Vol. 537 No. 1
50 Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs if he has given further consideration to more modern measurements of poverty such as the parameters used by the United Nations in view of recent criticism of existing outdated measurements. [15293/01]
I expect the Deputy is referring to the document, Poverty and Social Welfare, prepared by the Conference of Religious in Ireland in advance of budget 2001, which criticised the use of the "consistent poverty" measure.
The national anti-poverty strategy sets out a number of goals to be achieved over a ten year period from 1997 to 2007, including targets on income adequacy. Chief among the strategy's objectives was a reduction in the numbers living in consistent poverty from 9%-15% of the population in 1994 to less than 5%-10% of the population by the year 2007. The latest data available, in respect of 1998, shows that 6%-8% of the population are living in consistent poverty, so we are well on our way to achieving our revised target of below 5% by 2004. There is no single best way to measure poverty. No one method can provide all the answers. The document referred to by the Deputy recognises that income alone does not tell the whole story concerning living standards and command over resources, and that it is necessary to look more broadly at a person's exclusion from the life of society because of lack of resources.
This is particularly the case in trying to capture trends in poverty in a situation of very rapid growth in average incomes such as we are currently experiencing in this country. Direct measures of deprivation provide a valuable and complementary source of information in measuring poverty and assessing poverty trends. The NAPS poverty target defines consistent poverty as being below 50%-60% of average household income and experiencing enforced basic deprivation. This, as the Deputy will know, is based on independent research by the Economic and Social Research Institute. Eight basic items were identified by the Economic and Social Research Institute in their 1987 household survey, for example, two pairs of strong shoes, a warm waterproof coat etc. These items are selected by the respondents themselves as basic necessities but which they are unable to afford. The Economic and Social Research Institute, supported by my Department, keeps the deprivation index under regular review to ensure that it remains relevant to people's perception of necessities.
