights and responsibilities with regard to their children. Examples of this would be France, where a guide to the rights of the parents of children in care is to be written and Belgium, where parents maintain the right to child allowances for children taken into care in order to allow for their eventual return. Portugal aspires to guarantee to all families the conditions necessary for them to take up their responsibilities (as well as keeping children in their home environment) and in Ireland, the social services policy is only to place children outside of the home as a last resort. In Sweden, listening to and taking into account the opinion of children themselves is considered to be very important.

Furthermore, there are several initiatives to support the most disadvantaged families in taking on their family responsibilities. In the Netherlands “ voluntary help ” from youth welfare services is spoken about in the Plan, in France there are networks for parental support and in Ireland the Plan outlines “ Family Support Projects for Children at Risk ”. In Italy, a system using vouchers has been introduced whereby families in difficulty can purchase social services from public and accredited private bodies. These countries all emphasise the importance of the role of the family in the fight against poverty. However, care needs to be taken to ensure that those families who live in extreme poverty, and who have the most difficulties, are respected and that their own projects and priorities for their families can be expressed and valued. This is a concern of ours that is generally not spoken about in the Plans.

Finally, we were worried that measures and policies outlined in Objective 3(b) to eliminate the social exclusion of children, would treat children as if their were completely independent of their families, however this does not seem to be the case in the majority of the Plans. This said, in the United Kingdom, children in care and leaving care are identified as a particularly vulnerable group and a programme has been implemented to improve their outcomes yet does not appear as if the families of the children are considered as having a role to play within this programme. Furthermore, one of the goals of the programme is to “ maximise the role of adoption ”. This does not just apply to orphaned or abandoned children but also to children who have been taken into care because of the poverty of their families (who themselves have often not received adequate support). A policy such as this seem to us to be in direct contradiction to the Objective of “ preserving family solidarity in all its forms ”.

Actions to Promote the Responsibility of all Citizens

Some of the Plans make quite original propositions in promoting the responsibility of all citizens in the fight against poverty and social exclusion. For example in Portugal, two poster campaigns on the theme of social rights will be launched and in France, people can take days off in the form of “ training days ” in order to do voluntary work. In Italy, young people are offered the opportunity to do civil service with associations that fight against poverty. In Ireland, as part of the review process of the National Anti Poverty Strategy, adverts were placed in national newspapers inviting people to send in comments for consideration by the various working groups. In Denmark, the Government wants to encourage co-operation between individual citizens, citizen’s groups, associations, organisations and businesses. The three year “ Social Responsibility of Organisations ” project will establish a working network of all different types of associations (i.e. not only those of a social character) for the integration of the most disadvantaged groups into society.