Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

——and I am sure the House will join me in expressing sincere appreciation for her outstanding contribution not only to her job but also in highlighting the aims and objectives of the alliance in the public arena. I wish her successor well. I have no doubt that as a result of her strong identification with the alliance she will continue to have a valuable input into its procedures and activities.

In opposing the section I could say I have nothing further to add to the debate, but I want to draw attention to the following remarks as an extra justification for my opposition, for which I am grateful to the Minister, the leader of the Labour Party, the Tánáiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, and the Labour Party. They stated:

Enough is enough. Families cannot take any more. If you look at any of the studies that have been done on poverty, the people in our population who are worst affected are children. The cutting of child benefit makes that worse. There are a lot of big houses around the country where there is very little money because people are at the pin of their collar paying their mortgages. Child benefit is a critical income support to put food on the table. Any further cut in child benefit would be a genuine crisis. It is the State's only recognition that Ireland remains a very expensive place to raise a child and if the Minister were to cut child benefit it would be creating poverty traps, work disincentives and increase the number of children in poverty.

All of these quotes were made before, during and subsequent to the general election.

Where does the Minister stand in her defence of the proposed cuts and reductions? These quotes are the reason so many are angry about these measures, not so much because of the cuts proposed but because they were led to have such high expectations in the past nine months that there would not be any adverse impact on child benefit. It may be somewhat embarrassing, but I was on the other side of the House for many years when similar quotes were made by party colleagues. It reminds me of the famous dictum of Sean Lemass who said that once an election was over, all promises made were not valid. However, the question about the justification for these measures remains. The Minister will say it all has to do with the economic position and that we must make cuts somewhere, but these measures cut to the core of the Bill because it is such a sensitive issue.

An aspect that interests me, into which Senator Jillian van Turnhout went in some detail, is that we have the highest birth rate in Europe. In that context, the Government's philosophy should be to encourage and support people to have families because of the high fertility rate and perhaps because child benefit is not seen as being as important in other parts of Europe. If the Minister wanted to cut the benefit, there were other ways of using the money available or getting money elsewhere to provide child support within families.

The significant increase in child benefit granted by the two previous Fianna Fáil Administrations from 1997 to 2002 and particularly 2002 to 2007 was astonishing. It is extraordinary when one looks at the figures. Thankfully, I was able to support my family of five because I was in this job which provided most of my income. During that period my wife, Sheila, and I often talked about the significant increases granted and considered that we probably could afford not to take all of the money being given. We could look to those on high incomes of €100,000 plus a year, a suggestion made repeatedly in the debate.

There is considerable wealth in the country. This remains one of the top three or four wealthiest countries in Europe. Therefore, why is there not a philosophy within the Government to address the issue? Is it that, as there are only two women in the Cabinet, as Senator Mary White eloquently put it, there is not the critical mass to convince the male members of the Cabinet of the need for a more balanced sense of parity of esteem, as quoted by my Sinn Féin colleagues in another context? This does not seem to inculcate the thinking of the Government or the Department of Finance. We could be debating today and more than likely agreeing to increases in the tax rate for those on very high incomes, a tax on the wealth that is unquestionably still within the country, as proved by the statistics. Like everybody else, I ask where that wealth is to be found when one sees families and those on the margins of society struggling. One wonders where it is to be found, given our economic position vis-À-vis the rest of Europe, but the statistics do not lie. The money is available.

I recall the Minister, when in opposition, railing against the various tax shelters and tax breaks and asking why the wealthy in our society were not being more responsible. That is not just about the euros being taken from the third and subsequent children, it is about a philosophy and a Government approach to this issue.

I am glad that the Minister is a caring Minister, but she also has something that is lacking in the political class in all parties, namely, a vision. It is evident from listening to her both on Second Stage and again today that she has a vision of a social welfare culture. We should hear some philosophy from her based on the contributions she has heard so far and those she will probably hear before this section is decided. This debate is about whether we will continue to protect those who need protection or whether we will go after those who can afford to pay more tax. The Minister has heard the arguments from both sides of the House. My wife and I are raising five children — our eldest has flown the nest and we have four at home — but in my position I would not object to an increase, even though I am not in the €100,000 plus a year category. Surely those who are in this category are the ones we should go after. It would not act as a disincentive to creating wealth. That is a Republican Party philosophy that seems to have come from across the Atlantic — do not touch those who are wealthy because they will drive capital out of the country. When I lived in London in my early 20s, the talk was that if the Labour Party was elected — it was mainly Tory Governments which were in power during that period — capital would fly out of the country and that if the Tories were elected, capital would flow back into it. It was nonsense and a smokescreen.

Although I am not dealing specifically with the rate cuts——