Dominic Hannigan (Labour)

Yesterday's budget has been a disappointment to many people, both inside this House and outside it. Time has been arranged for a debate on the budget later today, so I will focus my attention on a few particular areas. The Labour Party considers that the budget is unfair and potentially socially divisive. It fails the fairness test in that it fails to protect those who are worst off, not just in our own society but overseas also. There is no doubt but that the cuts in children's allowances will drive more children into poverty. What the Government will save in child benefit payments is little more than it is losing on the alcohol levy. I agree with Professor Carl Whelan that reduced alcohol levies will not make an iota of difference to cross-Border shopping. It is just a sop to Fianna Fáil backbenchers. The cuts in child benefit will lead to more children falling into poverty.

I am also disappointed with the proposed cuts to the overseas development aid programme. Let us be under no illusion because it will have a real impact on the ground. For instance, children will not be able to access primary school education as a result, and AIDS sufferers will not be able to access anti-retroviral therapy. In addition, people will not be able to feed their families because they cannot grow food as a result of cuts in our overseas aid programme. Once again the aid programme has suffered disproportionate cuts, but we cannot continue to do this without realising that it has a significant negative impact on the world's poor.

The Labour Party did not vote against the proposed carbon tax in the Dáil last night. My personal view is that as long as the revenues raised go towards fuel efficiency measures and do not impact on the poor in terms of fuel poverty, it is potentially a good step forward. I will be attending the Copenhagen summit and I expect that such measures will feature prominently in the debates there.

I wish to clarify what the Leader means by saying he intends to take statements on climate change after the Statute Law Revision Bill. Given the time allocations, that may mean that some parties will not be able to participate. Consequently, will he accept a change to the Order of Business to remove the sos so we can continue with the statements on climate change until every party in the House has had a chance to make a contribution?