Dail Éireann · 2025-09-25
Part of Priority Questions
Party shown is the one held on 2025-09-25, frozen at parse time — not the speaker's party today.
82. Deputy Louise O'Reilly asked the Minister for Social Protection if he is aware that the measurement 'consistent poverty' obscures the full number of people both at risk of poverty and in material deprivation; if he is aware that 'consistent poverty' fails to account for housing costs; if he will consider using both 'material deprivation' and 'at risk of poverty after housing costs' as alternative measures for future national child poverty targets; if he will ensure all research commissioned on the topic of child poverty utilises both 'material deprivation' and 'at risk of poverty after housing costs' when measuring poverty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [50375/25]
The headline measure produced by this survey is consistent poverty, which combines income poverty and material deprivation. While there is no one measure that adequately captures all facets of poverty, the use of the headline consistent poverty measure is useful in that it combines both those at risk of income-based poverty and those facing deprivation through a lack of basic necessities. That is why the consistent poverty measure has long served as the national poverty benchmark.
People who are at risk of poverty or living in consistent poverty are not having the extent of that poverty measured because housing costs are not included in it. We have long used the consistent poverty measure as the national poverty benchmark.
Built by scoring every sentence in the debate on how distinctive its language is, then quoting the highest-scoring ones back word for word and in the order spoken. Nothing is paraphrased or invented — if a sentence appears here, it was said in the chamber. Drawn from 1,089 words across 8 contributions by 2 speakers.
How often each word appears across the whole debate, ranked by how distinctive it is to this debate rather than common to all parliamentary language.
All 8 contributions, start to finish, in the order they were made. The one you came here for is highlighted.
In keeping with my form, this question is fairly straightforward. It is to do with the use of the measurement of consistent poverty, which obscures the full number of people both at risk of poverty and in material deprivation. I hope the Minister tells me he will do what I am asking, which is to consider alternative measures. We all have an interest in tackling poverty but we cannot do that unless we are measuring it properly.
Gabhaim buíochas leis an Teachta as a ceist. Reducing child poverty is a key priority for the Government. I agree with the Deputy that it is important to use data that is complete, accurate and can be tracked over time. The data on poverty used by my Department is the official data the Central Statistics Office, CSO, publishes in its annual survey on income and living conditions, SILC. The headline measure produced by this survey is consistent poverty, which combines income poverty and material deprivation. The CSO also presents at risk of poverty data on a before and after housing costs basis and by tenure status.
These indicators, together with indicators on material deprivation, are relied on by my Department and reported annually in our social impact monitor, which tracks progress against the national poverty reduction targets. The Department also utilises the data from the minimum essential standard of living reports of the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice. We fully fund the partnership to produce those reports.
While there is no one measure that adequately captures all facets of poverty, the use of the headline consistent poverty measure is useful in that it combines both those at risk of income-based poverty and those facing deprivation through a lack of basic necessities. This dual approach gives us a valuable insight into the level of social inclusion in Ireland. That is why the consistent poverty measure has long served as the national poverty benchmark. It has been endorsed by the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, and is used for the national poverty target in the cross-government social inclusion strategy, the Roadmap for Social Inclusion 2020-2025.
As the Deputy knows, we recently announced a new child poverty target utilising the consistent poverty measure. I will be making the delivery of the new child poverty target of 3% or less, down from its current level of 8.5%, a key objective of the new roadmap for social inclusion action plan to be published in 2026. I am also currently prioritising measures to address child poverty in consideration of budget 2026. I hope that clarifies the position for the Deputy.
The problem is that the level of children in consistent poverty is currently 8.5%, that figure having doubled since 2024. However, the consistent poverty measure, in and of itself, does not account for housing costs. The Minister and I both know that for reasons of Government policy, housing costs are out of control. People who are at risk of poverty or living in consistent poverty are not having the extent of that poverty measured because housing costs are not included in it. These are people who are forced to pay among the highest rents in Europe. If we look at the study from Barnardos, the parents are saying that by the time they pay for housing, in particular, and energy, the cost of which, again, is among the highest in Europe and we are told no energy credits are coming, they have nothing left at the end of the week. If the Minister is not taking housing into consideration, he is missing that key measurement. He said these measurements are relied on by his Department for the actions it takes. It needs to be measuring all the things that contribute to kids living in poverty.
I absolutely agree with the Deputy that we need accurate figures. We have long used the consistent poverty measure as the national poverty benchmark.
The recently agreed child poverty target of 3% or less is based on the consistent poverty measure, which is the critical measure of child poverty because it captures income-related and deprivation-related aspects. In addition, we use CSO data on the financial burden of housing costs, while poverty rates by tenure status are reported annually in our social impact monitor. That also tracks progress against national poverty reduction targets. Any approach to measuring poverty rates after housing costs should take into account the supports available through HAP and rent supplement.
We are preparing a new roadmap for social inclusion for 2026 to 2030 and considering the inclusion of CSO SILC data on the at-risk-of-poverty rate before and after housing as an indicator for the new roadmap. I am happy to engage with the Deputy and the social protection committee as we finalise that documentation for publication in early 2026.
Is that the dashboard that will be published in early 2026?
No, it is the new roadmap for inclusion.
Maybe when he comes back in, the Minister can tell me when the dashboard, which will allegedly contain a number of child poverty measurements, will be available. I know it will come from the child poverty unit so is not, strictly speaking, the Minister's Department, but I am sure it will be involved in it. Here is my difficulty. The consistent poverty rate for children is running at 8.5%, double what it was in 2024. When we add in housing costs, we find that 17.6% of children were at risk of poverty in 2024. The Minister is missing a key part of what he should be tackling. I welcome the fact the Minister is open to considering housing costs. They have to be considered. When looking at the whole picture, of course any supports available will be included in that. The doubling in the figure from 8.5% to 17.6% means there is potentially a significant number not being captured.
I will revert to the Deputy on the dashboard. There is huge work under way to make it as inclusive and measurable as possible. The unit is open to suggestions on what should be part of the dashboard. It is crucial it be used as a cross-governmental measure. We are looking at the whole area of housing costs. Depending on tenure and on whether a person owns or is renting, it can have a different impact on the figures. We are going through all of that with a view to making a decision on it as we prepare the social inclusion roadmap. That should be published in the first quarter of 2026.