Richard Boyd Barrett: Says COVID-19 Bill Undermines Public Health

Yeah, this section refers to the title of the bill, Minister, and the title of the bill, just to remind ourselves, is Social Welfare COVID-19 Bill. In other words, this is a bill that is supposed to be a response to a public health pandemic. Now, I want to quote it to you that you should either change the bill or change the name, because it is clear when you look into this bill and the government's policy on the matters that we have debated during the course of this bill, that the government is not trying to address or assist in the battle against COVID-19 with this bill. What they're actually doing is threatening the battle against COVID-19, and they're doing that in a number of ways. First of all, despite the fact that it has been put to you on multiple occasions, and I put it to Minister Coveney again today, you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth on the question of non-essential foreign travel. You see, Minister, I actually believe there should be no non-essential foreign travel. Right? It is endangering public health. And I say that not because I'm an expert, but because the actual experts say it. Neffit and the expert advisory group. They say there should be no non-essential travel outside the state. But the government says, unless the Department of Foreign Affairs somehow isn't the government anymore, but I think they are, the government say non-essential travel to 13 countries is okay. And that the general advisory against non-essential travel does, and I quote, not apply to those 13 countries. That is what the website says. Therefore, for you to penalise a specific group of people in receipt of the PUP payment, who heed that advice, and conclude from that advice, that's what anybody who understands English would conclude is the Department of Foreign Affairs is saying it is okay to travel to those 13 countries. The government is saying it is okay to travel to those 13 countries. I don't think it's okay. You claim you say it isn't okay. But the Department of Foreign Affairs, the ministry responsible for it, says it's okay. And then you punish people who follow that advice by cutting them off their payments, but not rich people who don't have to depend on the PUP, not workers who are lucky enough that their sectors have recovered and they're back at work. Or, no, they can go to the 13 countries. And the minister even embellishes it further earlier today by saying, actually, it's safer to go to those countries. He actually said that today in the Dáil. There's less likelihood of getting infection in the 13 countries than here, which begs the question, why aren't we all going? Seriously, why aren't we all going? We'd be less likely to get infected if we believed the minister. But luckily, the minister isn't a virologist. He's not an epidemiologist. He's not a public health doctor. Although he appears to be behaving as if he is, because he's issuing advice on public health matters, which directly conflicts with what Neffert and the Expert Advisory Group actually said. So it is the minister and the government who are breaking from the public health advice, sowing confusion and threatening the second wave, which you just said yourself you were concerned about. He said, if there's another wave, people will blame me. Yes, they'll blame you because the Department of Foreign Affairs is telling people it's okay. When Neffert is saying, it isn't okay. So they'd be right to blame you. But if you want to do something about that, there's a very simple way. And it's not about selectively cutting off the payments of one cohort of people. It is about simply changing the Department of Foreign Affairs advice to say it is not okay to go to those 13 countries. And to further say that anybody who breaches the advice of the public health authorities will receive the same sanction. Whatever that sanction is, the same sanction. We're all in it together. Solidarity. An injury to one is an injury to all. You can put it whatever way you like. One law for everybody when it comes to protecting public health. But what you're doing is two laws. And speaking out of both sides of your mouth on the issue of public health. It's fundamentally dishonest. And it is fundamentally damaging to the fight against COVID-19. And frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself for it. And the second issue where your actions are threatening the public health effort is in selectively looking for the means to cut certain people off the COVID payment. Which, as you rightly said, was introduced in order to underpin, in a financial way, solidarity in the fight against COVID-19. That was the point of it. To ease the hardship that was caused as a result of people losing their jobs and income resulting from COVID-19. But from the beginning, certain people were excluded and discriminated against. The over-66s. I thought I was mishearing when I heard Mark McSherry, because I presume he's now going to vote against this bill, saying, I wish the government would do something about the discrimination of the over-66s. It's in the bill. It's repeated in the bill. You don't get the PUP if you're over 66 or under 18, even if you're working. Now, what did that do? That meant the taxi drivers that were working during the height of the pandemic, and indeed most of the taxi drivers that are still working, are over 66. Precisely the people who should have been cocooning were working. The government's discrimination was threatening, and is threatening, the health of the most vulnerable group of taxi drivers. And that remains the case. So the inequity of it is threatening the fight against COVID-19. And of course, then you begin to think, what is the real agenda behind the bill? It's got nothing to do with the fight against COVID-19. It is actually about driving people off the pandemic payment. You were forced, under pressure, to raise the pandemic payment from your original proposal for 203, up to 350, because people rightly said it was not enough. And now you're desperately trying to unravel that. That is what actually is going on. And this bill gives you the legislative armory to do it. And, indeed, copper fastens the distinction you've imposed, largely affecting the self-employed. And two major victims of this are artists, taxi drivers, and people who work in the bar industry. All of them are being picked on. Having their incomes cut, even though they can't return to work because of your public health advice. Actually, this is incentivising them to bang down the door of their employment and say, open up the bars, open up the bars. Because that's the only way they can recover their income. When, of course, the public health advice is to keep the bars closed at the moment. That's the truth. So, you know, crocodile tears about the plight of the arts workers, the musicians, and all the rest of it, and then do absolutely nothing about it, in fact, do worse than nothing about it, slash their income. That's already happened, and you're copper fastening it in this bill. That is undermining the public health effort. It is breaking the solidarity which has underpinned that public health effort. And because you're breaking that solidarity, you will be to blame if things go wrong. Thank you.