Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)

I think the Minister should apologise for launching this vindictive, socially regressive attack on lone parents, which is coupled with the vindictive and socially regressive attacks on lone parents launched in the last budget and which will do nothing but punish a section of our society that is already suffering disproportionately from poverty but which is struggling. It is a section of our society that is struggling to participate as fully as possible. All of the points made by the Minister precisely indicated that the stigma to which I referred when I used the unusable term which was applied to lone parents, is still alive and well within the Government.

The Minister says we need lone parents to become financially independent and we must encourage them to participate fully in society. Lone parents are already doing that and that is the point we are making to the Minister and that is the point that SPARK and other groups associated with or made up of lone parents have been making since her budget announcements. Lone parents are working and they want to work and they do not want the Minister to put in place measures that will drive them out of work. The measures she has introduced, by lowering the thresholds on the income disregards, by getting rid of the concurrent payments and now, through the course of this Bill, reducing entitlement to one-parent payments once children reach the age of seven years or ten or 12, as will be the case, starting next week, will drive lone parents out of work.

I have been receiving furious texts from the SPARK group since this debate commenced. They ask me to respond to the Minister's attempt to suggest that those of us on this side of the House were trying to create a special category of lone parents and that the Minister, on the other hand, was very concerned, that every parent should be regarded the same rather than making a special category of lone parents. She was trying to deflect in some way the blame and responsibility onto those of us who are being critical of this Bill. The furious texts say that clearly the Minister does not understand that lone parents have very specific difficulties and problems resulting from the fact that they are lone parents. To say that is not in any way to cast aspersions on lone parents or to create divisions between lone parents and families based on couples but simply to state the fact that there are more options for juggling responsibilities between a couple. It is a different situation for a parent on his or her own because one will not have those options. The juggling options are not there. Unless a lone parent has supports, he or she cannot go out to work or access education, training or whatever. The reason lone parents and their supporting organisations are up in arms and have stated categorically that this section of the Bill should be withdrawn is because they know it will drive lone parents out of work. That is the reality of the situation.

As has been said by other speakers, the Minister acknowledged this fact last week by saying that these cuts should not go ahead until the Scandinavian model of child care was in place. It is not in place but for some people the impact of this Bill will start next week and that is the point. A new applicant for one-parent family payments with a child who is 12 years or older who applies next week, will not qualify for the payments. As of next January, this will apply to those lone parents with children aged ten years and as of the following year, new applicants will not qualify once they have children over the age of seven years. That is the fact. The cuts start now because of this Bill. Frankly, even sunset clauses do not resolve the problem. The Minister must withdraw this Bill until there are adequate supports and the Scandinavian model of child care which we all so earnestly wish to see, is in place and they we can talk about the possibility of reducing these supports that at some level, inadequate as they are, have helped 60% of lone parents to get into the workforce where they want to be. We should not be thinking about removing the supports that helped them to get into the workforce, rather, what extra supports we could provide to get the other 40% into work. No such supports are provided for in this Bill, however.

How can we pay for the Scandinavian model while the Government side of the House is against the necessary taxes? I have never heard of anything so preposterous. We are sick and tired of saying we want to see higher income taxes - which are progressive because they are based on ability to pay - to finance our public services. We have clearly stated this. In addition, we are in favour of higher taxes on the 5% in this country who own 40% of the wealth. It is not hypothetical wealth, it is real and we believe it should be taxed.

The Minister is part of a Government that keeps repeating a meaningless mantra, which states: "You can't impose higher taxes on wealth because it is a tax on jobs." Every time Ministers say that, I scratch my head and wonder what they are talking about. What does that mean? I still have not figured it out, but maybe the Minister could explain it.

We are positively in favour of the Scandinavian model and would not have a problem with a section of income tax revenue being earmarked to finance our local authorities. We would welcome that, but the Government is not in favour of progressive taxation on income and wealth. That is why we do not have the money to fund Scandinavian-style public services. It is a Government of regressive stealth charges.

An opinion poll in the newspapers this week compared the Government's policy to ours. It asked members of the public if they were in favour of stealth taxes - including household and water charges, which the Minister favours - or whether they were in favour higher taxes on income based on ability to pay. The poll results showed that more than 60% were in favour of our policy. Once upon a time, Labour used to believe in that policy but has now betrayed it. Or perhaps the party does not have the courage to argue for it because tax is a hot potato.

The Irish public are intelligent and they can be persuaded and convinced of the necessity for higher taxes on income and wealth if they are fair, progressive and will finance quality public services. That is what we are in favour of but it is dishonest of the Minister to suggest otherwise.

Water and household charges are regressive stealth taxes that disproportionately hit the least well off. We have an unfair tax regime that has always protected the rich and those on higher incomes, while disproportionately hitting those at the bottom. It is also the reason our public services are in bits. The Government should levy taxes on wealth and higher incomes that could finance quality public services. Until that happens, the Minister should remove this austerity cut directed at lone parents who suffer disproportionately from poverty, as she has acknowledged. They will be driven out of work if these measures go through.

See this speech in context