Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)

The measurement used is utterly meaningless and I will explain why. EU survey results for 2006 are not yet available from all EU countries. However, in the case of Ireland, given the progress being achieved in tackling poverty, it is expected that our comparative position should improve. Ireland has regularly pointed out the limitations of the use of at risk of poverty measures. They may well change it because it has become so meaningless.

First, it is not suited to making comparisons between countries at different stages of economic development with different living standards. This can yield illogical results, some of which have just been put on the record by Deputy Shortall. For example, less developed countries have lower at risk of poverty rates than Ireland. Bulgaria is shown to have an overall at risk of poverty rate that is 1% below the EU average of 16%, while Ireland is 4% above the EU average rate at20%. However, Ireland's at risk of poverty income threshold, adjusted for purchasing power, is €18,909 for a family of two adults and two children. This is just over four times greater than the figure used in Bulgaria, which is €4,269.

Second, it masks the reality of the situation in Ireland where we have had significant economic growth and where increases in household income have outstripped even substantial increases in the incomes of those dependent on social welfare or on low wages. This is exactly what has happened in this country. People are now significantly better off in real terms but at risk of poverty figures clearly do not reflect this fact. To be honest, I do not think anybody gives any credibility to the fact that, on this measurement, we are supposedly the third worst country in Europe. It simply is not true. Quite frankly, the measurement is a nonsense and is meaningless to every country. It does nothing to promote the agenda. If one looks at the figures I have given, I think we would all agree that suggesting that Bulgaria is better than the EU average is a nonsense. The way the measurements are used at the moment come up with what I have just described as an illogical and, quite frankly, ridiculous conclusion.

See this speech in context