Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

I value the opportunity to contribute to this debate. It is obvious the Government has allowed this debate to give it an opportunity to talk up its own performance by using figures that reflect well on its policies. In doing so, the Government has opened up the risk of straying into the territory of statistics, damned statistics and lies. The use of statistics as a cold instrument only tells us so much about the nature of the society in which we live. It is undoubtedly true that Ireland is changing significantly and we need to manage that change. However, these statistics do not show the whole picture of the nature of life in Ireland these days. Even taken as measurements of economic success, they are undermined by a fair degree of analysis that shows they are not as effective as the Government claims. The Minister for Finance spoke recently of the 95,000 extra jobs that appeared in the economy in the past year alone. Yet 95,000 people have not yet come within the tax net, indicating that the jobs provided pay around the minimum wage. It is quite likely that many of these jobs are part-time, or are subject to short term contracts and more likely to be filled by women rather than men.

On a social level, we need better measurements to figure out whether these are useful statistics. The Taoiseach seems to have taken an interest in the notion of social capital and the works of Mr. Robert Putnam. If he is serious about what is contained in such works, there is an onus on him and the Government to present better information to this House and to society as to what exactly is meant by social capital. How is it measured? To what extent is it valuable? Can we use it to find out if we are an improving society? As a member of the Green Party, I feel the statistics should be examined in a more holistic sense to gauge the sustainability of the society in which we live. In recent years, we started to introduce national environmental accounts, but they are examined in isolation by the few who are interested in their relevance and how they might be used to inform public policy.

What about the physical change in our society? If we took advantage of the Government jet, flew over the country and took an aerial photograph, the mess of our national spatial strategy would be all too apparent. Examples include the overloaded eastern seaboard, the under populated western seaboard and the fact that in the living of their everyday lives, people do not feel better off for being better off. These are failures of the Government and are not, as its members keep suggesting, the consequences of success. It is the failure to plan effectively in the past for which we are now paying a price. We will continue to pay a price for it unless the Government is able to put in place effective measures so that we can enjoy a good quality of life here. I fear that such far-sightedness is lacking in this Government because we are caught up in an electoral cycle where people do not think beyond the next election.

However, there are issues on which we should take a consensual approach, such as the social as well as the economic effects of the use of fossil fuels. We should take a ten, 20 or even 50 year approach to such issues, but the Government is not prepared to think in such terms due to its own political needs. Even though we have come to terms with the existence and the use of oil in our society, the social cost being paid by the poor and the elderly is due to a lack of proper planning, which is regrettable.

Future debates should be more rounded and not have such a self-congratulatory tone. It would be more to the benefit of the House and the people we serve if that was the case.

See this speech in context