Dáil debates

Thursday, 1 March 2007

Other Questions

Anti-Poverty Strategy.

3:00 pm

Photo of Jack WallJack Wall (Kildare South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 7: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the percentage of the population regarded as being in consistent poverty; when the 2% target which was set for 2007 in the ten year anti-poverty strategy launched in 1997, will be reached; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7894/07]

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 23: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the reason the consistent poverty target in the NAPinclusion 2007 to 2016 is less ambitious than that of the national anti-poverty strategy and agreed programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7963/07]

Photo of Eamon GilmoreEamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 46: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the basis on which he believes that the UN poverty index is misleading; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7901/07]

Photo of Séamus BrennanSéamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 7, 23 and 46 together.

The new national action plan for social inclusion was launched last week with an overall goal to make a decisive impact on consistent poverty. This is underlined by the fact that a new target is being set, using an updated set of indicators, which is more realistic and in keeping with living standards today. The new target is to reduce the number of those experiencing consistent poverty to between 2% and 4% by 2012, with the aim of eliminating consistent poverty by 2016, under the revised definition. The new target reflects experience and advice that it may be difficult to bring consistent poverty down to zero, due in part to the subjective and sensitive nature of the survey questions used to identify deprivation.

The consistent poverty measure was developed independently by the ESRI in 1987 using indicators of deprivation based on standards of living at that time. This measure identifies the proportion of people, from those with less than 60% of median income, who are deprived of one or more goods or services considered essential for a basic standard of living. The target set in 2002 was to reduce the numbers of those who are consistently poor to 2% by 2007 and, if possible, to eliminate consistent poverty, as then defined.

A major discontinuity between the living in Ireland survey, previously used for monitoring progress against the target, and the new EU survey on income and living conditions, introduced from 2003, means that it is not possible to compare trends in consistent poverty between the two surveys. However, continuing low levels of unemployment and the substantial resources devoted to social welfare and other social services support the view that the downward trend in consistent poverty, from 8.3% in 1994 to 4.1% in 2001, would have continued and the target would have been reached by 2007 using the living in Ireland survey method. The first three years of EU survey data indicate the overall consistent poverty rate reduced from 8.8% in 2003 to 7% in 2005. Some 250,000 people, including 100,000 children, have been lifted out of deprivation since 1997 as a result of concentrated and targeted measures and supports.

The Government, in setting the new poverty reduction target, has accepted the advice of the ESRI to use an updated set of deprivation indicators, which focus to a greater degree on items reflecting social inclusion and participation in society. This will see the current measure, based on lacking one or more items from an eight-item index, changing to one based on lacking two or more items from an 11-item index. This revised set of indicators will be used to measure consistent poverty over the course of the new NAPinclusion. The current rate of consistent poverty using the new measure is 7.0%.

While the consistent poverty measure is the official Government approved poverty measure, other poverty measures highlight different aspects of poverty. The at-risk-of-poverty measure is the best known and quoted as it affords some comparisons with other countries. However, it does not measure poverty as such, but rather the proportion of people below a certain income threshold. I have previously expressed my strong concerns regarding the use of this measure by the UN when creating its human poverty index.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

Furthermore, the UN Development Programme, in an article last year in the prominent journal, Development and Transition, restated the problems inherent in using the at-risk-of-poverty indicator for international comparisons, concluding that the results too often belie common sense — the at-risk-of-poverty label sends the wrong signal to the public and policy makers — and the risk-of-poverty logic does not lead to effective national policy. While the latest EU-SILC results do show that our at-risk-of-poverty rates are falling, from 19.7% in 2003 to 18.5% in 2005, I continue to believe that this measure gives a misleading impression of poverty as at-risk-of-poverty levels are affected by increases in incomes generally. I am confident that the new NAPinclusion will build on the achievements of the last decade and deliver greater social inclusion and a society in which remaining consistent poverty is finally eliminated.

Photo of Willie PenroseWillie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is it not clear that the 1997 social inclusion programme failed? Is it not clear that we have failed to reduce the level of consistent poverty to 2% by 2007? The 7% figure means 300,000 people are considered as being in poverty. Is that not the position? Did I not argue here four years ago that the figures used by the ESRI were outdated, outmoded and in need of modernisation? Were they retained because they showed that consistent poverty was falling, when we all knew that not to be the case outside? Surely it is hard to argue against the UNICEF report to which Deputy Boyle referred, which ranked us 22nd out of 25 countries. Does that not reflect what emerged when factors evaluated to assess consistent poverty were upgraded and modernised? Is that not the problem?

I acknowledge that we have made progress, but it is not nearly as impressive or worthy as some have tried to portray it. Should we not all hang our heads in shame that such a significant proportion of people remain in poverty, particularly children? What policies does the Minister have to tackle that? Will this part of the social partnership be addressed and ensure that the objectives set out therein are achieved?

Photo of Séamus BrennanSéamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We should be conscious from the taxpayer's perspective that welfare payments have doubled in five or six years, from €7 billion to €15 billion. That is a considerable investment by the taxpayer in tackling poverty. It is not only a question of income, since other Departments are also involved. Recent budgets were to a large degree targeted at tackling child poverty, which we dealt with in earlier questions.

The target of 2% that we set out in 1997 has been reached. However, I acknowledge that it could be challenged. I explained that the old method was the Living in Ireland survey, which in 2003 was replaced by the EU survey on income and living conditions, SILC.

Consider the continuing low levels of unemployment, the substantial resources put into doubling social welfare benefits, and the downward trend in consistent poverty. In 2001, we were at 4%, and welfare spending has almost doubled since, not to mention the fact that we have had economic growth of 4% or 5% per annum. The Department does not disagree with my contention that we would almost certainly have reached the figure of 2% by 2007 if we had still been using the old measure. As we are no longer doing so, no one will really know. If we were at 4% in 2001, I am confident that, six years later, with all the resources applied and the economic growth, the figure will be at 2%. Therefore, the Government has met its target of 2% by 2007, which it set in 1997.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister telling the House that no one is experiencing poverty? Is it almost gone, so that we can forget about it and turn our backs on it? Perhaps the Minister has been spending too much time removed from reality behind the tinted windows of his Mercedes. Who is responsible for dealing with poverty in Ireland? Where does the buck stop?

When it comes to moving long-term recipients of welfare and disability benefits into training and employment under the national employment action plan, I understand that lone parents and those with disabilities do not have access to the activation measures. Does he have any plans to change that?

Photo of Séamus BrennanSéamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is still poverty in Ireland. I made the point that the target of 2% that we set has been reached, and I stand by that. We have changed the measure, and one does not need too many studies to see that there is poverty among lone parents, some older people, the unemployed and so on. There is still unacceptable poverty, particularly child poverty, which has no place in Ireland in the 21st century. The answer is to target the money available through the welfare system, something very much true of the recent budget, and co-ordinate across the Government policies on education, health, welfare and employment. The last-named is ultimately the best way to attack poverty. All those are powering ahead, and we have set new targets under the new measure.

Regarding activation, I am not sure that I understand the question. Lone parents are not currently subject to the FÁS activation programme, and neither are those on disability benefits. However, both cases are being closely examined, the former in the context of our previous discussion on lone parents, and the latter in a general examination of how we can lend more support in training and education to those with disabilities.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Where does the buck stop? Who is responsible?

Photo of Séamus BrennanSéamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Deputy asking who is responsible for poverty?

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For eliminating or dealing with it.

Photo of Séamus BrennanSéamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I assure the Deputy that I do not claim that title.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Who will do so? Is anyone responsible?

Photo of Séamus BrennanSéamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Successive Governments have had a special responsibility to seek to eliminate poverty. However, we must be honest about this. Some measures of poverty are allied to lifestyle. We cannot give everyone the same lifestyle, but we can seek to remove poverty. I seek to ensure that we no longer have in our midst what the Deputy and I would have known in our childhoods — good, old-fashioned poverty. There is no place for that, however we measure it. Certain indices are lifestyle measures, for example, how many holidays one gets in a year, how many friends one has around, and so on. Some are the subject of debating societies.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

So inequality is a good thing.

Photo of Séamus BrennanSéamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On all sides of the House, we have a responsibility to eliminate poverty.

Photo of Willie PenroseWillie Penrose (Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They should not listen to the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, on inequality being a good thing.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister's near obsession with the 2% figure not an exercise in spin, giving the impression that 2% poverty exists, with 98% of people not in poverty? Poverty is not an absolute measure but about lack of opportunity and societal disparities in wealth. Ireland remains one of the most unequal societies in Europe and is getting worse. What other measures has the Minister put in place to tackle those areas? Even if the Government reaches its 2% target, that does not end disparities in wealth or the lack of opportunity that so many people suffer. Those are the real measurements of poverty, but I do not see the Government tackling them.

Photo of Séamus BrennanSéamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not on a mission to ensure that there are no disparities in wealth in Ireland. If that is our policy objective, I do not know where we will finish.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Can we make Ireland more normal or average?

Photo of Séamus BrennanSéamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have disparities in wealth, like most other countries.

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, but the effect of the Government's policies is to make them wider.

Photo of Séamus BrennanSéamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with the Deputy, in that my objective is to ensure equal opportunity for everyone in the country, with access to education, training, health and an absolute safety net to ensure that no one falls below a certain level of income support in Ireland. That is the first set of objectives I must meet, and we are making solid progress in that regard. I acknowledge that there are still people under enormous pressure, and policies are being implemented to tackle that.