Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

As we start the slow move back to some kind of normality, and it is hoped we will be able to move on to phase 2 from Monday, it is important again to recognise the great efforts by the public in complying with the advice and in succeeding in not only flattening the curve but driving the virus out to a large extent. It is also important to acknowledge the heroic efforts by front-line workers, particularly in the health service but also those many front-line workers who have kept the country open, including retail workers, delivery people and all kinds of different people who have supported the rest of us in keeping the show on the road to the greatest extent possible. It is important that we always remember those people who have done so much for the country.

I absolutely agree with the points that have been made about the primacy of public health advice in all decision making on the virus. I agree the daily briefings from the CMO are very good. My concern is that at this point, while we hope we are on that road back, other considerations need to be taken into account. I have raised the issue of risk assessment and risk management with the Taoiseach before. I am not satisfied that there is adequate risk assessment of the different steps in the roadmap. I urge him to consider different sectors on the basis of the level of risk involved in opening up those sectors, or indeed different sectors of the community or the population. It is important to be open and honest with people about the level of risk involved because we have not heard how risk is being assessed and managed. We take on board the advice from the CMO and from NPHET, which is very important, but there are other considerations. The data supporting risk assessment need to be published.

I have spoken to the Taoiseach before about the decisions on schools reopening and the leaving certificate. At no point were we told the level of risk in pursuing either of those courses. The same could be said about many other areas. While there has been this enormous public effort, certain sectors of our community are paying a very high price, such as the under 40s. We previously referred to people in their 20s and 30s as the locked-out generation. They took the brunt of the last recession and had their hopes and dreams very much dashed. They have again been called upon and have willingly made enormous sacrifices for the rest of the community. I am really concerned that it has not been spelled out to that generation in their 20s and 30s about how they can resume some kind of normal life. We need to prevent that generation of people experiencing a double whammy. We need to ensure they are not set back again in their lives, hopes and ambitions.

Particular consideration must be given to low-paid workers, that cohort of people who are in very precarious employment, unsure about contracts, wanting to work much more and not having the potential to do that. We know that nearly a quarter of the workforce prior to this were in that category. It is a very substantial number of people. They are now taking the brunt of the shutdown of the economy.

Yesterday's Department of Finance figures revealed that tax receipts were not as low as had been expected, indicating that in the main people who are better off and paying higher levels of tax have retained their employment.

It is predominantly people at low levels of income who have been worst hit by the closing down of the economy. It is absolutely critical that we are mindful of the potential for a huge increase in poverty in future. That is why I have to express concern regarding what the Taoiseach said about the withdrawal of the pandemic payment. He spoke about a very blunt instrument. Perhaps it is more refined than he indicated. If he is only guaranteeing the €350 payment for people working full time, then many people at levels between €203 and €350 are likely to lose substantially and that will increase levels of poverty. It is not just a question of who is working full time and who is working part time. There are many different grades of workers in between, and I would be much more reassured if the Taoiseach had said his approach will be to ensure that people working part time will not suffer a loss of income either. There needs to be much more refinement than the kind of blunt instrument set out by the Taoiseach today. I am concerned that there will be a substantial increase in the poverty rate as a result of what is being done. What was done initially was absolutely right regarding providing income support and support to businesses, although it is clear that has not been sufficient and we need to continue and increase those supports.

What the pandemic has exposed in this country are great weaknesses in how we provide public services. I am interested in the Taoiseach's view on that matter. When we look at critical public services, such as healthcare, the weakness in our public health service has been exposed very graphically in respect of inadequate numbers of beds and inadequate access to essential healthcare. All those weaknesses have now been exposed, and I wonder what lessons have been learned. It is not just an issue regarding hospital care. We can also look at elder care. I refer to the over-reliance on nursing homes, the model of care and the approach taken to a private sector and a privatised, for-profit model of care. There are major weaknesses associated with that model and those have been exposed by the appalling occurrences within our nursing home sector.

I also refer to weaknesses in the area of mental healthcare and what has been exposed by this pandemic. We can look as well at childcare, where again the privatised model has made it so difficult to reboot our services and to have a coherent response to the demand for childcare. In addition, we could look at lack of access to affordable housing, as well as the inhumane situation in direct provision. Those issues have again been exposed by this virus. While the Taoiseach has said he recognises that the service we see is highly unsatisfactory and inhumane, this is the privatised model of care that his Government has promoted and stood over. It has been shown to be hugely fragile and weak and has not been unable to respond to the crisis.

I ask the Taoiseach again if he accepts there are major weaknesses in our public services and that we need to move to a much different model in respect of universal healthcare and universal public services generally. I state that because that is what is being called for by all the important bodies in the country. The ESRI referred to the need to reinforce our public services and have a stimulus. The document produced by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, No Going Back: A New Deal towards a safe and secure future for all, referred to the need to bolster our public services substantially. We could also look at what IBEC has stated concerning the need to ensure we have universal public services similar to those in northern European countries, in particular, but also to such services provided right across Europe. The question is whether the Taoiseach accepts that our public services, in the manner in which his Government and the previous Government provided those services, are wholly inadequate in respect of meeting the needs of the public.

See this speech in context