Vol. 576 No. 1
59 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs her views on the figures put forward by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul that 300,000 children now live in poverty in the State; and her views on the effect on these children of the social welfare cuts announced in the Estimates. [29270/03]
The figures quoted by the Society of St. Vincent de Paul are primarily based on an analysis undertaken by the Economic and Social Research Institute of the results of the Living in Ireland surveys. They relate to the risk of poverty indicator used at EU level for comparison purposes which is defined by reference to an income threshold set at 60% of median income, adjusted for family size and composition using equivalence scales. The analysis undertaken by the ESRI indicates that, in 2001, some 21.9% of persons had incomes which fell below that threshold while for children the percentage was 23.4%. This equates to 280,000 children.
However, the indicator which underpins the national anti-poverty strategy, NAPS, is the consistent poverty indicator, independently formulated by the ESRI. This establishes the proportion of those below 50% to 60% of average disposable income and experiencing enforced basic deprivation. Basic deprivation refers to a set of eight indicators which were regarded as necessities and possessed by a majority of those in the Living in Ireland survey. Consistent poverty has been chosen as the global target under NAPS, because the inclusion of deprivation as well as income gives a better guide to those who experience poverty and are a priority for income and other supports.
One of the more significant achievements of recent years has been the reduction in the level of consistent poverty among children from 24.8% in 1987 to 6.5% or approximately 74,000 children in 2001. This is due to major increases in employment participation, better jobs, significant real increases in social welfare payments, especially child income support, and improvements in education and other services. Given the further improvements made since 2001, especially in child income support, it is likely that this proportion is now even lower. The target under the national anti-poverty strategy is to reduce the percentage of children in consistent poverty to 2% and, if possible, eliminate it by 2007.
The increase in the numbers at risk of poverty relates to the fact that many household incomes have risen rapidly during the recent economic boom for reasons which included more and better jobs, increased female participation in the workforce, tax reform and high earnings growth. While significant increases in real terms have been made in the incomes of those on lower earnings, including the introduction of the minimum wage, and in social welfare payments, including child income support, these improvements have lagged behind the rapid increases in incomes generally. As a result, the proportion below the rapidly increasing income threshold for this indicator has risen from 15.6% in 1994 to 21.9% in 2001, despite the substantial improvements made in the incomes of those on lower earnings and social welfare and the resulting significant improvement in their circumstances.
The challenge of reducing the numbers of children at risk of poverty, as defined by the EU indicator, will best be addressed for most families by increased employment participation and the creation of better jobs. The Government's economic policy is primarily geared towards achieving that objective. At the same time, the obstacles to employment for lone parents and for parents of larger families which are at most risk of poverty must be removed.
I thank the Minister for her reply. Does she agree with the figure of 300,000 people living in poverty? There seems to be some confusion. In a recent address to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, the Taoiseach also had difficulties with these figures, yet the Combat Poverty Agency quotes similar figures and it is a statutory agency. The CPA quoted from the national action plan against poverty and social exclusion which stated the figure of 300,000 people.
The Minister said that we are playing politics with these statistics but we are speaking up for people from disadvantaged areas who are the new poor. She speaks in terms of the way forward being through employment and that clearly is the case.
What is the Minister's view of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul's report which states that the new poor are people on low salaries who are no longer eligible for medical cards and who are being hit by stealth taxes such as bin charges or hospital charges, for example? Is she aware of the statement by Threshold that up to 4,000 people a year will face the threat of homelessness because of the effective abolition of the supplementary welfare allowance? She is living in cloud cuckoo land if she believes her cuts will not affect the most vulnerable in society. These are the people who come to the clinics of every Deputy and who are being forced out of their homes.
The Minister stated that community welfare officers will solve the problems. The reality is that it is difficult to obtain rent supplements for people. I recently dealt with a case in Galway where there was a major problem contacting the community welfare officer because the applicant could not prove that she was applying on a temporary basis. She had no alternative; it was either that or hostel accommodation. Unfortunately many families would not survive in hostel accommodation. We deal in our clinics with vulnerable young people and it is obvious that they would not survive in hostel accommodation. These cuts increasingly affect the most disadvantaged and the gap between rich and poor is widening.
It is just as well the Deputy does not have colleagues in Galway. They would wonder what he was doing interfering in that constituency.
I am prepared to speak for any area.
I re-emphasise that the issue of determinations and flexibility within the scheme will remain. People will be considered on the basis of flexibility. No one will be made homeless because of the changes within rent supplement.
With regard to the poverty indicators, the Society of St. Vincent de Paul used a poverty indicator of €175 per week, known as the "at risk of poverty line", which only applies to single people. It is adjusted upwards for families. One third of that amount is added for each child. That is an example of the indicators given. We are not comparing like with like. While I do not suggest that, if poverty were eliminated in this country, all the Members of the House would not have done a good job, it is very easy to use terms such as "consistent poverty", "relative poverty" and the EU indicator of "at risk of poverty". The NAPS represents the targets set by the Government and is based on the definition of consistent poverty and deprivation.
Relative poverty changes and increases on the basis of the gap between those who are employed and unemployed. It can often be an unfair indicator because relative poverty can be very different between those who are employed and unemployed. As the Deputy indicated, there can be relative poverty within a working population because it is relative to someone else. We can discuss indicators until the cows come home.
The Deputy expressed a view that the Taoiseach did not agree with the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. The Taoiseach was correct because he was referring to the sum of €175 per week as being the income for a single person. One must make additions to that in the case of family income. When one does not compare like with like, one arrives at different figures. My view is that the Government's policy of using the NAPS indicators, which are based on consistent poverty, is the best way forward.
The Deputy is correct that employment is the best way of addressing the issue. The Government has made great strides in supporting people within deprived areas to re-enter education and in providing special programmes for mentoring and progressing them into work.
The Minister must move to the next question.
It has supported many of these initiatives in Deputy Crowe's constituency and will continue to do so over the next few years depending on how long I am in Government.
