Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)

I do not believe the money needs to be appropriated from within the social welfare budget. The motion states that "the €156 million required for the payment this year could be raised through further restrictions on interest relief on rental property, including restriction of relief on rental properties".

In a downturn such as that which we are experiencing, the areas that must be protected are those where jobs are being created. In addition, we must protect those who are losing their jobs. As a result, there is a need to examine the position with regard to the Departments of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Social and Family Affairs, Education and Science and Health and Children and ensure they are protected. I do not buy the argument being put forward by those who represent the Government to the effect that the money required had to be obtained from within the social welfare budget. We should find that money elsewhere and we should ensure that those who are most vulnerable are protected. What we should be doing is targeting those who can afford the services of accountants and who can stash away their money. These people will not be spending their money in the economy. The Minister can rest assured that practically every cent of the Christmas bonus would have gone back into local economies throughout the country next December. There is no doubt but that those economies, local shops and the people who would have received the bonus need the money.

It is not an exaggeration to state that the Government is cancelling Christmas for many families. All Members are in direct contact with ordinary families within their constituencies and they will be aware that these people spend their bonus money on food for Christmas dinner, presents for grandparents and the fuel required to provide extra heat at that time of year. Discontinuing the bonus will cause genuine hardship for the most vulnerable people.

Before coming into the House, I carried out a Google search on the name "Scrooge". Everyone perceives Scrooge to be the man who tried to cancel Christmas until three ghosts appeared to him and taught him the error of his ways. As a result of my search, I came across a definition on Wikipedia which states that it is usually assumed that Scrooge is a banker or professional moneylender. That says it all with regard to the recent budget. The only people who will benefit from the latter are bankers and professional moneylenders. Such moneylenders - be they legal or illegal - will benefit because increasing numbers of people will be obliged to borrow money from them because otherwise they will simply not be able to afford everything they need for Christmas.

The recent budget was a matter of both priorities and economics. The economics are that if people do not have money to spend at Christmas, then their local economies will not benefit and businesses and others will feel the strain. The hardship that will occur is an extremely serious matter for the families which will be affected by the removal of the bonus.

I received an e-mail from the Senior Citizens Parliament, which points out that the Christmas bonus was first paid in 1955. There was not a great deal of money floating around at that stage and many people emigrated to England to try to earn some to send back to their families. The e-mail also states that, according to Dáil records, a bonus of a double week was paid in 1955. It further states that eventually in the 1980s the principle of a payment to all in receipt of social welfare payments of all types was achieved. It points out that this was a progressive development and one which was greatly needed and appreciated. The e-mail also states that if the country was in a position to pay the bonus in 1955, then surely €156 million can be found to ensure that it is paid in December of this year and in future years.

If the 1950s were bad for this country's economy, so were the 1980s. However, whoever was in power between 1955 and today - the Minister's party was in office for the majority of the period - managed to pay the Christmas bonus. Even though we are experiencing a downturn, we still have a great deal of money bur the first thing that is being cut is the Christmas bonus. This will affect the most vulnerable.

It is a matter of choosing priorities and those in Cabinet have a duty in this regard. I do not accept the argument that the money must be taken from specific areas and that the Department must make savings within its budget. That is why the Labour Party has specifically chosen not to identify areas within the Department's budget from which the money could be obtained. We are of the view that this money should be procured through a reduction in the interest relief on rental property. Such interest relief goes into the pockets of the kind of people who are quite likely to fly to New York to do their Christmas shopping, whereas those in receipt of the Christmas bonus will most definitely not do so. It is for these reasons that I suggest that not only is the discontinuance of the bonus extraordinarily Scrooge-like in the context of its effect on the most vulnerable in society, it is also extraordinarily bad economics.

See this speech in context