Good afternoon chairperson and members. On behalf of the Combat Poverty Agency I am delighted to accept the invitation to attend a meeting of this committee to discuss poverty issues in Ireland. We all need to continue in our efforts to combat poverty, particularly at a time when the economic situation is less certain and benign. We do not want to undo the progress that has been made as we continue to work towards the goal of eliminating poverty in Ireland.
The aim of the Combat Poverty Agency is to promote a just and inclusive society by working for the prevention and elimination of poverty and social exclusion. As a State advisory agency, our role is to advise the Government on how poverty can be eliminated. We do this by providing advice in an independent, informed and balanced way, conducting research into the causes of poverty, piloting and documenting approaches to tackling poverty and providing public information and education about poverty.
The Government definition of poverty is that people are living in poverty if their income and resources, material, cultural and social, are so inadequate as to preclude them from having a standard of living which is regarded as acceptable by Irish society generally. As a result of inadequate income and resources people may be excluded and marginalised from participating in activities which are considered the norm for other people in society. This means that poverty relates to the society in question rather than outright destitution. Such an understanding of relative poverty recognises that poverty involves isolation, powerlessness and exclusion from participation in society as well as lack of money. Thus, the unequal distribution of resources and opportunities contributes to poverty.
Using this understanding, how many people are poor? Two measures of poverty are commonly used here. The first is termed "consistent poverty", which is when a person has less than about €175 per week, does not have access to basic items, such as one substantial meal each day, or is not able to afford a pair of shoes or overcoat or pay everyday household expenses without falling into debt. Using this measure, the most recent data available show that 6% of the population was living in poverty in 2000, that is, slightly more than 200,000 people. However, consistent poverty fell from 15% in 1994 to 6% in 2000 due to factors such as the decline in unemployment and improvements in social welfare.
Some groups in the population have higher than average levels of poverty. Households headed by someone who is unemployed, working in the home - mainly women - or ill or disabled have relatively high poverty levels. Households where there are a large number of children - four or more - lone parent households and households with one adult living alone, mainly older women, also have high poverty levels. One of the major concerns is the level of child poverty in Ireland, although recently we have seen a considerable reduction in child poverty from 25% in 1987 to 8% in 2000. Poor children have been shown to do less well educationally, are more likely to suffer ill health, are more vulnerable to homelessness and have fewer opportunities in life.
A second way in which poverty is measured is by using income lines alone, without adding the "deprivation indicators". This measure defines the proportion of the population falling below a certain income level. Using this indicator, one fifth - 22% - of the population fell below a poverty line of about €147 per week in 2000, which amounts to more than 800,000 people. The equivalent figure in 1994 was 16%. Thus, at a time when consistent poverty has been falling, income poverty has been rising. Part of the reason for this is that incomes in the population generally grew at a very fast rate during the economic boom and while the incomes of those at the bottom of the income distribution increased, they did so at a slower rate than the growth in incomes in the rest of the population. Therefore, to tackle income poverty we need to benchmark social welfare payments to increases in wages.
While income issues are fundamental in eliminating poverty, we must also consider other structural factors. These include employment, education, health, housing and accommodation and a good environment. Participation in employment and access to quality resources, in particular, are the hallmarks of a modern society.
In describing poverty it is often easy to get caught up in statistics, which can mask the reality of poverty for those who experience it on a day to day basis. Recently, we published a report which gives expression to the direct voices of people experiencing poverty. The research, undertaken by two experienced researchers from Queens University, explored in depth the living experiences of some 30 families in the year 2000. The families were based in a suburb on the west side of Dublin, a medium sized town in the north-west and a rural area in the west.
While the report does not seek to be representative in the statistical sense, it provides an illustration of the contemporary reality of poverty in contemporary Ireland. The families in question were very poor with an average income in the region of €124 per week. This low level of income gave them very little leeway with regard to spending. Their outlay on food, for example, was nearly one third of total income, compared to a national average of 23%. Almost all of the money available to these households went on food, household bills and the needs of the children, which left them very vulnerable to shortages for regular and irregular expenses. Borrowing and indebtedness were widespread as a result. People borrowed informally from friends and relatives, but also from credit unions and banks and about one fifth of the families borrowed from moneylenders.
In general, we found that money was well managed and carefully controlled. The needs of the children and household were, in general, put first and there was consensus between partners about how the money should be spent. Bills, shortages of money and worries about the children dominated the lives of the people in question. The so-called Celtic tiger had bypassed these families and many felt more deprived in relative terms because they remained poor during the economic boom, in other words, while they could see and hear about others doing well, their situation either remained static, disimproved or only marginally improved.
One striking finding was the extent of poor health among the families in question. One in three households highlighted health problems in relation to children and parents also tended to suffer from ill health. People's chances of employment were also affected by their low income and the level of educational and other resources available to them was limited. This was a double relationship in that while incomes were low because of employment circumstances, equally, many people could not secure employment because of the low levels of educational qualification or other resources available to them.
A negative aspect of the lives of the families surveyed was their local environment. About a third of the respondents felt they did not get on well with their neighbours and almost half of the Dublin based households lived in fear of people who lived locally. Many of the adults felt bullied and picked upon and lone mothers, in particular, were very vulnerable in this regard as they felt their homes were more likely to be targeted because there was no man living with them.
The local areas also lacked amenities and services, there was a threat of burglary or attack and joyriding and drug misuse took place. Family relationships were cited as being crucial in helping people to keep going. However, lone mothers were particularly vulnerable and isolated because they lacked the support of a family and, in particular, a partner.
The study focused on the impact on children of living on a low income and 28 children aged between 11 and 16 years were interviewed. Children, too, valued their family with half of those interviewed expressing the view that their family was the best thing in their lives. The concerns of children were mainly about the pressures of trying to fit in with their peers. Wearing the right clothes was viewed as important in being accepted by their peers. This meant that, quite often, certain brand names had to be bought so the children might fit in. This had repercussions in terms of their experience at school, which, for many, was seen as a place of danger rather than of learning. One quarter of the children admitted that they had been bullied at school, often because they did not have brand name clothes or runners. Almost three quarters of the children had access to money on a regular basis. For some this was pocket money, but about one in five children actually earned some money, mainly from baby-sitting and other part-time jobs. Those who earned money actually contributed it to the household because they were very well aware that money was tight and that their parents were making sacrifices on their behalf.
Even though this is a depressing scenario in some ways, the conclusions of the study noted that there still remained a sense of optimism among the families that things could get better for them. A range of policy responses is required to ensure that that can happen. My colleague, Jim Walsh, will elaborate further on some of these policy responses.
I wish to outline a major Government response currently in place to tackle poverty in Ireland. It is the national anti-poverty strategy, entitled Building an Inclusive Society, which was launched last year by the Government. The strategy is a cross-departmental initiative and contains 36 targets to reduce poverty across the areas of welfare, employment, unemployment, education, health, housing and accommodation. It also sets targets for a number of vulnerable groups, including children and young people, women, older people, Travellers, people with disabilities, migrants and members of ethnic minority communities, and people living in disadvantaged urban and rural areas.
Some of the key targets are: to reduce the numbers of those who are consistently poor to below 2% and, if possible, to eliminate consistent poverty, which is currently at 6%, by 2007 - this applies also to the vulnerable groups; to monitor the level of relative income in line with European requirements and to achieve a minimum social welfare rate of €150 per week by 2007 and to ensure that child income support is at least one third of that rate; and to eliminate long-term unemployment.
The national anti-poverty strategy will be revised this year in line with the European requirement to submit a national plan focusing on poverty and social exclusion to Brussels by 2003. In order to monitor progress on what has happened in implementing the NAPS to date and trying to reduce poverty in Ireland, it is essential to have good information and data. We are therefore disappointed to hear one of the major instruments for monitoring poverty levels - the proposed survey of income and living conditions - will not go ahead this year because the resources are not available.
I thank the committee for its attention. I ask my colleague, Jim Walsh, to make a presentation on our analysis of the budget.
