Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, lines 11 to 16, to delete all words from and including ", TO PROVIDE" in line 11 down to and including "1986" in line 16.

The Labour Party strongly opposes the proposal to abolish the Combat Poverty Agency. We have discussed this on previous occasions. It is incredible that the first agency to be the target of cuts should be the Combat Poverty Agency, a body that has done a significant amount of valuable work over more than 20 years.

It was set up as an independent agency to conduct research into the area and to take a much more concerted approach to the issue of poverty. Rather than mere generalisation, one of its principal functions was to engage in evidence-based research which was made available to the Minister.

Another function, which was critical, was to create public awareness of the issues surrounding poverty, the causes of poverty and the way in which it can be effectively tackled. That is probably one of the most important functions the Combat Poverty Agency has performed in recent years. It is something of which I suppose we all need to be reminded on a regular basis.

We have come through a period where there was much personal satisfaction with increased levels of wealth, etc., and much emphasis on everybody having a great time. Encouraged by the then Minister for Finance, Mr. Charlie McCreevy, it was all about partying on and spend, spend, spend. In the context of that kind of frenzy, it was more important than ever to have the Combat Poverty Agency to remind people that, irrespective of the booming economy, there were significant levels of poverty within society and steps needed to be taken to tackle them.

The Minister went about setting up a review group to look at the options. That review group recommended two options and, of course, the Minister took the less popular one to absorb the Combat Poverty Agency back into the social inclusion unit in her Department. While good work is done by that unit, as I stated already, it cannot in any way be considered an independent unit. For example, I cite the unit's assessment of the budget, which, the Minister would have to accept, was less than critical.

There is a need for such a separate independent body. That independence is critical in terms of challenging the Government and the Minister. As I stated on Committee Stage, there is no way that civil servants working in a unit within the Department — I do not blame civil servants — will have the independence to come out and criticise the Government or the Minister. An important aspect of the work of the Combat Poverty Agency will be lost forever.

This is a retrograde step. The Minister has already admitted that there are no substantial savings involved in this move and the only conclusion to which I can come is that she is doing this purely for political reasons — to silence the Combat Poverty Agency and criticism of herself.

As we head into a difficult economic period, now more than ever there is a need to hear that voice supporting those who are excluded and those who will face into unemployment and financial hardship over the coming months and years. It is certainly a bad time, if there was ever a good time, to make this move.

It is a retrograde step. Deputy Hanafin, will go down in history as the Minister who abolished, and silenced or muzzled, the Combat Poverty Agency. That is something of which to be ashamed. The Labour Party wholeheartedly rejects her proposals to do this.

See this speech in context