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

Question 42: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the recent ESRI report which found that between 8 per cent and 10 per cent of the population were living in consistent poverty; his further views on the validity of these findings; his further views on whether such a level of consistent poverty is acceptable; the steps he intends to take arising from the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17361/06]

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

Question 44: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the new measure of deprivation devised by the ESRI; and if his Department will be considering these indicators of consistent poverty levels in the policies which it devises. [17546/06]

Gerard Murphy (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 46: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the findings of the ESRI report (details supplied) that up to 10 per cent of the population live in consistent poverty; if he will provide the figures for the number of people and a profile of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17670/06]

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

Question 48: To ask the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the recent figures by the Central Statistics Office and EUROSTAT that Ireland's risk-of-poverty levels are 21.7 per cent in comparison to the EU average of 14.6 per cent; the implications this high level of poverty risk has for society here; the steps he is taking to reduce Ireland's levels to the EU average; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17666/06]

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

I propose to take Questions Nos. 42, 44, 46 and 48 together.

I launched the recent ESRI report "Reconfiguring the Measurement of Deprivation and Consistent Poverty in Ireland" on 10 April. The report re-assesses how poverty is measured in the light of the rapid economic progress in recent years and current living standards and expectations. The existing 'consistent poverty' measure was developed by the ESRI in 1987 and the report examines if a more up-to-date system of measurement should now be adopted.

I welcome the ESRI report as an important contribution to the debate on how best to measure, monitor and report on poverty in Ireland. The primary objectives of the consistent poverty measure is to clearly identify those who are most deprived and vulnerable in Irish society in relation to basic living standards, and to measure the progress being made in reducing that deprivation.

In relation to this objective, the ESRI has revised somewhat the indicators of deprivation to ensure that they provide a better reflection of what are regarded currently as basic living standards. The revised measure shows that virtually the same categories of people are most at risk of poverty. These include lone parents, households with large numbers of children, those lacking educational qualifications, the unemployed and the ill or disabled. These groups also represent those most vulnerable to poverty in other developed countries.

The measurement of progress in reducing poverty using this indicator is somewhat more problematic. In 1997, some 7.8 per cent or 283,000 persons were in consistent poverty, as measured by the Living in Ireland Survey (LIIS). In 2001 the figure had reduced to 4.1 per cent, or 149,000 persons, a reduction of some 134,000 people, based on 1996 census figures. The results from the new EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) for 2003 showed that 8.8 per cent were in consistent poverty, although there had been no changes in policy or in economic and social conditions that could have explained this apparent reversal in the downward trend. On the contrary significant improvements in social welfare rates and in services had been made in the intervening period. It appears that the main reason was the changed methodology adopted under EU SILC. The downward trend resumed in 2004 which showed a significant reduction to 6.8 per cent of persons in consistent poverty. Using 2002 Census figures, this would equate to a reduction of some 78,000 people.

On the basis of the revised range of indicators proposed by the ESRI, the percentages of persons living in consistent poverty at 8% to 10% would not differ greatly from the current figures based on the original set of indicators. Both the EU Social Protection Committee and the OECD are currently examining the possibility of using a common set of deprivation indicators, akin to Ireland's consistent poverty measure. Preliminary findings show that the percentage of Irish households experiencing deprivation is below that of most other developed countries included in the study and well below that of some of these countries. In an EU study of 14 countries, Ireland had the 6th lowest level of deprivation.

Another poverty measurement relates to what is termed the "at risk of poverty" threshold, which in the EU is set at 60% of median income. As a result of high levels of economic and employment growth in the 1990s there was an almost unprecedented increase in average incomes. This resulted from the sharp decline in unemployment, an increase in employment participation, particularly in the case of women, and the lowering of tax levels. As a result median income increased by 97% in the period 1994 to 2001, with a further increase of 12.9% in the period to 2004. Despite substantial increases in social welfare payments, this resulted in the paradoxical situation of an increase in the numbers classified as at risk of poverty, while the living standards of the same people were improving significantly.

The most recent EU-SILC results are showing that the numbers classified as at risk of poverty may have peaked and are beginning to decline. The percentage for 2003 at 19.7 per cent declined to 19.4 per cent in 2004. The findings also show that a high proportion of those classified as being at risk of poverty are actually just below the 60% threshold. For example, 26% of older persons are classified as being at risk of poverty, but 18% are above the 50% threshold.

Each set of indicators yields important information for the purposes of combating poverty and social exclusion. The consistent poverty indicator shows that we are making steady progress in reducing basic poverty, a fact reflected in the emerging comparisons with other developed countries. One of the main keys to removing significant numbers of people in the working ages from being in poverty or at risk of poverty is through further increasing participation in employment. This involves removing barriers to employment, especially through the provision of services, such as child care, education and training, thus enabling people such as lone parents, the second parent in larger families, and people with disabilities who may have significant capacity for work, avail of the many current job opportunities. This approach may also need to be accompanied by more targeted income supports and services to significantly improve the position of those most in need.

These issues are being addressed in the preparation of the next National Action Plan on social inclusion, being coordinated by the Office for Social Inclusion in my Department, and due to be finalized by September. The findings on poverty levels in the surveys, the ESRI report and the international comparisons becoming available on both deprivation levels and the percentages at risk of poverty will be of great assistance in devising the appropriate policies to more effectively combat poverty and social exclusion.