Richard Boyd Barrett Slams PUP Travel Cuts as Class Prejudice

Hello, sorry, hello. Hello. I wish I could be lighthearted about this bill. Unfortunately, I can't. And this is really quite disturbing evidence of the deceit, the dishonesty that is starting to characterise this government within a very short period. of entering office. I mean, one of the first deceits is that the note that was provided on this bill made absolutely no reference to the fact that you were changing the goalpost on the PUP in terms of eligibility for the payment, which, let's remind ourselves, is a payment that was given to people who lost their jobs and lost their incomes through no fault of the road. because public health measures initiated by the government meant that they lost their job. And the vast, vast majority of people who continue to receive the PUP are not at work because they can't return to work because of government health measures. measures. And now you want to punish them. Your measures, which were correctly taken to protect society, led to people losing their jobs, led to people losing their income. Your measures, which are necessary, are the reason they cannot return to work. And now you want to punish them. You want to scapegoat them. You want to treat them with utter contempt. even to the point of humiliating them when they go on holiday in line with the advice that is being provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs on non-essential travel. Because that's what's happening. unless the minister is going to tell me, and it's very clear, I know the answer to this, and I've been trying to blow the whistle on it since the weekend. Most people didn't even get it because it's the intersection of your statutory instrument and the DFA advice on the issue of travel. Because your statutory instrument says that getting the PUP is conditional on following the travel advice. But what the travel advice actually says is non-essential to travel to 13 countries is allowed. But I bet you, you're taking the payments off people who are going to those 13 countries. Now if they appealed it, Count Corle, they'd probably win. They'd probably get the payment back. Because you've no legal basis whatsoever for taking it off them. And of course, prior to your statutory instrument, you were doing this as well, in June and April, and you didn't even have a statutory instrument at that point, and you were doing it. Because I've got emails from people who were stopped at the airport. In one case, a man whose partner had her PUP payment cut, and her child benefit cut, who was going on holiday. It's absolutely unbelievable, Count Corle, what is going on. And you had no legal basis for doing that at the time. None. And really what's behind this is naked class prejudice and racial profiling. That's what's going on. Because it is okay for the rich, or those who are lucky enough that they have been able to return to employment, to go to the green list countries. And by the way, I just want to make it clear, as far as I'm concerned, we should all be following the Neffet advice for no travel. No non-essential travel. But it is the government who are departing from that advice. It is the Department of Foreign Affairs who is departing from that advice. Even today, again, Simon Coveney says, oh, but it's actually safer to go to 13 countries than it is to stay here. Which begs the question, maybe we should all go to Greece and Italy and Cyprus, because it would be safer there. Except it wouldn't be very safe for the Greeks and the Italians and the Cypriots, because we'd be taking the virus over there. But that's okay, apparently. But you're going to punish people, poor people, people who've lost their job through no fault of their own, for following the advice that is on the Department of Foreign Affairs website. That is what's going on. It is shocking. And the double standards behind it are really shocking. But I wonder if the Taoiseach decided he fancied going to Italy or Hungary or Cyprus, would he have his salary docked? Public money? No, he wouldn't. You're singling out people on social welfare payments. I got a message today from a carer who was stopped. A carer, taking a bit of respite. This is sickening stuff. I mean, really. And I suppose I should expect it from Fine Gael. And I suppose I should expect it from Finnfall. But for the Greens to do this is nauseating. Utterly nauseating. And I bet you, if you looked at the list of the 102 people, we'll find certain common characteristics. I.e., they have foreign sounding names or look a bit foreign, even though they are actually residents of this country and citizens of this country. That's what's really going on. And the other thing that's really going on in this bill is an attempt to whip people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own as a result of public health advice into low paid employment in other jobs. That's what you're doing. That's what you're giving yourself the legal right to do is to put pressure on people who work in the arts, in live entertainment and music to go, I don't know, and go and work at McDonald's in order to improve the employment figures. And because deep in the soul of Fine Gael there is a hatred for people who have to depend through no fault of their own in most cases on social welfare. It's deep prejudice that is stamped into the DNA of Fine Gael and it is nauseating. But again, it would seem there was no legal basis for any of this up until now. And the government is desperately trying to recuperate the situation by retrospectively bringing in this legislation to legitimise itself. And I'd just love if the Minister would get up and ask the direct question, are recipients of the PUP and other social welfare payments who are complying with the Department of Foreign Affairs travel advice and going to one of the 13 countries, have they had their payments cut? And again, I repeat, I'm not suggesting they should go to those countries, but I'm pointing out that the confusion about travel starts with the government's advice. It is the government who is saying it is okay to go to certain countries and departing from NEFET advice. It's the government who should have their payments docked for breaching health advice, because NEFET and the Expert Advisory Group have made it clear there should be non-essential travel. So the Minister should have their pay docked for refusing to comply to that advice and endangering the public health effort. And crucially, and this is where it really, really is bad. You see, all of the public health measures and the enthusiastic commitment of people to measures that meant very significant hardship that they had to suffer, were crucially dependent on the principle, we are all in it together. That's the reason why there was such compliance, because they applied to everybody, rich or poor, no matter what your station in life, we were supposed to be all in it together, we were all going to suffer the same hardships. And people believed that, but it seems they were fools to believe it. Because at the first opportunity, the government reverts the type and starts the discrimination, the inequality, the bias and the discrimination against the least well off, against the vulnerable and against those who are unlucky enough to lose jobs and still not be able to get back to work, because of public health measures that the government imposed. That is the truth of what is going on. And I just, I mean, really, I am at a loss for words as what the government is saying. And I would love if the minister get up and says, oh no, actually, the DFA advice, if people went to one of the 13 countries on the payments, they're being allowed go. They're being allowed go. Again, I reiterate, I don't think anybody should be allowed go. But it should apply to everybody. But I bet you they're not. They're losing their payments. They're losing their payments. And it was clear when the minister got up today and said, yeah, we're saying nobody should go. And the very same minister who's saying that actually says on his website, it's okay to go to 13 countries, but we'll only impose penalties on certain people, certain categories of people. And they will tend to be the less well off, the vulnerable and those who've lost employment. So we will try to amend this legislation. I do have to say, Count Corle, I'm disappointed. Our other amendment wasn't taken, seeing as we've facilitated a rushed bill, guillotines and so on. But nonetheless, we have an amendment to take out this attempt to change the goalpost behind the PU payment and to smash up, which is what you're doing, the principle of solidarity, which underlay the public health measures. It would be better if the government accepted that section, but we will be putting it to a vote later tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.