Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

The consolidation of any legislation is always to be welcomed. It should be undertaken in far more areas. As Deputy Penrose has said, difficulties arise in the consolidation of legislation if there is in place a set of principles that subsequently proves to be difficult to adapt and modify without the introduction of new legislation. If one examines the trend that is developing as we commence the third consolidation of social welfare legislation, it seems that another dozen years will pass before we get a chance to consolidate it again.

In this Bill, we are setting in stone the principles which underpin the social welfare system. While we would like to pretend otherwise, it seems, unfortunately, that the system continues to be informed by the Victorian notion of the deserving poor. We categorise people and ask them to jump through hoops to justify their poverty and their degree of need. The Bill before the House represents an opportunity to introduce an entitlement-led system of social welfare, as we should have done before now. I favour a system that offers a safety net to people who have a temporary need for social welfare, rather than a system that places a social stigma on them.

Thrusting capitalism is a feature of contemporary Irish society in the wake of the Celtic tiger. It is hard to determine the exact nature of the underlying philosophy of the Government of this era. It seems to move from favouring rampant capitalism to favouring socialism or social capitalism, which is the Taoiseach's preferred model of today. The values articulated in the writings of Professor Robert D. Putnam, the latest guru by whom the Taoiseach professes to put his store, are as far removed as possible from the basic tenets of our social welfare system.

National and international organisations, including UNICEF and Barnardo's, have published statistics about the reality of poverty in Ireland today. The statistics suggest that the nature of our society is not as it should be. According to the ESRI, Ireland has a high level of relative poverty. I do not intend to start that debate with the Minister again, other than to state that many of our citizens are failing to maintain 50% or 60% of average income levels in their everyday circumstances. The ESRI has also stated that a tiny downward adjustment in Ireland's economic circumstances would lead to up to 400,000 of our citizens being exposed to relative poverty. Many of those people belong to vulnerable groups in society, such as senior citizens, the very young, women and people who are disabled. In such circumstances, we need to add something more appropriate than this Bill and the overall proposals emerging from the Minister and his colleagues to the general body of social welfare legislation.

As it strives to introduce real reform, I would have hoped the Government would have tried to eliminate the poverty traps caused by the welfare system itself. It is quite Dickensian that means testing, which is a crude mechanism, provides that a person who has one penny too much is happy and a person who has one penny too little is in misery. Many people's application for certain entitlements are refused because they are slightly above a means test level or their circumstances have changed. Why has the Government decided not to introduce staged or staggered payments? People should be able to receive 90%, 80% or 70% of the maximum payment if their circumstances change. We need such imaginative measures if people are to have confidence in the social welfare system.

This Bill represents a missed opportunity to integrate the social welfare system with the taxation system in the manner that is necessary. The Green Party has articulated the need for refundable tax credits to be used, where possible. It has indicated that such credits can be used to respond to difficulties in the child care system or to assist carers. They can be used imaginatively, even in areas we still depend on to meet most of our social services, such as in the declining use of volunteerism, for example. Yet, there has not been that type of innovative thinking a Department of its size and annual expenditure should bring forward when bringing about the type of change needed.

There is a political cost to leaving open the question of whether social welfare payments can and should increase in any given annual Social Welfare Bill. The Minister would like to retain that power. The ability to introduce increases above the rate of inflation must be admitted for recent years but that will not be possible every year. I would like a situation whereby the consolidated legislation puts formulas in place so all social welfare payments would be index linked. I accept this can only be achieved when the Government comes close to meeting the national partnership recommendation that social welfare payments and State pensions should somehow be linked to the average household income, which it is still a long way from achieving.

The issue of pensions is a major area the Minister has tried to address recently. However, given that this is a consolidated Bill drawn up following work with other Departments, it should have been clearer and more innovative. It is a scandal that the State pays more in deferred tax payments to people who are better off in their retirement years than is paid to those most in need of pensions because of their dependence on State pensions. I see nothing to suggest the Government is prepared to tackle this anomaly in the system. Not only has the economic success of the past ten years brought about a division between the very wealthy and those without in our society — those who cannot aspire to reach the average never mind the higher sums of wealth available — but Government policy is perpetrating inequality into the retirement years and until the eventual death of many of our citizens. The Minister for Social and Family Affairs has a responsibility to tell his colleague at the Department of Finance before budget day and the subsequent Social Welfare Bill to begin tackling this anomaly because it cannot persist. Not only is it unfair, it is unsustainable in the long run, which the Minister realises.

My next point also refers to index linking but particularly to energy. The resumption of this debate was preceded by questions to the Minister for Finance, including on the ongoing concern about the rise in energy costs. Deputy Penrose referred to the fact the fuel allowance has been removed from people living in sheltered housing, which will have a detrimental effect. The fuel allowance has not increased since 2002 — a period of the highest fluctuation in fuel prices, which have risen by more than one-third. There is an onus on the Minister to address this matter in the forthcoming Social Welfare Bill and the budget, if he has the opportunity.

On a related matter, given that child dependant allowance has remained unchanged since 1994 — its existence is being set in concrete in this Bill — and given the tiny take-up of family income supplement, Government policies in regard to family support are failing, unfortunately. Not only is there a problem in that people who must work two jobs to pay high mortgages are not able to support their own families in the ideal situation on that end of the wealth scale, there is also a problem in that those who for other reasons choose to remain at home with children are offered the minimum of support from the State. There is a series of contradictions and missed opportunities which, unfortunately, this consolidation Bill is setting in stone. I hope these anomalies will not exist when the next consolidation Bill is before us.

See this speech in context