Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 33: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the progress to date in 2005 on the eradication of consistent poverty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30852/05]

Eamon Ryan (Dublin South, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 77: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on whether relative income poverty measures are useful for identifying those of the population who are at risk of poverty and who are in poverty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30979/05]

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 94: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the progress to date in 2005 on the eradication of consistent poverty as promised in 2001; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30859/05]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 33, 77 and 94 together.

The most recent statistics on poverty levels in Ireland are derived from the 2003 EU survey on income and living conditions, EU-SILC, released earlier this year by the Central Statistics Office, CSO. This survey replaces the living in Ireland survey, LIIS, which was conducted by the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, until 2001 and which provided data on consistent and relative poverty up to that year.

The consistent poverty measure is used in this country to identify those experiencing basic deprivation. This is calculated by identifying from among those at risk of poverty, that is, with incomes below the 60% median income threshold, EU threshold, those who are also deprived of basic goods and services regarded as essential for living in Ireland today. The number of households experiencing consistent poverty, based on results of the LIIS, fell continuously from 15.1% in 1994 to 5.2% in 2001. The 2003 results from the EU-SILC indicated that the rate of consistent poverty was 10.2%. However, both the CSO and the ESRI have made it clear that methodological differences between the two surveys mean that the figures for 2001 and 2003 are not comparable and that it is therefore not possible to conclude from them whether the level of consistent poverty changed over the period.

The Cabinet Committee on Social Inclusion, prior to the issue of the EU-SILC results, approved a review of the method of poverty measurement in Ireland. This work is being progressed as part of the NAPS data strategy and co-ordinated by the office for social inclusion located in my Department. A consultative seminar on the issue recently took place involving all the key stakeholders. The aim is to have a revised approach ready for consideration in the context of the preparation of the next national action plan due in September 2006.

Despite the latest EU-SILC results, there is certainly no reason to believe that there has been a worsening in poverty levels in recent years. The UN Human Development report for 2005 in a section entitled, Two tales of Irish poverty, applied the anchored poverty line approach to measuring poverty trends in Ireland between 1994 and 2000. This approach involves maintaining the initial year poverty line, in this case for 1994, and adjusting it for each subsequent year according to changes in consumer prices. Using this method, the report showed that the level of poverty in Ireland in 2000 had fallen by 55.9% compared with the actual level in 1994.

A similar trend is likely to have continued since 2000. Between 2001 and 2005 spending on social welfare payments has increased from €7.8 billion to €12.25 billion. During the same period the lowest social welfare rates have increased by 40% while the consumer price index has increased by just over 13%. As a result of budget 2005, welfare payments have increased by four times the expected rate of inflation.

The relative income poverty indicator measures all those — households or people — whose income fall below the relative income threshold of 60% of median income, EU, and of 50% of median income, UN. The threshold used reflects the growth in overall incomes each year. In the EU, those with incomes below the 60% median income threshold are deemed to be at risk of poverty.

The EU-SILC survey found that 22.7% of persons were at risk of poverty in 2003, which represents a slight increase on the 2001 figure of 21.9%. The United Nations Human Development, UNDP, report in applying this indicator, but with the threshold at 50% of median income, found that over the period 1994 to 2000 relative poverty had increased by 11.3%, compared with a reduction of 55.9% using the other anchored poverty line indicator based on price increases.

As the UNDP report concludes, there are two tales of Irish poverty in recent years. One tale shows that there has been a steady and substantial improvement in basic living standards across the board. This is clearly evident from the consistent poverty and anchored poverty line indicators which show a substantial reduction in basic deprivation on the one hand, and significant improvements in real basic incomes on the other.

The second tale is that the rapid economic growth has resulted in major improvements in incomes generally, particularly from more and better jobs being taken by a more educated and skilled workforce, and from increasing female participation in the workforce, resulting in a significant rise in two income households. This has led to average incomes overall increasing at a much faster rate than the substantial rise in average social welfare payments. Accordingly, for that reason while everyone is substantially better off, the income gap has widened.

What is not in question from the various survey results are the groups who are identified as being most at risk. These include families with children, mainly lone parents, or larger families, those who are unemployed or with disabilities, and older people, especially those living alone. EU-SILC confirms the findings of earlier analyses in this regard and provides information on the most vulnerable groups in society towards whom policy should be focused.

A core strategic approach to tackling poverty under the national action plans against poverty and social exclusion involves facilitating the ongoing development of integrated, social policies with key active dimensions. This approach is designed to ensure in the first instance that the process of reducing and eventually eliminating basic poverty and deprivation continues. However, the most common risk factor for poverty is joblessness, which makes it very difficult for people and households get an adequate share in our growing prosperity. The strategic approach, therefore, is also designed to further develop and provide active supports such as education, training, employment, child and elder support services, health and housing that will steadily and progressively enable more people to obtain good quality jobs in our growing economy, greater autonomy and self-sufficiency.