Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I thank the proposers for tabling this motion, which is very important, especially one week from the budget. Effectively, we are talking about the very essence of a republic. It strikes to the heart of the role of the State. I believe the role of the State and the very essence of a republic is that it wraps its arms around citizens in times of greatest need. There has never been an occasion when citizens have needed the protection of the State more. I will discuss all that this incorporates over the next seven minutes or so.

There was a time at the start of the pandemic when it genuinely seemed as if we were all in this together. The pandemic rocked us to our core when it emerged and our responses were founded in the old principles of collectivism. All of a sudden, things we were told could never happen started to happen very quickly. We rid ourselves of private hospitals and had a single-tier health service because we were told we could not have a dual health service in the middle of a pandemic. For a long time, people who argued and advocated for a ban on evictions were told such a ban would be unconstitutional. Overnight, however, we had a ban on evictions. We then had a recognition that the €203 that had previously been paid to people who were unemployed was simply not enough to live a life of dignity. We then made provision for a payment of €350. Across the political divide, we joined together in saying this baseline figure would give people the opportunity to live with dignity.

I do not like to use the old phrase that a leopard does not change its spots but it certainly seems to be the reality. As the weeks and months since the pandemic started have progressed, people have fallen back into their old ideologies. This argument is very much about ideology and how we decide to protect our citizens. Sudden, society is vulnerable again because our hospitals are vulnerable due to a lack of investment for decades. As the pandemic engulfs us again, there are people whose main fear at the moment is that they may be evicted from their homes because the ban on evictions has long since gone. In recent months, the idea has emerged, one that has been motivated by people who have exploited workers, that €350 is too much. The small amount of €350, which has given people the means and capacity to feed themselves and not to have to worry about bills or where they will get their next three square meals, is suddenly considered too much. I believe this is a fundamental debate about how and why we can provide a reasonable amount to citizens to give them the means by which they can live in dignity. In recent weeks, the decision was made to reduce the pandemic unemployment payment to €250 and €200, which is simply not enough.

I will strongly advocate for the reinstatement of the €350 for those on the pandemic unemployment payment. I do not do this naively. I fully understand that it will be an expensive measure. I absolutely accept that but so be it. The need for the State to wrap its arms around its citizens and think big by providing the greatest degree of protection will never be greater. It has been said time and again that we have access to the means to borrow.

I dispute the Minister's statement that decisions taken in the past have given us the means to borrow. This is revisionism and an attempt to validate the austerity suffered by people in this country after 2007 and to suggest it was a just approach. I argue strongly against that. The decisions taken during those times left individuals in positions of chaos, destroyed the recovery we could have had and prolonged the pain we suffered. If austerity was the right approach then, we would be arguing for it now but that is not the case. Every economist in Europe is saying that we need to flood the economy with cash. It is suggested that, when we reopen, the cash we have will be spent as it has been. It will not. A sum of €350 will not sit in bank accounts. It will go into our local butchers, it will pay for shoes and it will revitalise every village, town and city in this country really quickly. We need this money floating around the economy. There are very strong economic arguments to invest now.

The amount being spent on the pandemic unemployment payment is mentioned several times in the amendment but there is no mention of the sums we are recouping in VAT, which would otherwise be lost. I promise the Minister that almost every cent is being recouped for the Irish economy.

I have very little time left so I will move on to the Government's amendments. While still new to the Dáil, I am fascinated by some of the commentary included in Government amendments to Opposition motions. In many ways, this belies an ideology. One particular line in the Government's amendment on which I would like to comment reads "notes that those 47,900 recipients whose prior income was less than €200 per week received €203 this week, and are better off than when they were working". That is an horrific statement. These people who are said to be better off with their extra €3 are living in precarious positions, being exploited in the workplace and have absolutely no capacity to afford unaffordable childcare yet we are heralding the fact that they are receiving an extra €3. I promise the Minister that every single one of those people are feeling anxious and vulnerable and this will be scant comfort to them.

Another part of the Government reads "acknowledges that the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection has advised that it will take a reasonable and flexible approach in applying the ‘genuinely seeking’ work condition to workers who remain temporarily laid off in sectors that have not reopened". The only people who will find any comfort in this are politicians who have never sat in an Intreo or social welfare office watching a person having to justify his or her poverty while being scanned and probed and having every aspect of his or her life up for discussion with an inspector. Despite the fact that this seems to be intended as reassurance, the discretion of a social welfare officer is not the same as a legal protection and this never should be. People need legal protections. I will not stand by and see this become a precedent for allowing the Government to tell people not to worry as the Department has told its officials to go easy. In the absence of legal protections, that amounts to absolutely nothing.

See this speech in context