Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 58: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the action he plans to take to eliminate consistent poverty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32574/07]

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The overall goal in the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion, NAPinclusion, is to reduce the proportion of our population experiencing consistent poverty to between 2% and 4% by 2012, with the aim of eliminating consistent poverty by 2016. The goal is based on the trends since 2003 in the EU survey on income and living conditions, EU-SILC, conducted by the Central Statistics Office.

It also involves using an updated set of indicators devised by the Economic and Social Research Institute which are considered more realistic and in keeping with living standards today compared with the indicators used for the earlier national anti-poverty strategy.

The latest results from EU-SILC, released last week, indicate that the rate of consistent poverty in the population in 2006, using the new measure, was 6.5%, down from 8.2% in 2003. The achievement of this goal is dependent on the policies to be pursued over the next ten years.

These are detailed in the NAPinclusion and the NDP which contains 12 high level strategic goals in key priority areas supported by over 150 more detailed targets and actions. It is based on a life cycle approach designed to achieve greater co-ordination of policies and their implementation in relation to children, people of working age, older people and people with disabilities. Increasing participation in employment is at the core of the strategic approach as it remains the main route out of poverty to a decent standard of living. Those most at risk of consistent poverty among those of working age live in households where there is no one in employment, or if they are in employment, they are on a low income.

The majority of children experiencing poverty also live in such households. A key focus of policies in the NAPinclusion is to remove, as far as practicable, remaining disincentives to obtaining employment in the social welfare system and obstacles to entitlement to other services. Proposals to achieve this are being developed in my Department, with reference especially to lone parents and parents in larger families.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

A second overall strand is the further development of an activation approach involving case management. This includes ensuring that those not in the workforce have access to appropriate education, training, help with job search and services such as child care. Generous income support is being provided for children and additional education supports are being targeted at children living in disadvantaged areas. Provision is also made in the NAPinclusion to provide income support and to improve access to and the quality of essential services, such as health, education and housing, especially for those for whom employment is not an option.

In the case of older people, the aim is to ensure that they have an adequate income and access to services. In the period since 2003 the proportion of older people below the EU at risk of poverty threshold has more than halved from 29.8% to 13.6% in 2006. A further consequence has been the reduction in the rate of consistent poverty from 3.1% in 2005 to 2.2% in 2006. In effect, therefore, the 2012 goal for reducing consistent poverty has already been achieved for older people.

The causes of consistent poverty are multi-faceted and there is no single answer for the many diverse groups in that position. Achieving the overall goal will require not just effective and well resourced policies but also a significant degree of co-ordination among all service providers. The plans provide for this approach. I am confident that from the strong backing and determination being provided by Government and working with all the relevant stakeholders, this ambitious goal will be met over the next five and ten years.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister accept last week's EU-SILC figures are a serious indictment of the Government's record in recent years? According to those figures, Ireland has the third highest rate of people at risk of poverty. Does the Minister accept Ireland is still a shockingly unequal society?

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does he accept the figures which show the rates of poverty are static? Last year 6.9% of people were living in poverty while the figure for the previous year was 7%. Little or no progress is being made on tackling the rates of poverty in our society. After a decade of so-called prosperity, why are 293,000 people still living in poverty? Given the targets set in the national anti-poverty strategy, what is the Minister's analysis of that figure? Why are so many people still living in poverty when there has been such economic prosperity in the past decade? More importantly, what does the Minister intend to do to reach the targets he has set?

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does Deputy Shortall have a supplementary question?

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is the equivalent of shooting the messenger. The argument about the way of measuring poverty in this country is over. Whatever disagreements may have existed about it in the past, we know now that all of those groups working in this area, including research organisations and indeed the Minister's Department, accept the way of measuring poverty in this country.

What these figures show is that in recent years where the Government has targeted poverty among older people through changes and improvements in the social welfare system, that has worked. However, the glaring problem that remains is the question of child poverty. Does the Minister accept that 11% of children are living in poverty and that this represents some 96,000 children? One in nine children under the age of 14 is living in poverty.

I concede that there has been very welcome success in tackling poverty among older people through welfare measures. Is the Minister now prepared to put the same kind of focus on and target resources in the same way in respect of children at risk of poverty? By any standards, having 96,000 children living in poverty amid the prosperity in this country is entirely unacceptable.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am glad the Deputy shifted her focus and argued for dealing with the real picture where there are children living in consistent poverty. There is no question about that and we have been dealing with this issue. The figures are coming down. That is why under the NAP inclusion plan, the national development plan and Towards 2016, we want to eliminate it within that timeframe. That is something into which we should all put our energies and efforts.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As a point of information, last week's figures show that the rate of child poverty is increasing in this country.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want, again, to deal with what we know to be the factual position as opposed to some statistical analysis. I pointed out to the people who bombarded me with statistics that we are actually dealing with real people here.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, 96,000 of them.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Frankly, I am not interested in dealing with people who are using all sorts of very strange measurements to come up with certain figures. The fact is that we are targeting a huge amount of our resources to deal with children in poverty. In respect of the two big groups, children in families where there is unemployment and the children of single parents, there are two pilot schemes being carried out at the moment, one in Coolock and Kilkenny, which involve all the services working together to try and move——

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

For goodness sake, pilot schemes in this day and age are a nonsense.

Martin Cullen (Waterford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy wanted an answer to the question. It is not about the amount of money one simply gives somebody; it is about using the services to get them out of the situation and into employment, which is what we are doing — just so the Deputy knows what the strategy is.

Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What the Government needs to do is put in the resources.