Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)

The Minister should stop picking on the weakest in society. The cutting of the Christmas bonus has caused an unprecedented public response and not only among those who will lose it; other people who are employed refer to it as a miserable act.

The Government amendment states that €223 million is needed to fill the gap, a substantial amount. Government speakers all say that this must come from the social welfare budget but my colleagues have all highlighted that this should not be the case, there should be procedures in place to act on the need to call in money from other sources. We have listed those sources and they include off-shore accounts, rental income paid to overseas landlords renting houses in this country, tax relief for rental income and a real plan to tax high earners. There are many ways to make savings and get the money, and it does not need to be from the social welfare budget.

Suggesting that all social welfare recipients would lose money if the Christmas bonus was retained is incorrect, there are other ways to go about this. The most vulnerable will be punished by this miserly attack. I have listened to the sad stories being told by pensioners about losing this small cushion that they depend on at Christmas. It goes on small gifts for grandchildren and the Christmas food and the luxury they could not otherwise afford, such as visits to family and cards for neighbours who have helped out during the year. These are quality of life issues that must be made available.

Some of them mention the extra heating costs or the taxi they might be able to afford for one night out, this is not a luxury they indulge in during the year. These people are not living the high life, the Christmas bonus allowed them to top up a little on the basics. Most of them are sad and disappointed, but the anger is coming from those looking in on the situation who recognise the impact it will have on the elderly.

I was talking to a young man who is in receipt of the disability allowance. He cannot work and never will, this is his income for the rest of his life. He needs his "old banger" of a car to get to the shops and frequently to the hospital. He is now worried that he will have to cut back on heating, food or some other basic because of the loss of this bonus. This man is meticulous about his budget, measuring out his money on a weekly basis, exactly aware of his expenditure, unless an emergency arises. It is for those emergencies that he wants to set aside a little extra. The Christmas bonus allowed a small degree of flexibility to plan for emergencies. He pointed out that his family are generous and supportive and that they can supplement his income on occasion. He treasures his independence, however, he does not want to ask for help, it damages his pride if he does.

He is in the fortunate position of having a supportive family because there are many who do not have that. Those people might find themselves turning to money lenders. We are not imagining this, it is a fact. These people are vulnerable and the last thing they need is a further threat from the debt collector when he calls in his debts.

It is easy to say to those on social welfare that the cost of living has dropped. For most of them this has little bearing on real life. They cannot access those places where there is good value because they do not have a car. They are dependent on local convenience stores that are often much more expensive. Telling them about the drop in the cost of living is pointless, it has no meaning. During the week an elderly woman, who is diabetic, talked to me at length about her situation. The quality of her food is very important for her. Again, I do not claim the €230 or so at Christmas would take care of that problem entirely but she pointed out that it would have been a help and given her a little support.

A chiropodist contacted me yesterday - he has also contacted many of my colleagues - about the charge for chiropody which affects people with medical cards. He particularly mentioned elderly people and people who are diabetic. Once again, they are the hardest hit by the budget. If their current social welfare payments do not allow them to pay the extra charge that is demanded of them, as any little amount they have set aside will be eroded, he pointed out that they will not go for the visit to the chiropodist that they badly need. That will have huge long-term consequences. I put that problem against the background of somebody already being on a very meagre budget. One can see how important €220 or €230 is to them.

Mention should also be made of the suspension of the community support programme. I realise it is not dealt with by the Minister's Department but it is important in this context. It is under the remit of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. It involves a small amount of money but it is having a huge impact on the safety, security and quality of life of elderly people. I have received numerous complaints about it. Again, somebody will have to pick up the tab for it, whether it is directly by way of putting in place the cost of the pendant alarms and so forth or the family will once again be called on to provide that support. Otherwise, people will live in fear.

These are small items but, collectively, the cuts amount to a threat to the safety and security of certain categories of social welfare recipients. These are not the type of people who will be drinking fine wine, eating caviar or heading abroad for their Christmas break. They will be struggling to make ends meet to provide the little bit of luxury they might have hoped to have for Christmas. It is a mean and miserable cut and I ask the Minister to reverse it.

See this speech in context