David Norris (Independent)

Senator Cox has done an honour to this House by her courageous and clear speech. It is not easy to offer a direct and open critique of Government policy from the Government benches but this is what Seanad Éireann is all about. In her quite outstanding speech, Senator Cox clearly illustrated what the Seanad is for, namely, non-partisan debate. While some of what I will say later may appear to be partisan, I salute this kind of independence. It is very important. Senator Cox is quite correct about the question of maternity benefit.

I wish to return to a few other areas where the Government is giving with one hand and taking away with another. This kind of rather mean-minded accounting goes on in all Governments. It is not just a Fianna Fáil exercise, it is a Department of Finance exercise and it is pretty wretched. I listened and watched with delighted as the Minister of State, to paraphrase his final paragraph, tripped gaily over the stepping stones to a bright future. He was obviously afraid he would fall in because he did it all in slow motion. That is why we do not have quite as much time as we might otherwise have. On the other hand, it was a most interesting and provocative speech. I wish to turn to this speech before I address the two issues of particular interest.

There is an echo of Bertie's rabble-rousing speech out in Citywest. The Government will implement the largest social welfare package and all the rest of it, but when one examines the Bill closely, some troubling issues arise. I refer to support for lone parents, for example, and the expanded availability and range of educational opportunities. What about the fact that I and many other people have been deluged in recent years by ordinary members of the public, not constituents, who are concerned because owing to the nitpicking provisions that are included, they have been excluded from schemes such as the back to education allowance and the vocational training opportunities scheme? This is regrettable.

There is a lot of old bilge in the Bill in terms of the means test for job seeker's allowance. Reference was made to reflecting the changes in society. Like hell they reflect the changes in society. We are back again to this nonsense about spouses and how it is women who are usually in this role and all the rest of it. References to spouses and couples were sprinkled throughout the Minister's speech, yet we know perfectly well the Government, in the person of the previous Minister, Deputy Coughlan, operated to define people out of their rights. The Government is not talking about couples in the true sense. It should refer to heterosexual couples every time the word "couples" is used because gay people have been mean-mindedly defined out of the rights to which they are entitled under equality legislation.

A positive spin is put on the supplementary welfare allowance. This is one of the issues with which I am most concerned. The Minister of State referred to "an extension of the qualifying conditions and an easing of the rent supplement means test". The Government is going to "simplify the means test, so that a rent supplement recipient can judge the impact of an offer of work" and so and so forth.

Then we get on to the business of regenerated areas. It was stated:

This latter measure supports the State's significant investment on regeneration in areas such as Ballymun. The objective is to achieve a better balance between private, social and affordable housing.

I give a hollow laugh when I hear about affordable housing. We heard about it the other day when we discovered that to qualify for some of these affordable housing units, one has to have an income between €47,000 and €58,000. That is not very affordable. Then we have these inexplicable and opaque lotteries. They are the reverse of openness, transparency and accountability.

We then encountered this nasty little phrase, which we do not really understand. "In taking this approach, provision is made to protect existing tenants." What is meant by "protect"? I would like to know what lies beneath this expression. Who is being protected and what is the necessity for it? Towards the end of the speech some elucidation is given in the analysis of the sections. It was stated that section 25 includes measures "to preclude the payment of rent supplement in areas of regeneration, as identified by the Department" of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. In other words, these areas are too nice, too middle class and too clean to allow people on rent supplement. That is a nasty form of apartheid. It is snobbery and discrimination.

Those are my words but I received a pained response from Focus Ireland which made the point that this creates in primary legislation a legal mechanism which prohibits specific categories of people from living in certain areas. That can only be described as apartheid, but Focus Ireland is too polite to say it. This is a most regressive step. I would like the Minister to re-examine this matter. I would also like an explanation why the Department continues to use terms like "couples", "spouses", etc. when it does not mean couples in the broad sense. I am partisan on this issue because I deal with people who have been denied their rights. This is unjust and unfair.

I wish to return to Senator Cox's contribution. She referred to water pollution in Galway. A number of years ago, briefed by people in Trinity, I raised the issue of cryptospiridiosis. I could hardly spell it let alone pronounce it at that stage but I learned a certain amount about it. I also pay tribute to my colleague, Senator Henry. Over a number of years she has consistently raised the issue of the quality of water. It is an extraordinary irony that on World Water Day last week, we heard some of the most disastrous results arising from this pollution of the water. This is a serious situation and one person is critically ill in hospital.

Although there are some positive aspects to it, and the Government will put the best spin possible on it, we are charged in this House with prising open the lid on some of the less positive features of the Bill. I salute Senator Cox. I note she said she would table an amendment. I hope she does if she is not satisfied with the result. She raised a bit of a stink in the House last week when she said she would table an amendment. On this side of the House we were all hungry for that amendment so that we could vote on it and we could see which way Senator Cox would vote, but whichever way she does, it does not take away from the fact she is a courageous, intelligent woman who knew what she was speaking about on the Bill. She and Fianna Fáil did honour to this House by that exercise of freedom of speech which I now propose to hand over to my esteemed colleague, Senator Henry.