Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Is fada an lá ó bhí 20 nóiméad agam chun páirt a ghlacadh i ndíospóireacht, so déanfaidh mé mo dhícheall an 20 nóiméad sin a úsáid go héifeachtach, ag díriú isteach ar na laigí atá sa reachtaíocht seo agus, níos tábhachtaí arís, an deis caillte ag an Rialtas athruithe cuimsitheacha a dhéanamh. Níor thapaigh sé an deis dul i ngleic leis na dúshláin atá os ár gcomhair maidir le hathrú aeráide, le Covid agus leis an mBreatimeacht, srl. It is a long time since I had 20 minutes to make a contribution in the Dáil. I think the last time the system allowed me 20 minutes was on the O'Higgins report. I made use of that time and hope I make effective use of these 20 minutes.

I wish to make two preliminary comments before I go into the bulk of the few words I wish to say. I was not expecting to speak today, which brings me to my first comment, on the changes to the speaking arrangements. My colleague, Deputy Pringle, sits on the Business Committee and he and the other colleagues on my left have fought a great battle not to change the arrangements. In spite of that, the majority of members of the committee changed the arrangements so the lesser parties have less time - not less time as such but less time by default because they are pushed down the pecking order. I am now up the pecking order today because, interestingly enough, many backbench Government Deputies, who cry out for more time, did not come in and use that time. I could not let the moment pass without saying that because this Bill was to go into another week of debate and not be completed today. It is very important because the Government has been disingenuous in saying there is not less time for the smaller parties. Actually, there is, and it is by default we are speaking today. I welcome that. As they say in Latin, carpe diem, seize the day, or seize the opportunity. I will do that.

I wish to make a second preliminary comment. In the rough and tumble of politics things are said, but earlier today Deputy Michael Moynihan talked about the former Minister, Ms Zappone, and singled her out.

I believe the Minister of State, Deputy Fleming, was there. I rarely do this but I am in my capacity now as an Independent Deputy. It really captured why we cannot make the transformative change necessary, which I will come back to, that we single out one Independent Deputy for failing to deal with disability at a time where Fianna Fáil supported the Government. Was it confidence and supply? I am not going to score political points but that is the fact. Fianna Fáil supported the Government at that time. To give one example, that Government withdrew the miserly €31.80 rehabilitative training allowance. It was not, however, miserly to those affected who received it. The Minister of State will remember we all got representations at the time. That Government, of which Katherine Zappone was just one member, was supported by Fianna Fáil. She was not the Minister with responsibility for disability so I could not just let it go. I was certainly, I hope, constructively critical of Katherine Zappone but that attack allows the Government, and the supporting Government at the time, which was Fianna Fáil, off the hook.

I have welcomed the good things in this budget. If the Minister of State will forgive me, I will not repeat them today because I want to zone in on a bigger issue. There are certainly good things in the budget and I highlighted some of them in my previous contribution.

This, however, is a budget like no other because it is a budget facing a time like no other. It is a time to make transformative change. That word "transformative" has become almost a cliché but we make it a cliché at our peril. We need to make it a reality if we are going to survive the challenges that face us captured by climate change and biodiversity emergencies, Covid-19 and Brexit. I do not say it lightly but Covid-19 and Brexit pale into insignificance compared with what we face with climate change and flooding which we discussed yesterday and the day before.

Deputy McNamara raised the matter of his committee. I want to praise the Deputy McNamara for the Trojan work he and the cross-party members did on that committee. This is what is important and this relates to the budget. In a short period, they brought experts in before them and produced and published a report that was promptly ignored. They actually managed to put Irish into it as well. Bhí píosa trí Ghaeilge istigh ann. Ní raibh sé go léir iomlán dátheangach ach rinneadh iarracht an Ghaeilge a chur isteach. They published that report and it was absolutely ignored. As the Deputy said, they highlighted the structural weaknesses in the system and they were obvious.

When we stood up for the first time back in March to talk about the emergency legislation, I referred to a letter we received from a particular union before Covid-19 started highlighting the serious situation in the health service. This is my fourth time referring to it. We did not need a letter from the union but the contents were stark regarding the situation there and the lack of primary care.

We went into Covid-19, therefore, with huge structural difficulties and huge equality in our health system. That did not happen accidentally. That happened as a result of Government policy. I spent approximately ten years of my life on a health forum and I saw at first hand what happened when the Progressive Democrats were in coalition and led the privatisation of our health service, which comes back to the point Deputy McNamara made. I am not saying he agreed with me but it did not happen by accident that 80% of our nursing homes became private. That just did not happen. That happened as a result of Government policy and, in fact, there was a time not too long ago when it was the other way around. I do not believe it was Fianna Fáil policy but, unfortunately, Fianna Fáil was led by the nose by the Progressive Democrats and it instituted a policy that ran down the public health system and absolutely resourced the private system. I saw this at first hand. I saw this in 2007 and 2008 when reports came back from the HSE saying the cost of refurbishment was why beds were closed. Beds were closed in 2006 and 2007 before the crash as a result of policy.

We can fast-forward to Covid-19 and NPHET. I am not here to criticize NPHET but from day one it did not have a broad representation. It did its job as it saw fit as a group of medics but there was not a broad representation. There was, therefore, no voice for the nursing homes, meat factories or direct provision centres. Afterwards, a narrative was given that there was a voice but there was not. I checked all the minutes until I ran out of energy. I did not see a discussion of the nursing homes or meat factories in March or April certainly but by May they were being mentioned.

Covid-19 highlighted our structural inequalities and the resources were used for that as opposed to looking at the nursing homes which we knew were in crisis. We have had years of HIQA reports pointing out the good things, absolutely, but also highlighting the problems in terms of infection control, the lack of staff or not enough mix with the staff or the absence of care plans. We went into Covid-19 and HIQA knew exactly what was going on in the nursing homes. I am not sure if anybody in NPHET asked HIQA in the beginning about the state of nursing homes or if HIQA would like to tell it. I am not sure. Perhaps, the inquiry Deputy McNamara's committee asked for will happen in due course regarding what happened the nursing homes.

We can play with figures but I am not going to because the Minister of State is very good at figures. He did tremendous work on the Committee of Public Accounts. I am not someone to argue with him about figures. This is not about figures, however, this is about what budget is necessary at this point in our history where we have all agreed there is no going back. From day one, two messages came out of Covid-19. We seem to have lost them now. One was that we are all in this together and the second was that there is no going back. We simply cannot go back because our economy and the way we were doing it was not sustainable.

If we say that, and if language is to mean something, we need a budget to reflect there is no going back. Without a doubt, the Minister did the right thing with the pandemic unemployment payment, PUP, and with the wage subsidy scheme. I have praised him for that. Yesterday, however, we looked at a sunset clause and I will bring it straight back to the topic. The sunset clause for the extra draconian powers we gave to the Garda to close down public houses was due to run out on 9 November. The Government came forward and asked the Opposition to extend that because we insisted and forced the Government to come back before the Dáil. The Government accepted that and came back in and had some measure of debate. Then, it asked that the clause would be extended until next June without any evidence or any basis and won by a majority.

In a nutshell, the Government extended the powers to the Garda in a time when the pubs were closed which is quite ironic. All the pubs were closed and we gave it extra powers to go in and inspect them. In the period since September before the pubs closed, the Garda never once needed those powers. That is a strange type of narrative to come in and say the Government needs to provide draconian powers, although the Minister said we were honestly never going to use them, but it was a deterrent.

It is the same thing with climate change. Rather than bringing us all on board together, and recognising that we did not lead but the people on the ground and the children led us when we declared a climate emergency and a biodiversity emergency, what do we do? We associate climate change action with a carbon tax, and not just a once-off tax but one tied in for the next few years. I have my own views on it but whatever about the pros and cons of the carbon tax, it is not a good message and it is not effective to associate the need for behaviour change with carbon tax. I could not put it any better than my colleagues. Deputies Bríd Smith and Paul Murphy spoke excellently this afternoon about how we are not taxing those who are polluting the most. Now we have a Bill that ties in a carbon tax which will affect the poorest and those most disenfranchised by our unequal system. That is not a good message.

Equally, it is not a good message to send out in this time of Covid that people will be punished if they do not behave. What is needed is not punishment but education, encouragement and leadership. That leadership has been sorely lacking.

I will turn now to some of the provisions in the budget. When the Government introduced the PUP of €350 per week, it received support and praise from us all. The level at which the payment was set was a recognition that this was the minimum needed by the people who had lost their jobs during the Covid crisis. That recognition should have spurred the Government on to consider whether the others who are unemployed might also need €350. It should have spurred the Government into looking at what might be the basic wage that people need to live. The Government should have given its consideration to those questions in the context of the salaries of people in this House. I make no apology for earning a salary for the work we do. However, it is a relevant consideration when thinking about what would constitute a basic living wage that would allow everyone to participate in society. Not only did the Government not give any consideration to those questions but, as quickly as it could, it reduced the rate of the PUP. There followed a welcome U-turn in that regard but now the Government is going to tax the payment. It does not make sense to do so when so many people are depending on it to stay afloat.

The 10 cent increase in the minimum wage is an insult. There was no movement in the budget on social welfare payments and pensions. I welcome the increase in the annual allowance for carers and the introduction of additional home care hours. However, while the provision of 5 million additional hours looks good when I am standing here, I am left wondering, when I go back to Claddagh or Galway city, what it will actually mean for people. A previous speaker mentioned that the basic home care package is 20 plus hours per week. I do not know anybody in Galway who is on that care package. I know families who are getting ten or 12 hours. I know there are families caring for people with dementia, morning, noon and night, who get 12 hours a week. The Tánaiste has spoken about the people who get up early in the morning. Some of these people hardly get to bed because they are engaged in caring duties all the time. They might get a nap during the day. I am not exaggerating when I say this and I am only using the anecdote to illustrate the general point. If we are asking people to perform a caring function and giving them only ten or 12 hours of home care provision, after a lengthy waiting time, then it puts the extra 5 million hours into perspective. Who will that additional provision help? Will it be used to clear the backlog or will it do something else? Does the Minister of State accept that when somebody is caring for a person with dementia 24-7 and is getting only 12 hours of home help a week and no other respite - there is no respite in these Covid times - then there is a problem. These people are a fundamental part of the economy. Without carers, the economy cannot thrive. Significantly, the majority of carers are women, which tells its own story. That is in no way to diminish the work of the men in caring roles but it does give added significance to our failure to treat carers with respect in order that they, in turn, can treat the vulnerable and sick with dignity and respect.

It is nothing short of shocking that the help-to-buy scheme is being extended. I am no expert on figures, so I will turn to the experts to illustrate my point. The Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, has described it as a "poorly targeted policy likely to fuel house price growth". This is the scheme the Government is extending. The ESRI points out that it has cost more than €300 million to date as against an anticipated cost of €130 million. The Minister will be very familiar with those types of cost overruns from his time as Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts. Social Justice Ireland has said that the scheme "artificially stimulated the property market by providing a benefit to those who need it least." A boost is being given to those in least need of it and, meanwhile, the word "crisis" does not capture what is happening with public housing. Taking Galway as an example, I know of somebody who has been on the housing waiting list since 2003 or 2005. I cannot get an answer as to why this person has not been offered a house in 15 to 17 years. That is the extent of the dysfunction and crisis in the housing situation in Galway and the service being offered to people. At the same time, there is, of necessity, huge expenditure on homelessness. On my walk every day to and from the accommodation in which I am privileged to live, I see people sleeping in doorways. This morning, I saw somebody doing fantastic work tending to these people and checking that they were still alive. I do not know how the Government can say there is a thriving economy when that is going on. The two simply do not go together.

More than €1 billion is being put into various schemes to support people to make rental payments. How can the Minister of State, with his background, justify that amount of money going into the housing assistance payment, HAP, scheme, the rental accommodation scheme, RAS, and long-term leasing, and claim it is not boosting prices in the private market? We must do away with the HAP scheme but it cannot be done overnight. I ask the Minister of State not to waste time by claiming that I have called for it to be got rid of overnight. That is not what I am saying. I wish the scheme was not in place and that the State had built houses instead, but that is not what happened. Fine Gael and the Labour Party enshrined the HAP scheme in housing legislation and said it was the only game in town. That was in 2014 or 2015 and, since then, the HAP scheme has indeed been the only game in town. I see colleagues nodding in agreement. That is the language that was spoken in Galway city. From 2009 until a year ago, no houses were built in Galway because, we were told, the HAP scheme was the only game in town. Simon Communities of Ireland have told us that most people were priced out of the rental market as a result. The policy is sick but it has been enshrined once again in this budget with the increased allocation for the various schemes, including long-term leasing. When I read the newspaper, I see properties being singled out for long-term leasing back to Dublin City Council instead of public housing being built on public land.

I have two further points to make before my time runs out. The first relates to the Office of Public Works, OPW, which does great work and for which I have great admiration. I see no reason that it could not be used more effectively to deal with the housing crisis, rather than relying on the Land Development Agency, which does not have the same background and statutory underpinning. I ask the Minister of State to reflect on the potential role for the OPW, with its vast experience, in tackling the housing crisis.

My final point concerns the situation of people aged over 66, as referred to by a number of speakers. The ESRI has indicated that there were 65,000 people over the age of 66 engaged in some form of paid work in the final quarter of 2019. They have been given nothing under any of the schemes the Government has introduced. We encourage them to work and, in some cases, make them work, but then we do not provide for them.

See this speech in context