Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 14 December 2006
12 Mr. Eamon Ryan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his view on the findings of the recent EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions especially the revelation that 18.5% of persons were at risk of poverty in 2005 meaning that they lived on or below the poverty threshold which was as little as €192.74. [43242/06]
Amharc ar fhreagra49 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on whether the Government will deliver on the pledge in its Programme for Government to reduce the level of consistent poverty to 2%, in view of the fact that the latest figures show 7% were ranked as living in poverty. [43250/06]
Amharc ar fhreagra57 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the recent UN Development Programme Human Development Report for 2006, published on 9 November 2006, particularly the finding that Ireland ranks seventeenth out of 18 rich countries for poverty levels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43120/06]
Amharc ar fhreagra73 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his views on the accuracy of recent figures produced by the Central Statistics Office showing 7% of the population currently in consistent poverty and 18.5% at risk of poverty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43117/06]
Amharc ar fhreagra105 Mr. Penrose asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will confirm that there was a meeting between his Department and officials from the Central Statistics Office at which his Department was told that the level of consistent policy is approaching a floor and that it is unlikely to be lowered significantly further; if his Department was further advised that it was unlikely that the Government target for consistent poverty of 2% would be met without changes in Government policies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43116/06]
Amharc ar fhreagra113 Mr. Broughan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the basis in which he believes the UN poverty index is misleading; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43121/06]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 12, 49, 57, 73, 105 and 113 together.
The annual EU Survey on Income and Living Conditions (EU–SILC), which commenced in Ireland in 2003, is conducted by the Central Statistics Office (CSO) and provides information on poverty, deprivation and social exclusion. The most recent results, for the year 2005, record continuing positive trends in relation to poverty and social exclusion, and show the impact being made by the greatly increased resources now devoted to social welfare and other social services. For example, the survey revealed that there has been a significant decrease in consistent poverty rates for lone parent households from 31.1 per cent to 27.2 per cent, a drop in consistent poverty levels for people with disabilities from 21.7 per cent to 17.4 per cent, and a substantial drop in the number of older people at risk of poverty from 27.1 per cent in 2004 to 20.1 per cent in 2005. Also reflected in the findings is the impact of employment in ensuring that people achieve a good standard of living, with only 1.7 per cent of people at work experiencing consistent poverty.
These latest survey results show that the overall rate of consistent poverty in 2005, at 7 per cent, has remained relatively unchanged from the rate in 2004. However, because of methodological differences between the EU-SILC survey and the earlier Living in Ireland Survey (LIIS), used when setting the original NAPS target of 2 per cent consistent poverty, it will not be possible to conclude with certainty whether this target will have been reached by 2007.
It is considered unlikely, however, that the actual situation regarding consistent poverty would have deteriorated during the years covered by the new EU-SILC survey, as there were no policy changes that would have brought about a reversal of the earlier downward trend in consistent poverty recorded under the LIIS survey. On the contrary, significant improvements in social welfare rates and in services have been made during this time and the EU-SILC results since 2003 would suggest that the downward trend that was apparent in the LIIS has continued. The low levels of unemployment, and the substantial resources devoted to social welfare and other social services which have been increasing in real terms since 1997 are bringing about this downward trend. In recent years 250,000 people, including 100,000 children, have been lifted out of deprivation and hardship since 1997 as a result of concentrated and targeted measures and supports.
The meeting referred to was an informal technical briefing given by officials from the Central Statistics Office to public sector policy analysts from a number of relevant Departments at the time of the launch on 16 November of the latest results from EU-SILC. I am advised that, at the briefing, the CSO outlined the main results from the survey and provided responses to queries on particular aspects of the results. In relation to the consistent poverty measure, the CSO advised that the understanding of the deprivation questions by respondents to the survey, and their resultant pattern of response, must be taken into account in interpreting current and likely future movements in the measure as monitored by the EU SILC. In particular, the CSO officials drew attention to the finding that, even at relatively high levels of income, some survey respondents reported basic deprivation to questions used to assess the possible existence of consistent poverty amongst those on low incomes. Accordingly, the CSO formed the view that, in the survey environment, it may be unrealistic to expect that those on the lowest incomes would report ‘zero' or ‘close to zero' deprivation levels. In other words it was suggested there may be survey related reasons to conclude that the consistent poverty measure, as currently constructed and measured, may not fall below a certain ‘floor' level.
The issue of selecting the most appropriate poverty reduction measures and targets is currently being considered in the context of formulation of the next National Action Plan for social inclusion (NAPinclusion), which I will launch early in the New Year. This consideration will of course be informed by the EU-SILC survey results and by the subsequent analysis of these results by the CSO, which I have referred to. My main aim is to come up with an agreed measure which will help to give a clear, realistic and objective picture of progress being made to tackle poverty and social exclusion and of the effectiveness of Government policies in this regard.
I have previously expressed my concerns regarding the methodology employed by the UN when creating its Human Poverty Index, one of the measures contained in the UN Human Development Report. The latest report ranks Ireland 17th out of 18 high-income OECD countries on the Human Poverty Index, one of the key determinants of which is the ‘at risk of poverty' measure. The finding is simply not credible. While the latest EU-SILC results do show that our ‘at risk of poverty' rates are falling, I continue to believe that this measure gives a misleading impression of poverty as ‘at risk of poverty' levels are affected by increases in incomes generally. During periods of high economic growth increases in household income can outstrip even substantial increases in the incomes of households with relatively low earnings or on social welfare. This is precisely what happened in Ireland in recent years where increases in household incomes were substantially higher than increases both in individual earnings and social welfare incomes over this period, despite virtually unprecedented improvements in employment and social provision across the board
Furthermore, a recent analysis in the prominent journal "Development and Transition", published by the UN Development Programme and the London School of Economics and Political Science, insisted that relative poverty indicators cannot be used for international comparisons unless countries are similar in their level of economic development. Overall, it concluded that reliance on the ‘at risk of poverty' indicator causes a number of problems. It distorts the reality of Ireland's exceptional economic performance over several years and the significant progress that has been consequentially possible in confronting and tackling poverty.
While different reports can cause confusion, we have undoubtedly made real progress in reducing poverty levels and in promoting social inclusion. However, there are still unacceptable levels of hardship and deprivation among the most vulnerable groups in the population. The priority of Government for the next NAPinclusion will be on providing targeted supports and services so that ultimately we can eradicate poverty from society. The recent Budget 2007 package, containing the largest ever figure for social welfare expenditure of €15.3 billion, is clear evidence of our commitment in this regard.
