Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)

I thank the Minister and his staff for the briefing they gave Members last night. I found it very helpful.

I welcome the increases which are being given effect through this Bill. However, in reality all they do is maintain what is already one of the largest gaps between rich and poor in the EU. While many people have undoubtedly benefited from increased wages and higher living standards over the past decade, the CORI justice commission estimates that the gap between rich and poor has increased by €294 per week, solely as a result of budgetary changes between 1997 and 2004. Between those years, a couple dependent on long-term unemployment assistance saw their income grow by €89.73 per week, while a couple with a joint income of €100,000 benefited to the tune of €676.08 as a result of budgetary changes. Despite the Government allegedly seeking the advice of people like Fr. Seán Healy, the latest budget will do very little to reverse that trend. In fact the gap has widened as a consequence. As a result of changes made by the Minister for Finance in the budget, a couple dependent on long term unemployment assistance is €23.30 per week better off, while the income of a couple with a joint income of £100,000 increases by €63.43. Overall, the income gap between the better off and the poor will widen by €30.93 per week. That has led to a situation in which the top 20% of Ireland's highest earners receive four and a half times more than the bottom 20%. In Denmark the gap is 3.1% and the difference can be attributed to a more proactive policy in Denmark in taking measures that will reduce that gap. Denmark has also managed to do this while maintaining a low level of unemployment, which stood at 5.1% at the end of 2004, well below the average for the EU. While this state had a lower overall rate of unemployment than Denmark, the Danes had a lower rate of unemployment for workers under the age of 25. What this proves is that taking measures to address poverty does not necessarily have the dire consequences predicted by some right wing commentators here.

A report on the social situation in the European Union identified one of the reasons for the poverty gap as a lower spend on job training, start-up schemes and programmes to integrate the disabled into the workforce. This state currently invests less than 2% of GDP on such initiatives.

I will give an example from the area of job training and applications. I dealt with a young man yesterday who had applied to his local employment exchange and was told that he was not actively seeking work. This young man has had various drink and drug problems but is now off drugs completely. He has tried to get work on building sites and elsewhere. The difficulty he has, which is probably the same for many other young people, is that he has never been taught in school or anywhere else how to actively seek work. That gap needs to be filled. We have FÁS schemes and so on but we regularly hear of young people who have applied for perhaps 20 jobs and are still being told by the local employment exchanges that they are not actively seeking work. Training in job application is therefore essential.

The choice is simple. Does the State simply maintain those dependent on social welfare on low rates of income which ensure that they become increasingly marginalised and isolated from the rest of society, or does it actively seek to narrow the income gap while at the same time taking measures to incorporate as many of those on social welfare as possible into the workforce? In doing so it must also ensure that those in employment are given an adequate living wage and in that regard it has been estimated that up to a fifth of those in employment are living in poverty defined as an income of less than 60% of the average industrial wage. In that context I record my support for the increase in the minimum wage being sought by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

I do not accept the theory that people on social welfare can be forced into employment by maintaining barely adequate levels of payment, nor do I accept that they ought then to be satisfied with wages at subsistence levels that in many instances cannot provide people with a decent standard of living. That, more than arguing over marginal increases in social welfare, is the real issue in this society.

No one advocates a system in which people are condemned to life on social welfare. "Condemned" is the word, given the marginal existence forced on people in that situation. The longer one is on social assistance or welfare, the more difficult it is to break out of it and the more the poverty bites.

One of the means by which people can escape poverty and social welfare dependency is through education. With regard to single parents, the 2002 census found that a mere 0.5% of those over 15 involved in full time education were single parents. One of the ways this was being addressed was through the back to education grant, but the spurious changes made by the former Minister for Social, Community and Family Affairs, Deputy Coughlan, which reduced the period for which people could qualify for the grant, have made it much less effective. I talked recently to representatives from Aontas, the adult education group, Combat Poverty and so on and none of them had any experience of the so-called "educational tourists". The Minister says the problem exists and I accept his word on that but I have had no experience of it. The Minister brought the period back to 12 months but that is still a full academic year.

I urge the Minister to reconsider the situation. If we are serious about getting people out of the poverty trap, education must be the way forward. Figures showing that single mothers have much lower levels of educational attainment prove that it is a major factor in condemning those mothers and their children to a life of poverty and social welfare dependency. Surely the most effective way to address this, and to ensure that fewer people find themselves in that position in the future is to increase the current levels of investment in educational schemes aimed at that group.

The mentality whereby education is somehow perceived as a means by which people avoid work must be eradicated, and people given a chance and not treated with suspicion when they apply for such schemes. This is particularly important where single mothers are attempting to access such schemes as this can provide a valuable role model for their own children. Far from imposing a burden on the State, investment in the back to education scheme will in the long run prove to be cost effective in helping people access employment and in fostering a culture in which more people perceive the value of education.

The Minister will be aware that main barriers to single parents returning to education are the cost of child care and the lack of transport and finance. The Government has not addressed any of these barriers. I was pleased to note that the Minister has rejected recent suggestions that single mothers chose dependency on the lone parent allowance as a career option. I also welcome the Minister's proposal that education and work opportunities should be prioritised as the means through which single mothers will achieve a better lifestyle. However, any changes to the lone parent allowance must not be made in a way that will penalise people who currently find themselves dependent on that allowance.

While the increase in child benefit by €10 per month will be welcomed by those for whom it is a vital and important part of their income, it has to be pointed out once more that the Government has failed to meet the target which it set of €149 per month by 2005. The Minister did not refer to that missed target in his contribution earlier. It is estimated that some 66,000 children live in poverty and this increase will not contribute to any reduction in that figure.

I welcome the Minister's recognition that poverty still exists and that the theory of the rising tide lifting all boats is not good enough. However, that recognition and the marginal increases introduced, must be set against the overall record of a Government that has consistently favoured the wealthy in this society above those who live on the margins. Only when a definite decision is made to reverse that thinking and to actively seek to reduce the growing poverty gap, will those forced to live in poverty begin to see an improvement in their position.

See this speech in context