A quarter of EU citizens are at risk of poverty. This includes 27 per cent of all children in Europe, 20 per cent of those over 65 and nine per cent of those with a job. A lot is said and many quote these figures but it is high time that legislators and policymakers, whether at an EU or a national level, heed the message that lies behind numbers.
Yes, figures do impress because they are telling us we have allowed a situation in which more than a quarter of our children risk facing poverty and because they also show that having a job alone does not save you from such a risk.
Statistics indicate other facts, including that 12 million more women than men are living in poverty, 10 per cent of Europeans live in households where no one has a job and that close to nine per cent of all Europeans live in severe material deprivation.
This is the situation at EU level but reality at a national level is nothing to be proud of either. Malta has 65,000 persons living at risk of poverty or in poverty and 99,000 are also socially excluded.
Causes of poverty are several and differ from one person’s situation to another. Among those 65,000 Maltese and the 24 per cent of all Europeans one will find a myriad of reasons. It is imperative that legislators and policymakers find out what these causes are.
Most simply stop at the numbers, but fighting poverty requires legislators and policymakers who seek to reverse those numbers. Doing so requires a diagnosis, an understanding of what causes one to end up being at risk of poverty and taking action to directly address such causes.
It also takes courage to realise that some of the causes are directly or indirectly linked to policies and legislation or the lack of them.
There are times when we address poverty situations temporarily, thereby pausing the cycle for any one person or family at risk of poverty but we do not eradicate it. A person at risk of poverty because of the death of the breadwinner, indebtedness and the difficulty of finding employment does not only require better and more job opportunities. A number of factors would be involved, not least questioning the indebtedness and the reasons for dependence on one income earner.
It is high time that legislators and policymakers, whether at an EU or a national level, heed the message that lies behind numbers
There would be other reasons why a person would still be at risk of poverty despite being in employment. It could be an illness, lack of financial management skills, difficulties in setting financial priorities, disparities between minimum salaries or conditions of work and the necessities of a basic dignified lifestyle.
Legislators and policymakers must be aware of these causes. It is in understanding how being at risk of poverty comes about that they can then take action to keep such risk at bay. It may well be time to have social impact assessments, increase funding to address the issue while, at the same time, ensuring such money is well spent, ensure inclusiveness in education and health, see that one’s rights are respected and services are available to all.
Now, inclusiveness in education does not mean the minister should have access to a child’s information to address such student specifically. However, it must mean that the minister ensures that the education system is one that is not only truly open to all but also supported by such structures and professionals that can identify a child who is exposed to factors which cause poverty and assist that child and also those responsible for his/her care. Once such structures are in place, the identity of the child is irrelevant to the minister.
Direction on how to identify and address causes of poverty can be provided at EU level but member states need to take courageous action at a national level. It would be naive for anyone to think that social impact assessments, inclusiveness and accessibility do not come at a financial cost. However, exclusion, lack of accessibility and prejudicing groups in society as a result of policies and action taken carry a hefty social cost which, in the end, translates into a financial burden.
At EU level, funding can be made available to member states to help alleviate the financial cost that a change of mentality to one of inclusiveness and accessibility and pro-social impact assessments entails.
Member states must not only be pushed to take up such financial assistance but it is imperative that the EU would be satisfied that the action taken by member states benefiting from such funding is not only adequate but one that really makes a difference.
What impresses me is action that addresses and reverses poverty and not figures and mere chit-chat.
Therese Comodini Cachia is a Nationalist MEP.