Last evening I gave the background to the different approaches that have been taken towards combating poverty in Ireland. Today I propose to address myself briefly to some of the precise proposals in this Bill. My remarks last evening could be summarised by saying that I felt the theme of inequality, which I believe to be rooted in the structures of society, was important and should not be neglected. I said studies of poverty in other societies have foundered on the basis of having neglected that and that approaches to poverty in the absence of the pursuit of inequality as a theme led one to develop piecemeal approaches which might, in time, be abandoned. The volume of the poor is measured by any one of a number of indicators that I discussed. It could increase and this might be followed by a retreat from the problem altogether. I had given the history of our own approach from the seventies on.
I want to concentrate this morning on some precise applied matters which arise because of the Bill. I was discussing last evening the programme when the pilot schemes were in progress and which was addressed to the issue of establishing projects on welfare rights. I asked if this emphasis would be retained within the agency when it is established. It did valuable work in changing the nature of home assistance and seeking to destroy the poor law ethos that surrounded the old forms of assistance, both in their nature and in the terms of delivery. Will this be extended?
There were a number of action projects which I believe established real linkages between the agencies of the State and individuals in remote communities and got past some of the more debilitating aspects of brokerage. I would like to think that this work can continue. The agency will have my support and that of my Party. The Bill will have our good wishes and support on Second Stage in its statement of principles. Where we disagree is in regard to the strength of the terms of reference. Section 4 of the Bill, which lays out the terms of reference quite precisely, should be strengthened. If one addresses oneself to the missing theme of inequality, one will allow the later sections of the Bill to have much more force in terms of research which can be carried out, the reports which can be prepared and the policies which can flow in turn from the reports.
There are questions I want to raise concerning different sections of the Bill. I read the Minister's speech with interest. While I disagree very little with the theme of his speech or any of the principles, there is a fundamental disagreement concerning the existing structure of community and whether its existing structure can produce, through simple voluntary effort, a redress in the experience of our poor, as I described them last evening.
I emphasise that my view is not an academic one. It is based on the reports of social workers over the years, on review of programmes in other countries and is not something which is abstract. There is a very large amount of literature available in this area. American programmes have been written about, the British experience has been assessed and there is no reason why we should have to go down the paths of the mistakes of other countries. I hope we do not. The question of specifics does arise. Perhaps the Minister might want to qualify his emphasis on self-help which has been given such a central part in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill and in the Minister's own speech. It is a term that is much abused. I know the Minister said that people would not be left solely reliant on themselves but would draw on other community resources. It is important that the concept be distanced from the notion that one is poor as a result of individual characteristics or the inability to pursue strategies of development which are under the control of the individual. I spoke at length last evening on how one aspect of poverty feeds into another, reducing the individual in terms of capacity to participate within society and to take decisions or even to avail of the resources of the State. If one does not define self-help and community development, a question arises in relation to section 18.
The National Social Service Board are to be abolished and their staff resources are to be moved to the new agency. If this is so, are we clear on what the National Social Service Board staff and resources will be doing within the new agency? Will they be abandoning the functions they already had and taking on new functions or are the functions of the National Social Service Board to be continued as they are now within the new agency?
When staff and functions are being moved around, I suggest there should have been consultations before the Bill was drafted. There are other matters about this legislation that worry me. Many sections of the Bill refer to the promotion of greater understanding of the nature, causes and extent of poverty, but the mechanisms by which this greater understanding is to be achieved are not very explicit. I may be told that this is a matter for the agency, and I welcome the idea of the agency establishing this, and it will have our support.
Section 17 deals with the disclosure of information by a member or an employee or a consultant adviser to the agency, and the section prescribes a maximum penalty of £500 on summary conviction. I am worried about the publication of research and the difficulties that might arise in regard to information that would be the property of the agency and to which the agency might acquire property rights, such as the discussion that arose in regard to patents which is now a European issue, and information of research results into public activity and employment. In an area like this it is important that there would be maximum freedom to publish research because experience shared in these matters is of importance not only to ourselves but to other countries.
There is the matter of the proscription on being a candidate for either House of the Oireachtas. This is archaic. Anybody who, for example, has had experience within the agency and decides to participate in public life deserves encouragement rather than difficulty. If somebody who has worked and has had experience of administering poverty programmes decides to take a step into the realm of public debate he is to be commended. This century demands encouragement for such people rather than discouragement. This has been the experience in the US. It is interesting that people of the stature of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who wrote one of the major works on the poor in the US, is now a distinguished member of the Legislature there. Who knows the type of people we might encourage?
I do not quibble with the overall intentions of the Bill. When we moved our motion in the Dáil we were not so hungup on our own Bill in its exact form that we insisted on it, and when the Minister assured us in the House at the end of March that the Bill now before us would contain the matters at which we were aiming, we said we would welcome it, but that we would insist that the Dáil would address the term "inequality". We would have preferred if "poverty" had been put into the Title of the Bill and that there should be action-oriented mechanisms in the Bill rather than references to prescriptions and discussions and expressions of concern. The attitude of my party is that we will agree to the Second Stage but we intend to table amendments for Committee Stage.
