In her column in Saturday's Irish Times, Maev-Ann Wren raised the issues of poverty and inequality in our society. She is right to do so because we need an informed debate about how we handle the politics of success. But while I fully accept her bona fides in raising this issue, I believe her analysis is fundamentally wrong.

Maev-Ann challenges the Government's approach to reducing poverty. Let's be clear as to what we are talking about.

This Government has set a target of reducing the numbers living in consistent poverty to under 5 per cent by 2004, and the ultimate objective is to eliminate consistent poverty altogether. People living in "consistent poverty" have incomes below 60 per cent of the average household income and suffer from "basic deprivation".

That means, as Maev-Ann explains, they lack certain basic necessities. These are not identified by the Government or by researchers but are chosen by the people surveyed themselves. Changes in people's views of what constitutes a basic necessity are monitored over time.

This Government did not invent this definition; it was introduced by my predecessor, Proinsias De Rossa, on the advice of ESRI researchers, as being the most reliable measure of poverty.

Consistent poverty has fallen from 15 per cent in 1994 to under 10 per cent in 1997. And while we do not have more recent data from the ESRI, I understand the 1998 figures to be published later this year will show a further significant fall.

So when I say the Government is winning the battle against poverty, I am simply stating a fact. I believe there is a strong public consensus and agreement across all political parties that consistent poverty should be eliminated.

What Maev-Ann Wren refers to as "relative poverty", i.e., the number of people living below a certain proportion of average household income, is really much more a measure of income equality in society. And here, I believe, there is much less of a consensus about the appropriate distribution of resources.

I agree with Prof Brian Nolan of the ESRI when he says "a national poverty target has to be seen as broadly acceptable to the general public". And I agree with his assessment that "when deprivation is falling markedly, many people may not simply regard an increase in numbers falling below a relative income line as an unambiguous increase in poverty".

Over the 1980s, the distribution of disposable income to households remained broadly the same. But we had economic stagnation and mass unemployment.

Since the early 1990s, income distribution has widened. Now we have an economic boom and we have half a million people more in employment. These changes are not unrelated.

We have had to have a widening of income distribution to ensure it pays to work, to reward people for their skills, to ensure there is an incentive to take chances. This is not unique to Ireland.

Figures published in Britain only last week show that in the first two years of the New Labour government, the numbers falling below a relative income line also increased. But having achieved economic growth, the challenge for us now is to ensure the benefits are shared fairly.

And here, this Fianna Fail-led Government does take a different approach to the Opposition parties. Because we do not believe a fair distribution of resources can be achieved by mechanistic distribution through the social welfare system. To attempt this would just bring us back to the stagnation of the 1980s.

It can only be achieved by creating real equality of opportunity. And we have adopted a two-pronged approach to this. Firstly, we must invest in education and in employment so that all those who can work get decent jobs at decent wages. That's why we brought in the minimum wage, why we are investing massively in education, why we have reduced unemployment to such low levels. The best route out of poverty is a job. As a public representative for 21 years, working in an area with endemic unemployment, I have seen huge changes for the better.

The scourge of inter-generational unemployment and consequent poverty is, thankfully, by and large, a thing of the past. People who would not even be given a job interview because they came from a particular housing estate are now working.

Secondly, we must ensure proper social welfare support for those who cannot work. That's why we broke with the policies of the last decade to give significant increases to pensioners. That's why we are putting systems in place to ensure tomorrow's pensioners will also be properly supported.

Maev-Ann Wren is absolutely correct to raise these issues. Some in our society do appear to see inequality as something which is acceptable or even desirable. I do not. This Government does not. But we will not win any arguments by trying to convince people things are getting worse when the vast majority of our people believe the country is much better off than it was five years ago.

Maev-Ann is wrong to suggest the Government is focusing on the consistent poverty target, which Brian Nolan recently described as "a more reliable measure" of poverty, for political reasons. We are focusing on it because it is the best measure available and one which I believe has the public's support. She is also wrong to suggest we are not concerned about inequality in society. Under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, we are committed to a range of measures, from taxation to education, to healthcare, to setting new social inclusion targets, all of which will address issues of inequality.

We are, with the social partners, committed to building an inclusive society where everybody has the opportunity and the incentive to contribute to and benefit from our social and economic development.

Dermot Ahern is Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs