Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Labour)

The Government had the choice to hit families or remove the relief currently available to landlords, but it chose to hit families over landlords. On the basis of the figures provided to us, there was potential to save €500 million by cutting tax relief for landlords but the Government chose to ignore that and hit ordinary families instead. There is no justification whatsoever for that. The reduction in mortgage interest for families will save €65 million but the Government could have saved a multiple of that if it had tackled landlords.

There will be major problems for those who are experiencing or who face unemployment. Where one member of a couple becomes unemployed, they have difficulty repaying their mortgage. When they seek assistance from the community welfare officer, they are staggered that so little help is available. A ridiculous, arbitrary rule applies whereby if one's partner works 30 or more hours a week, one is automatically precluded from any assistance. That rule needs to change. The means test must be eased because the mortgage interest relief acts as a disincentive to work. The other problem relates to those who are stuck on fixed rate mortgages, which is like a life sentence for them. Many people who have sought to change over to a variable rate mortgage with their provider are being quoted between €12,000 and €14,000 to make the switch. In exchange for the bank guarantee, flexibility should be shown to people who find themselves in this impossible situation.

One of the worst aspects of the budget is the cut in the Christmas bonus. It is wrong of the Government and the Minister, as she did earlier, to claim there have been no cuts in social welfare. The cut in the Christmas bonus amounts to a 2% reduction in real terms for social welfare recipients. There is a great deal of spin about the consumer price index showing the cost of living has reduced by 4%. That is not the case for those depending on welfare payments. When one examines their expenses, one sees there has been no reduction in their cost of living and, therefore, there is no justification for cutting payments. Payments will be cut by 2%, which is reprehensible because the Government is hitting those dependent on welfare at a vulnerable time - the first week in December. There are major demands on the household budgets of pensioners and families with young children in providing for Christmas, whether that involves buying presents for grandchildren or putting money aside for Christmas cards or buying clothes or toys for Christmas. Social welfare recipients are absolutely dependent on the bonus payment at the start of December to have a Christmas and it is Scrooge-like to cut it when the Government had many other choices. It could have tackled tax relief for the rich on a range of fronts but chose to hit the most vulnerable families when they are most vulnerable. That is a reprehensible decision and will drive families into the hands of moneylenders. There is no question about that. That decision will reverse the progress the Government has made in recent years in removing people from the clutches of moneylenders.

Early child care supplement will be halved from next month. This is regressive. It shows no consideration for the fact that families try to plan and budget but suddenly from next month their money is down. For many years the Labour Party has promoted the idea of free preschool education for all three and four year olds, which is necessary. The Government's measure, however, announces a subsidy for preschool education as cover for cutting a welfare payment to children. It is making savings on the backs of young children and saying that instead it will return less than half that sum as a contribution towards the cost of child care. This is not a child care initiative because it takes no consideration of the fact that the existing ad hoc system does not have the capacity to cater for the 60,000 three year olds who will be looking for places from next January. The Minister for State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Barry Andrews, should not pretend that this a child-centred measure. It is merely a cost-saving measure on the backs of children under the cover of returning half the money as a contribution to the cost of child care.

The Government's proposal to pull back child benefit is another threat to family budgets and to the welfare of children. This is a universal payment. The tax system does not recognise the expenses involved in having children and child benefit is the only measure that exists. It would be regressive to go back on that.

See this speech in context