Arthur Morgan (Louth, Sinn Fein)

I thank the Labour Party for sharing time and commend it on tabling this motion, which homes in on one nasty element of the recent emergency bankers budget. I am not surprised it was not until after this debate had commenced that the Government could cobble together an amendment to it. It is worth reading one paragraph of the amendment in which the Government "acknowledges that in the context of very tough decisions having to be made across the whole range of Government expenditure, the provision of €21.3 billion for social welfare services in 2009 – 20% more than the amount spent in 2008 – is a clear demonstration of the Government's commitment to protecting the vulnerable". The focus of Government activity in recent years, certainly since September, has been on saving the banks and pumping taxpayers' money into the banking structure. If the Government were serious about helping the vulnerable, one of its first actions would have been to ensure no more people would become unemployed by introducing policies which would deal with issues such as job retention and creation. It is worth saying again that it is much easier for the Government to step in with measures to prevent job losses and retain jobs rather than having the current scenario of us just drifting along rudderless with no Government policy on job retention and creation.

I wish to cover a number of categories of people - if that is an acceptable term to describe anybody - in this proposal, including pensioners and lone parent families. Ireland has the second highest rate of pensioner poverty in the EU and if there are any further cuts to welfare, elderly people will be plunged into deeper poverty. Nearly nine out of ten older people could be at risk of poverty if welfare supports are cut in next December's budget, according to a warning by an alliance of non-government bodies. Why should we be surprised at that?

I will first consider the pensioners. A great number of pensioners are struggling to make ends meet, although we know there is a percentage on the other side of this who have made reasonable pension provisions and who do not have those concerns. A significant majority of pensioners will suffer greatly because of the withdrawal of the Christmas bonus. The debate on this issue, since its announcement in the emergency bankers' budget a few weeks ago, has revealed people talking about taking Christmas away from pensioners, as well as Christmas presents. The issue is not just about Christmas presents.

This is about pensioners trying to get a few bob together in this bonus to pay the overhang which was discussed just a moment ago by one of my colleagues on the Labour benches. For example, there is an issue regarding fuel. I know many pensioners who have an overhang of a coal or gas bill and they depend at least partly on the Christmas bonus to clear up that loan. In the winter, pensioners are colder and more vulnerable, with some surviving on very little food in order to try to keep themselves warm. This withdrawal of a reasonable contribution to pensioners is mean-spirited in the extreme.

The withdrawal will also lead to greater numbers of people ending up in hospital, leading to costs which are greater than any savings from the withdrawal of the payment in the first instance, even before we speak about additional crowding in hospitals and people spending more time on the infamous trolleys in accident and emergency units. That would be most unfortunate.

It should be acknowledged that the payment could also help pay for a small Christmas present that a grandparent can buy for a grandchild who may have helped out by cutting the lawn over the course of the year, for example. Such a small gesture is worthy of note and I am glad that it has been part of the debate on this issue.

I also wish to speak about the consequences for increasing loneliness because many pensioners will become very isolated as a result of this action. Deputy Burton mentioned people who have significant income and decent pensions, who can choose between Prada handbags. I do not know what such handbags would look like but maybe I am grateful for that. I know that most pensioners' choices are more likely to be between the yellow pack on the supermarket shelf and the ordinary pack. I have no doubt that significant numbers will have no option but to reach for the yellow pack.

We are told the decreasing rate of inflation will be of significant assistance to these pensioners. We all know that in the consumer price index, the biggest move in the measure of inflation has been in mortgage rates. As a significant number of pensioners do not have mortgages, the benefit will not come to them easily. It is unfair to use the inflation or deflation argument to justify this unjustifiable withdrawal of services as it will take a long time for that deflationary move to reach pensioners.

The budget was misleading and the Government amendment mentions the provision of 20% more expenditure for welfare payments. This is a result of more people going on the dole. If the Government had brought forward proper job retention policies, that would not be necessary and we would not have that additional expenditure. It is not an increase in expenditure, as we know.

It is important in this context to discuss the significant shift in wealth in this State that will take place under the proposed national asset management agency, NAMA. This is not about shifting wealth from the wealthy to the poor, quite the opposite - it will be shifted from the poor to the wealthy. It will cover the bankers and speculators as they were caught out, which is grossly unfair. It is some Celtic tiger for pensioners.

Lone parents are more likely than any other social group to be living in poverty. Data from the EU survey on income and living conditions conducted by the Central Statistics Office show that in 2006 alone, 33% of one-parent families were living in consistent poverty compared to 7% of the population as a whole. Among the reasons lone parents are more likely to be poor are lower levels of educational attainment, with 47% of lone parents under 35 only having junior certificate level of education; the poverty trap, which makes it financially difficult to move from welfare to work; and low paying jobs or unemployment. Lone parents who work are more likely to be in low-paying jobs, partly as a result of a lack of qualifications and partly because of the difficulty in accessing affordable child care.

I am sure every Member has experience of lone parent families coming to constituency offices. Last week I dealt with a case where a woman had three children in primary school. After she had paid all the other necessary expenses such as rent and essential bits and pieces for the house, she ended up with €40 per week to feed herself and her three children. That amount of money would probably be spent on a round in the Dáil bar without so much as a thought yet that woman had just that to feed herself and children. There are many other examples of that with which I have no doubt Members would be familiar.

The Minister for Social and Family Affairs has moved to defuse the political time bomb by pledging to pay the social welfare Christmas bonus if there is a "windfall" in the Department's coffers or savings targets are exceeded. Where would that windfall come from? Would it come from bankers or speculators? I think not. The Minister's action was merely to throw a lifeline to the candidates of the Government parties who will go around the streets, roads and lanes of this State over the next few weeks to canvass in both the local government and EU elections. Such candidates can argue that the cut may not happen as the Minister indicated that if there was a windfall the cut would not be effected. It is a poor example.

I wanted to make a couple of other points but it is difficult to cram the issue into such a small time. In all of its statements, the Government has indicated that we must protect the poor and look after those who most need it. Yet most of the cuts and much political direction from the Government goes in the opposite direction. When will this Government stand back and listen to organisations such as CORI in the propositions and suggestions they make? When will this Government listen to those who are advocating for poor people and recognise the folly of its way, particularly regarding the circumstances we are discussing here, the withdrawal of the Christmas bonus? It is wrong and should not happen.

See this speech in context