Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

The Bill's timing and much of its contents are almost automatic in that they form part of the annual legislative programme. However, its timing is useful when combined with the ongoing controversy about The Irish Times' recent opinion piece, a term that is fast becoming an oxymoron because who would want an opinion like that.

This week, the One Family Group highlighted the role of such families and the type of support the State should offer them. In addition, a recent presentation by the End Child Poverty Coalition to the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs put poverty and those affected by it into context, as well as focusing on the role of the State, if any, in counteracting poverty.

The Minister's speech contained a phrase which may have been unintentional but seemed to signify something that encapsulates the Government's philosophy. He said the Department's role, and indeed his own, is to stop the descent towards poverty. That phrase, however, indicates a lack of belief that poverty exists on an ongoing basis in any case. It also amounts to holding up one's hands and stating that many in society are in a downward spiral. I do not believe that is the Minister's belief but the phraseology indicates a type of thinking within the Department and the Government that must be challenged.

Poverty — it is a relative poverty — is a reality in Ireland. Recent EU reports have stated that 23% of children are either living in poverty or at risk of doing so. There are similar statistics relating to women. It seems that the young, the elderly and women in particular are more at risk of becoming poor in our society. While that is the challenge facing the Government, I am afraid it is also the effect of ongoing Government policies. Those policies may not all be attributable to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs but we need to recognise that whatever the Minister and his Department try to do, other policies are being effected by other Ministers and Departments that are pulling the Government in the opposite direction. The proof is that the disparity between wealth and poverty in Ireland is greater than in other European countries. As the economy grows, those statistics appear, sadly, to be worsening rather than improving. Until someone explains to me how that circle can be squared by the Government, I will continue to presume that the policies being followed will make the situation worse.

Child benefit is the first issue dealt with in the legislation. The Government continues to trumpet about the fourfold increase in child benefit but it is still less than the commitment entered into by the Government in social partnership agreements. This gives a lie to the assertion that children are being treated better than others in society.

I refer to the debate on the Kevin Myers article and his colourful use of language and, more importantly, the original lecture by Dr. Ed Walsh, which was much more insulting, as it was portrayed as a pseudo-intellectualism that belied a sense of the reality of being a lone parent with one child living on €168.10 a week. When Dr. Walsh is hosting dinners and fundraising for the University of Limerick, those who make donations pay that for the wine bill alone, yet people must live on this amount every week of the year. We must not tolerate this lack of reality, which does not relate to how people must conduct their lives. Child benefit, prior to the decision relating to Irish-born children of asylum seekers, was a universal payment but it does not tackle the issue of poverty among one-parent families.

The Bill seeks to assert the Government is meeting the needs of carers. There has been a wide ranging and successful lobby in this area but the limited measures proposed by the Minister will only bring 1,000 additional carers into the net while 2,500 will benefit from the increase in respite care. The Government should be honest enough to admit these increases go nowhere near covering the number of carers recognised by the Carers Association. The Government needs to be more radical in its proposals.

The disability allowance for people living in institutions is presented as an advance. Although these people were entitled to the payment in the past, they did not receive it. I am concerned about inequity between people who receive the full rate and those living in institutions who will receive a new reduced rate. Given the Supreme Court decision on the Health (Amendment) Bill 2004 earlier, this issue of discriminatory payments needs to be examined closely on Committee Stage. I wonder whether the provision of such payments might tempt the State to give with one hand and grab more with the other, as it did in regard to nursing home care.

The legislation also covers occupational pensions and the Minister stated he would pay more attention to this issue during his stewardship of the Department. While there is a need to encourage people to make extra provision for their retirement, I fear that insurance companies and investment trusts are leading the debate to create a sense of panic, as they assert that invested-led pension schemes are better than sinking fund pension schemes. The promotion of one over the other means there is a fear State provision will be reduced in the future. I do not want that to happen and that will ultimately be self-defeating.

Domestic pension fund managers performed worse than the market in the past year while the national pension fund is not meeting its targets. If inflation and the cost of administering the national fund are taken into account, it is questionable whether it has made money. That is why the emphasis on sinking pension funds and State provision should be increased. It is incredible that the value of concessions on private pension arrangements is greater than State pension provision. That is a sad state of affairs. If the Minister wishes to encourage such activity, he will not have my support or that of my party.

He also indicated there is potential to encourage foreign pension funds to establish in Ireland. While this would provide employment opportunities, questions need to be asked about where this money is invested. For example, is it invested in armaments or environmentally sustainable goods? If such industries are encouraged and we turn a blind eye to these activities, the wealth generated will scar us all and it will not ultimately benefit future generations.

See this speech in context