David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)

I am not interested in what he is paid, rather I am interested in what he has to say on this issue because he speaks with authority, given the organisation he represents.

Mr. Finlay stated:

It is well known that larger families are at a greater risk of poverty ... 23% of families in Ireland have three or more children and it is their childhoods that are being compromised. This is a policy choice that is again inequitable and unredistributive, it will adversely affect those on low incomes and reliant on social welfare.

He also referred to other changes in the budget in respect of increases in rent supplement contributions and school transport costs, the abolition of a number of concurrent payments and the introduction of several stealth taxes.

In the aftermath of the budget, the director of advocacy with Mr. Finlay's organisation observed:

We are fast approaching a situation where more children will be going hungry because their parents cannot afford sufficient quantities of food. While the loss of €19 in Child Benefit payment per month may not sound like much, in reality for a family with three children it means parents having to go without basic necessities like nappies and milk formula for a baby or a child going without a winter coat.

This goes to the heart of the reason my party is opposed to the cut in this allowance. In recent weeks the House discussed the need to poverty proof policies. I made that point again this morning in a different context. I have absolutely no doubt that if the measure under discussion were poverty proofed, it would not pass the test. I accept that the families of higher earners will not be affected by the proposed cut. However, there are many low-income families that will be affected by it. The Government's decision to single out larger families in respect of this cut is particularly bad. Such families require the extra supports on offer. The Minister may state that the cut is quite small but we believe it must be viewed in conjunction with the increase in rent supplement contributions, the imposition of the €100 household charge and all of the other changes contained in the budget.

My party is troubled by the cumulative effect that this cut will have on families with three or more children. There is no doubt that the Government had a number of alternatives available to it. Those in government state that they were obliged to take certain actions and that they had no choice in the matter. However, there were choices open to them. The Government could have taken many options. It chose to ignore the pre-budget calls from Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin or any of the other Opposition parties but it could still have examined the proposals put forward by One Family — the one-parent family organisation — Barnardos, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and various other organisations. The organisations to which I refer examined the various alternatives which could have been availed of in order that the Government would not have been obliged to reduce the incomes of hard-pressed families. I am concerned that if this measure is passed by the Oireachtas, more families, and consequently more children, will be obliged to live in poverty. That is wrong and it is why I will be opposing the section.