This week's affirmation of the Government's commitment to reduce poverty further contained a warning note. It came in a speech by the Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Ms Mary Coughlan, at the publication of the annual report of the Combat Poverty Agency.
Referring to the substantial reduction in consistent or basic poverty between 1994 and 2000, Ms Coughlan said: "In these times of increased economic uncertainty it will be difficult to continue to make such dramatic progress but I am determined that we will continue to bring poverty levels down." The National Anti-Poverty Strategy includes commitments to reduce the incidence of consistent poverty to below two per cent of the population and to increase the lowest social welfare rates to €150 a week (at 2002 values) by 2007.
Ms Coughlan's restatement of the Government's commitment to reducing poverty levels can be taken to include these targets - but the warning note is there too and can reasonably be taken to mean that the commitment is by no means absolute. It would be a pity if these targets were not to be met. Economic uncertainty may be the order of the day but Ireland remains a wealthy nation, fundamentally sound in financial terms.
Something important has undoubtedly been achieved. The proportion of the population living in consistent poverty fell from 15 per cent to six per cent between 1994 and 2000. However, Ireland also remains an unequal society, since the proportion of people living in relative poverty rose from 16 per cent to 22 per cent in the period.
People living in consistent poverty cannot afford some basic household items. They are the "poor" in the old sense of the word. People living in relative poverty can afford basic items but cannot afford things that are taken for granted in society. They may be able to afford clothing - but they cannot afford the clothes their children want. An expense such as a First Communion or a Confirmation can mean entering into a crippling commitment to a moneylender.
The economy runs on the demand for something more than the basic necessities of life. Media marketing relentlessly tells children and adults that they must want, and get, the next new thing. So to say that 22 per cent of the population lives in relative poverty is as much as to say that almost one person in four is an exile in his or her own land.
How viable is such a society in the long run?