Deputy Micheál Martin - speech from 21 May 2020

Over nearly three months now over 2,000 people have lost their lives on this island as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and our first thought today must be with their friends and loved ones as well as those who are still today fighting the virus. It is almost too terrible to contemplate what would have happened if we as a society had ignored the threat and carried on as normal. There is no question that our hospitals would have been overwhelmed and many people who have successfully recovered or who avoided the virus would have been added to the terrible death toll. I want to acknowledge the work of those who have sustained not just our health system but the many critical professions who have sustained our country through this terrible time. The wider community started restricting its activities from before the formal public lockdown was implemented and the community spread of the virus has been controlled. The impact of clusters remains a huge concern. When we return to look for lessons to be learned from this crisis there is no doubt that the situation in nursing homes and the spread of the virus in health settings will be a focus. So too will be the situation in meat plants which has grown very significantly over the last while. I hope today that we will hear more details about what measures are to be taken to identify and to act on clusters much earlier. And also around the issue of self-isolation in terms of some of the workers involved and more prompt responses to those who have tested positive and in a constructive assisted way to help families and people in that situation. The process of unwinding restrictions is underway and we need a robust debate about how this should be carried forward. The science remains clear but the policies which are possible while respecting the science are very much open to debate. There is not just one possible way forward and the range of expertise which should be included in discussions is very wide. The strongest responses to emergencies are always those which allow multiple voices to be heard and which accept constructive challenges. I genuinely feel at this stage we need a multidisciplinary input in terms of the reopening of society and of the economy itself. We need to look again at moving faster and restoring the effective functioning of the Dáil. I note the reports this morning where the Deputy CMO emphasised that there is no clear prohibition on meetings which last longer than two hours and we should look elsewhere in Europe for examples of parliaments which have successfully restarted their work. We do not need a return to full normal business or the general partisan back and forth which defines too much of what we do but we do need to be able to review major policies. We have seen from the excellent work of individual journalists how the response has been strengthened by a willingness to ask hard questions and point to weaknesses. There is much more we could and should be doing here. Deputy McNamara's committee or the committee which he chairs is already doing important work in teasing out specific issues. Next week we are due to debate and vote on a major spending proposal. At present there has been no consultation with the majority of the Dáil on the details of that proposal. It will not be acceptable to simply present it as a closed proposal and consultation is not defined by briefing the media before briefing deputies. It is a very important measure and there is no doubt that the majority here will be fully constructive and helpful. So let us make sure that we prepare for next week and any legislation we may need to review in the weeks afterwards in this inclusive spirit. In discussing the unwinding of restrictions we should start by acknowledging that all of the evidence is that the overwhelming majority of people have been responsible and will continue to be responsible. In the Department of Health's research published in recent days 85% said they would be willing to wear a facial covering in some situation if it was recommended. In terms of social distancing and other measures to control the potential spread of infection only a tiny minority oppose the restrictions. So as we move forward I don't think we have to fear complacency rather we have to have clarity in what is proposed and to make sure that measures make sense and are credible. As with so many things it is uncertainty and inconsistency which causes trouble. The division between which shops are allowed to open and those which must remain closed simply makes no sense and in some cases is damaging the credibility of the overall restrictions. The distinction between hardware stores and homeware stores in my view is foolish and there is now no doubt whatsoever that stores which are allowed to open are actively trying to fill the gaps created by keeping other types of stores closed. So from a competition perspective there has been a clear unfairness there. The public health concern I understand is to avoid encouraging the mass movement of people. This is reasonable however the evidence increasingly implies that the restrictions are simply concentrating movement into a limited number of locations. The exact opposite of what we should want. The 5km limit is for example actually making it harder to sustain social distancing in areas with a higher population density. And it does not appear to be part of the restrictions being used by other countries which are at a similar stage in their response efforts. I don't play golf but I think if we're saying you can play golf on the one hand but then you can't really play golf if your golf course is 6km away. I think that's the kind of stuff we need to refine maybe a bit more and be more nuanced in how we do things. And I say this in a helpful way. As my party have been saying for some time we need to significantly expand the range of expertise and opportunities considered when deciding on specific elements of the reopening strategy. As a broad principle an inclusive consultation should be established for every area. Let the professions and businesses involved have the opportunity to propose solutions which may not have occurred to officials but which would work in practice. I know the Taoiseach said it is more difficult to reopen than close. I get that. And that's why I think we do need to have that multidisciplinary expertise to assist the government in its work in that regard. In relation to reopening of schools we need to avoid the situation which arose with the leaving certificate. where a closed internal process in my view led to unreasonable expectations and uncertainty. And central to discussions must be an acknowledgement that the closure of schools is not hitting all groups equally. I passionately believe we need to educate children in our schools and find the wherewithal to do that. Many pupils do not have the facilities or equipment to learn properly away from schools. The proven interventions in relation to educational disadvantage which have been implemented over the last 20 years overwhelmingly rely on the teacher-pupil interaction. We must acknowledge this and take action to help them to limit the lost time and make up for this lost time. Particularly children in disadvantaged settings and their schools. The economic impact of the crisis has been unprecedented. And the reality is that no one really knows what the scale of the impact is or exactly what we should do to get through and rebuild from the crisis. However, what we do know is that there are certain sectors which are at greater risk than others and that our core principle has to be to make sure that we do not permanently lose business and jobs. The wage subsidy scheme is effective, though clearly not a long-term response. Evidence is emerging of an enormous threat to the future of smaller Irish-owned firms and early-stage firms. They continue to face a cash flow crisis which threatens their very existence. And in many cases they face having to take on debt which may undermine their viability. The core economic principle in this crisis has been to try and see the debt incurred during the response as separate to normal debt. The normal benchmarks have in effect been moved because of an acceptance that this debt does not define the structural soundness of overall finances. This is why, for countries, different rules can and should apply from those which are relevant to normal economic cycles. However, for firms, and small firms in particular, the evidence is that normal rules are applying. We need to find a way of making available to them a combination of grants and long-term, low or perfectly no interest financing. If I have to say, the small business sector feel that the measures to date have not been on the money for them. Just not have kind of responded to the core crisis that they are feeling. That's the overwhelming feedback we're getting from the SME sector. Particularly the domestic non-exporting SME sector along with the exporting. And our public sector has to be treated fairly too. We cannot allow public companies and institutions like third-level institutions, universities to be undermined by carrying massive new debt. And being forced into major cutbacks. We have to have a public sector bailout which is comprehensive and which is fair. The normal rules of bringing in the senior executives and simply saying, you sort it out, must be stopped. The total effect sector is in trouble. Universities are in trouble. Revenues are depleting. And there's an urgent investment along with that in technology to make sure they're ready for the autumn. There's a real crisis there. And I hope today we'll be told exactly what financial measures are to be proposed to help the wider public sector, including universities, institutes of technology, and public companies. They are on Thursday's level and they're not back. They are on Thursday's level. They are on Thursday's level, the virus coronavirus. They are on Thursday's level, they have to go to the Texas Department and they are on Thursday's level 3. They aren't the case to go to Thursday's level. Our focus today is on domestic matters. We should acknowledge the extremely positive development of the Franco-German agreement to support the limited debt-sharing and direct aid from members. The agreement does not guarantee it will happen, but it is a very positive step, and the government's recent conversion to support this policy is also very welcome. Populists here and throughout Europe love to talk about the conspiracy of the elites against the people, and they refuse to ever acknowledge the many benefits which all sections of society gain, from shared standards, open access to markets and generous support for areas like training, public transport, community development and sustainability. Finifal's position has for some time been that Europe is under attack for failing to take measures which it has neither the funding or the power to implement. The development of a new way of directly aiding countries and regions in trouble is essential, and this new display of solidarity, identified by the Merkel-Macron announcement, in my view is a very hopeful sign of a new direction across Europe. Thank you.