Louise O'Reilly
Dublin Fingal West · Sinn Féin · Ireland
“I welcome this debate this afternoon and am happy to be able to make a small contribution to it. I grew up in a Border town. I ended up in that town because my father was a trade union organiser who represented workers on both sides of the Border for a long number of years and, in fact, went on to be based in the North for a long time.”
“I am fortunate enough to represent a constituency that is very firmly in the Dublin–Belfast economic corridor. Before partition, as we know, Belfast was a thriving industrial powerhouse. Partition put a lid on the potential of that city to grow and flourish.”
“When we talk about Irish unity, we should frame that discussion as one about potential for growth, the potential for all-Ireland working and all-Ireland business. Between Belfast and Dublin, there are five universities, numerous colleges of further education and training, and businesses that are ready to scale up.”
“As the debate on Irish unity advances, and it is advancing despite what some of the people opposite would like to happen, we need to frame that discussion in a positive way. We need to look clearly for those opportunities while acknowledging the challenges. We are not blind to the challenges.”
“If her letter does not have any impact - let us be honest; it has not had any impact - the Minister of State might outline what he will do that might go a bit further than writing a letter. We know that devices are essential. We know that parents want their kids to be able to participate.”
“I thank the Deputies for bringing forward this motion. I was chatting to my dad as I was coming in and told him I would be debating this motion in relation to supports for parents this morning. He reminded me, of course, that it was the Labour Party in government that cut those very supports.”
The complete record
Every one of 855 lines we hold for Louise O'Reilly, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 18.
“I thank the Minister of State for being here to discuss the Topical Issue concerning the need for primary care services for my constituency of Dublin Fingal West which is, as I am sure the Minister of State is aware, one of the fastest growing constituencies in this State. We also have a very young profile; we do not necessarily fit with the profile of the rest of this State. There is no hospital in my constituency to be fighting about but equally, there is a real, serious lack of primary care services. When the people in my constituency need to access the health service, they must leave. If they need a hospital or the services provided by a hospital, they must leave. They travel to Drogheda, to Beaumont, to James Connolly memorial hospital or the Mater but they must leave. They cannot get those services in our area.”
“I would like to make a brief comment. I would like Deputy Lahart to correct the record. He stated that the minimum wage had consistently gone up. Of course, it has gone up many times, as recommended by the Low Pay Commission, but it was the Deputy's party, Fianna Fáil, that cut it. It is not true to say that the minimum wage has always gone up. It was cut by the Deputy's party in government. I do not forget that and I would hope that the Deputy does not forget that either.”
“To every worker, I would say Jesus, do not wait around for Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Michael Lowry or anyone else to protect your rights. The best way to protect your rights at work is to join your trade union and be active in it. If the Government had any interest in ensuring that workers could protect themselves at work, it would introduce the right to organise, but it will not do that, only a Sinn Féin led Government will do that. I remind anyone listening that the annual May Day march will take place this evening at 7 p.m. at the Garden of Remembrance. I hope as many workers as possible will join me, Sinn Féin, the Dublin Council of Trade Unions, other trade unionists and progressive parties to celebrate May Day in our capital city.”
“We also have a report from the Low Pay Commission, which recommends the abolition of sub-minimum rates of pay. Young workers are currently paid less than their colleagues for the same work. They are punished for the crime of being young. They work hard and they do the same work yet there is institutionalised discrimination. Guess which report the Government is rushing to act on. Of course it is the CEOs on €300,000 plus. They are going to get a pat on the back and probably a few more bob. Young workers on sub-minimum rates of pay are being told very clearly to continue working, doing the same work as their colleagues for less money and the Government will stand over that. It is shameful. I say to the Government that we see you and we see where your priorities lie.”
“I want to take this opportunity to say to the woman I used to work with - we worked together in the union - and continue to call a comrade and a friend that we are so proud of her. We are proud of her bravery. We send her our love and solidarity not just on May Day but every day, especially today because I know today is a very special day for Kathleen, for myself and for workers. Politics is all about priorities. Let us have a little look at where the priorities for this Government lie. Let us call it a tale of two reports. One report recommends that CEOs on salaries of €300,000 plus are going to get a pay increase. They will not be getting a performance-related bonus, nothing like that, a straight-up pay increase for people on €300,000 plus.”
“I am a bit disappointed but not a little bit surprised that the senior Minister did not stay for the full duration of the debate. He rarely does when it has anything to do with workers' rights. I wish everyone here a very happy May Day, especially those people who work here in the Oireachtas, the people who cook and clean for us, the ones who keep this place running. On May Day we celebrate workers all over the world but it is really important that we remember those people who are working here all around us. As most people will know, I am a former union organiser. As a union organiser, I worked alongside a very brave and brilliant woman by the name of Kathleen Funchion, who is an MEP now. Some colleagues will know that Kathleen has spoken recently about her experience of coercive control.”
“Certain groups of people, including seasonal workers and school caretakers, in particular, are excluded from pay-related jobseeker's benefits and allowances. Seasonal workers are every bit as unemployed when they are not working; it is just that they are unemployed for a specific period. Will the Minister give some consideration to including those people, who we rely on and lean on in the seasons when they work? It is not their fault they do not have work. The Minister knows that well. They are available for work but it is very tough to find work. School principals and teachers will tell you these workers are very much necessary and needed. They like that continuity of service but these workers feel very aggrieved, and rightly so, that they have been excluded from the programme.”
“On a point of order, there was a lot of consternation and an awful lot of Dáil time was given over to Deputies in the Lowry group who insisted on having recognition. They got it and now they have a question on the Order Paper but they have not turned up to take it. I want that to be recorded because there was a lot of chat and consternation in the House, as the Minister knows. At the end of it, we see that after all of their kicking up and kicking off, they have not turned up to take their slots. This is worth recording.”
“We will consider this as part of the work programme if I have anything to do with it. The Minister rightly highlighted that it is confusing when different methods of assessment are used. While he said there are sometimes valid reasons for this, there are actually no valid reasons for including child maintenance in assessments. The louder we say that and the more people we say that to, the more likely it is that this will be standardised across the board. The aspect that is confusing for people is they cannot understand why child maintenance is included for one payment but disregarded for another. It should be disregarded for all of them. It is not a payment to the family; it is a payment to the child. We need to be clear in that regard. I welcome the Minister’s words and I hope this is something on which we can work together.”
“The Minister can send a message to families on low incomes and people dependent on supports and payments by saying what is recognised by the Department of Social Protection must be recognised by all other Departments.”
“There are 190,000 children in Ireland today classified as at risk of poverty. Child maintenance is essential. I find it incongruous that although child maintenance is absolutely essential, it is included in assessments for some necessary supports. I welcome the Minister’s words. I hope he will work with me across party lines on this matter. No one will disagree with the idea that child maintenance should not be included when calculating assessments for supports because those supports are often for families, whereas child maintenance is for the child. Given those stark statistics and the fact that organisations such as Social Justice Ireland tell us that all once-off payments, which the Minister said will be discontinued, do is mask an increasing trend of child poverty, that needs to be tackled.”
“While I am aware the Department does not use child maintenance as a criterion by which to assess, it is alone in that regard. It is incredibly hit and miss across local authorities. Some count it whereas others do not. Does the Minister agree that child maintenance is for children and should not be considered as part of means tests for essential supports for adults and families? I hope the Department takes the lead on this because there is no standardisation, not even across local authorities. Part of the reason for that is each Department is making up its own rules, as are the local authorities. Standardisation is needed. I am hoping the Minister will work with me to develop and ensure that is achieved.”
“To the greatest extent possible, if we can remove the profit motive from the school meals programme, there will be benefits for the children, social benefits that come out of that, but also local benefits. Taxpayers' money could not be spent more wisely than putting it into the meals on wheels network. Next week I will attend the celebration of 50 years of Balbriggan meals on wheels. It provides an absolutely exemplary service. I am really looking forward to it. The recipients of the service have good words to say about it when I talk to them. It is about the nutritional value as well as the service of calling to people's doors.”
“On Tuesday this week, I attended a presentation on the meals on wheels network. There was a representative from the Minister's office there as well. The network is absolutely fantastic. Day in and day out, the volunteers do a really good job. It is not just a food delivery service but they are really conscious about the quality of the food. They have a more hands-on approach. They are local. They do not have a corporate office so they might struggle to put in a very swanky and slick tender into a tender process. They do not have that kind of backup or administrative support. I welcome the fact that the Minister will consider getting the nutritional review to have a look at that.”
“My fear is we are part way down it already and we need to pull it back. The best way to do that is to remove the profit motive from that programme.”
“I thank the Minister for his response. The reason I raised this issue is that I have a concern about the nutritional quality. Parents cannot control the quality of the food, although they can select from the menu of options. Concerns have been raised about the traceability of food and labelling such as "pasta sauce". At the end of the day, the companies that are involved in this have a loyalty to their profits and business. I am talking to the Minister as he is wearing both of his hats. He looks after part of the school meals programme but also has responsibility for community employment, Tús, the rural social scheme and other schemes. That would be very beneficial. Will he consider not-for-profit provision? We saw what happened in England with turkey twizzlers and all that kind of stuff. We do not want to go down that road.”
“My question is fairly straightforward. I am aware the Minister is doing a review. I have corresponded with him with regard to taking the profit motive out of school meal provision to the greatest extent possible. Has the Minister examined that or is he open to further discussion or consideration of it? My question cites the meals on wheels service but there are obviously others that would fulfil similar criteria.”
“CHI procured the non-medical springs and the children were operated on when they were in the care of CHI. The report lays bare the manner in which children and their families were left unsupported and without information. I can only imagine what that must be like for parents. I can only imagine how it would feel to be in Temple Street hospital today with a child who was about to go in for surgery. People need confidence. It is a very big step to let go of your child's hand and to let them go in for surgery. It is a massive leap of faith for any parent. Those parents and children deserve to have confidence, and I do not think they could today. They certainly could not have confidence in the board of CHI. It is time for the board that has presided over much of this to stand down. The Minister needs to call for that.”
“She spoke of regret on the record here, and I am sure this means an awful lot to them, but the apology is on the record from CHI and the HSE. Did the Minister say sorry herself as the person in the lead here, as the person with whom the buck stops, and as the person from whom they would like to receive that apology? We are here because of another report into yet another failure by the health service. I represented workers in the health service for many years and I know how hard they work but they are very often battling a level of incompetence and a complete lack of oversight on the part of the leadership. It is very hard for them to do their work. The conditions under which they work are very strenuous and onerous. I acknowledge that but the simple fact is that children were not protected from the risk of harm.”
“I will briefly address the issue raised by the Minister of State, Deputy Murnane O'Connor. I do not for a moment underestimate the scale of the challenge that she might be facing in terms of the obesity epidemic. With the greatest respect, however, I would doubt the relevance of it to this discussion. For any parents watching who perhaps are with their child waiting to go in for surgery this will not inspire a massive amount of confidence. This is not to diminish the issue but perhaps there is a better time and place for that to be discussed. The Minister said: "I offer my deepest regret for the distress and anxiety caused to the families, and both the HSE and CHI have apologised to the children and families affected by these issues." She did not say that in her contribution but I wonder if she has apologised to them.”
“We need that expertise. I encourage the Minister of State to intervene directly and ensure it is sufficiently attractive for workers to move from the local authorities to Irish Water.”
“I have been in the Chamber for about half an hour and I have heard Deputy after Deputy raise issues with the inadequacy and the inadequate response of Uisce Éireann or Irish Water. By the way, the Government is fooling nobody with the name change, but the very best of luck with it. What Deputies are saying is Irish Water or Uisce Éireann, or whatever you are having yourself, is not capable of responding to the needs of their communities. We have a situation where workers are choosing to remain in the local authority because it is not sufficiently attractive for them to move to Irish Water or Uisce Éireann. I urge the Minister of State to intervene in this situation to ensure workers want to move because he needs those workers and we need them. I could paper the inside of this Chamber with representations sent to Irish Water.”
“I can only imagine its former leader, Deputy Kelly, is somewhat mortified today as his colleagues walk back all his hubris-ridden statements in defence of Irish Water and water charges. I remember the water marches well. I was an official in SIPTU at the time and I marched with SIPTU members who were ashamed of the union's stance. How could you blame them? Many of them were water workers. I stood alongside them. They are the people we need to see working to ensure safe, clean water is delivered, but somehow the Government has managed to make a job in Irish Water deeply unattractive. It is not sufficiently attractive for people to move from the local authorities into Irish Water. The Minister of State should be under no illusions - the Government needs these men and women and their expertise.”
“My constituency of Dublin Fingal West has seen fairly rapid growth in recent years but we have not seen a consequent increase in the capacity of water infrastructure. One example is the village of Naul. The local community are worn out begging - I genuinely mean begging - for assistance from the council, the Government and Irish Water. The Delvin river floods when the water infrastructure is overwhelmed, and it is very regularly overwhelmed. The plant cannot cope with the demand and the community is left to deal with the consequences. Uisce Éireann is a creation of the Minister of State's Government, a creation that it dreamt up. It was designed to facilitate privatisation, and we know that. I welcome the acknowledgement by the Labour Party that it was wrong on water charges.”
“I also think that women who are forced out of the formal workforce should have the opportunity to work on, should they so choose. This is about choice. There is somewhat of a paternalistic attitude in this legislation and, with respect to the Minister and his contribution, I think workers are big and able enough to choose. I said this when the Labour Party took that right away from them. We campaigned against it then and we stand against it today.”
“When framing legislation such as this, I request that the Minister consider the case of women, many of them forced out of the workplace through not fault of their own because they had to engage in the business of rearing their children and tending to their families. As they get older, many women will care for older relatives. At that stage, they will have to take time out of the formal workforce, leaving them at a substantial disadvantage. If they had the opportunity to work on and were able to do so, that would be a very productive use of the Minister's time. I am disappointed at the limitations in this legislation. The Minister should go further. In line with the opinion of the Pensions Commission, I believe workers in physically onerous employments should have the opportunity to retire at the age of 65.”
“The Minister did not say how that is going to happen because, of course, it is a piece of fiction. It does not impose any more burdens on employers. In fact, it gives employers the choice to ensure that they have more access to that experiential learning. It gives employers the choice to value their colleagues and to not be ageist. If somebody is fit to work, then they can work. If they are not, then every single workplace in the State has rules and procedures in place to deal with that. If a person if fit, willing and able to work, they should be allowed to work on. In my opinion and that of my party, they should be allowed to work on to the age of 70.”
“I have argued this point here many times with the Minister's colleagues and they have attempted to contradict me, but there it is in black and white. This Bill will facilitate employees who wish to continue working beyond the normal retirement age of 65. Well hallelujah, that is the normal retirement age and it is the age at which workers should have the right to access their pensions, or to work on should they so choose. That is what this should be about; it should be about choice. I am not aware of anyone advocating for the complete abolition of mandatory retirement ages, although the Minister mentioned it in his speech. I am not sure that is an ask of any organisation. In his speech, the Minister referred to the fact that the abolition of any mandatory ages would impose potentially substantial burdens on employers.”
“I welcome the chance to discuss this issue. From my previous work experience, where I encountered people who came up against a compulsory retirement age, I genuinely believe workers want the right to make the decision to work on at 65, should they wish, up to age of 70, as provided for in the legislation that my colleague, Deputy Claire Kerrane, and I brought forward, or to retire with access to their pension at 65. This is not at odds with the recommendations of the Pensions Commission, as I am sure the Minister well knows. While it can sometimes be a bit of a slog in opposition, we mark those victories where we get them. I welcome the acknowledgement by the Minister that the normal retirement age is in fact 65.”
“More money is being charged to my constituents to use public transport while at the same time they are being told that they have to play their part in decarbonisation, which they want to do. They are Dubs. They live in Dublin. They want to be in the Dublin city commuter zone.”
“This should not be a reply that tells me why he cannot deal with the matter but a reply that provides an explanation for me and my constituents as to why commuters from the towns of Skerries and Balbriggan will have to pay more to get into town and use the public transport service, while at the same time, as the Minister of State said, improving public transport services and infrastructure is central to improving quality of life, achieving decarbonisation, and is part of the goals that have been set out in the programme the Government. These things do not make sense. If the Government wants people to use public transport, it needs to make it accessible, frequent and affordable.”
“The Department has not even included the DART+ coastal north project in the reply. That will drive my constituents up the wall, as I am sure the Minister of State will appreciate. While it is brilliant that the metro will come, and I am sure some of my constituents will use it, people will have to travel in their cars or by another form of public transport to get to the metro, which will stop in Swords. That is not in the constituency of Dublin Fingal West. It is in the Minister for Transport's constituency, which might lead people to believe it will be built, unless they are familiar with his record in other areas. I understand the limitations of the Minister of State's reply, but I would very much appreciate if he would get a comprehensive reply for me from the Minister for Transport.”
“I am very annoyed. MetroLink does not serve my constituency. Neither do DART+ west and DART+ south west. The only DART+ project that will serve my constituents is DART+ coastal north, which has been a very long tale. I do not have the time to tell it all, but suffice to say that it has been a decade since the bridges were raised. A little like draining the River Shannon, it gets wheeled out every once in a while, but it never actually seems to happen. I fully appreciate the Minister of State being here and I thank him for the reply. However, that reply relates to people who live in different areas and not the people I represent. The people I represent in Skerries and Balbriggan are being taken out of the Dublin city commuter zone and will now have to pay more to get in.”
“We really want to see people using the trains but they are getting a mixed message from the Government. On the one hand people are being told to leave the car at home but on the other hand, train fares are being increased.”
“I am sure the Minister of State will appreciate that my constituents are very angry about this move. Like the Government, they share the aspiration to leave their cars at home. However, a disincentive is being created by making sure they have to pay extra. I mean no disrespect to the people who live in Kildare, Wicklow and Meath. I wish them the very best. I do not begrudge them the reduced fares. It is a good thing that there are reduced fares. In fact, I think it is such a good thing that I want more towns to be included in the Dublin city commuter zone. However, I would like if those towns were in Dublin as well since the scheme appears to be accommodating enough to include towns outside of Dublin city and county. We want to see people using the trains. I will not get into the issue of overcrowding with the Minister of State now.”
“On the one hand, the Government says that it wants us out of our cars and to use public transport, which is a very noble and worthwhile endeavour. However, I do not know how the Minister of State imagines my constituents feel when they are told that the station that serves Rush and Lusk is taken into the Dublin city commuter zone. This is really welcome. It means reduced fares, which is really important. However, those people who use trains that leave from Skerries or Balbriggan have been taken out of the Dublin city commuter zone. It is not that far and the trainline is just a straight line up - I am sure the Minister of State is familiar with the area. They will now have to pay higher fares while towns in Wicklow, Meath and Kildare are being brought into the Dublin city commuter zone.”
“We do not have connected cycle routes either, so it is very tough for my constituents to get to the main source of transport. For elderly constituents who simply want to move around within their towns and villages, it is very tough for them to do so. Some new housing estates are being built in north county Dublin now. Given the scale of the Government's housing crisis, any house building is, of course, to be welcomed. However, there is no joined-up thinking. There is no bus route. Every time a new estate is established, as sure as night follows day, a couple of weeks after people start to move in, a campaign has to be started to get a bus. There has to be some type of forward thinking. If people are moving in to the houses, they are not staying in them forever and for always and for 24 hours a day. They will need to get out.”
“I thank the Minister of State for being here to take this Topical Issue. I represent one of the youngest and fastest-growing constituencies in the State in Fingal West. Many of my constituents are served by the train, which runs alongside the side of my constituency, and some by bus. Unfortunately, for my constituents, most of the existing transport routes only bring them in to town. They need dynamic connectivity to bring them from one town to another. We know there is a link from Rush to Lusk to Balbriggan to Skerries to Loughshinny, which is good. These towns are linked by a bus service, but the outlying, smaller towns and villages are not linked up by a bus service. Equally, many of my constituents experience difficulties accessing the train inasmuch as they do not have public transport that will take them all the way there.”
“The report also references the establishment of intercultural partnership structures in each division between An Garda Síochána and diverse representatives within minority ethnic communities. That is something that can and should be done. Young people need to have a respectful attitude to An Garda Síochána and a positive attitude to their engagements but that goes both ways. We cannot expect our young people to have faith in An Garda Síochána unless they can see that replicated and reflected back to them.”
“Rural and Dublin groups spoke about concerns about racial profiling and disproportionate stopping of young black men by police. Both groups shared examples. Every word in this report is echoed by the anecdotal experience and evidence from my constituency. I commend the members of An Garda Síochána who undertake community-based activity and are really trying hard. I know them in the area where I live, as does the Minister of State. They are going above and beyond, but what this report tells us is there is a serious issue that has to be addressed. The report makes a number of recommendations. I will draw the Minister of State's attention to some of them. Sadly, many of them relate to very simple things, such as the collection of data. It is shameful that is not being done.”
“I proudly represent a diverse constituency that is also one of the youngest in the State. The Minister of State talked about community engagement and the need to foster positive behavioural change. I agree with him. Positive behavioural change is definitely a worthwhile goal for our young people. It is also a worthwhile goal for members of An Garda Síochána. I draw the Minister of State's attention to the findings of the Irish Network Against Racism study published in the past couple of days. It found that survey participants described traumatic experiences while being stopped by members of An Garda Síochána, including strip searches, property damage and wrongful arrests, some of which had long-lasting psychological impacts.”
“There was confusion. I welcome that the Minister has said this. I look forward to working with the Minister to ensure the next scheme is fit for purpose.”
“That is not his name but I will not put his name on the record. He said: Like many people I was told in my welfare office to complete the form and return it to them. It is not means tested they said. I filled it out and I returned it as I was told to put down what I lost. I had no damage to my home just the food in my fridge and freezer, which I was told to put down. What I didn't put down was the €300 I paid so that we could eat some hot food and buy €200 worth of fuel for our open fire just to keep us warm. There was no timeline on the form to have it returned and we weren't asked for receipts. He did not get a penny. He was confused and the people dealing with him were also confused. He is going to have to pay back that money he spent because he does not have it. He will be paying that back now for a very long time.”
“It is not very fair to say, "The scheme was never closed; what are you talking about?" The Minister knows, and I know, that people were told over the phone when they looked for assistance that the scheme had closed. The Minister needs to make it abundantly clear to every single person who might potentially benefit from it that they are in a position to be able to apply. I welcome the commitment from the Minister of State, Deputy Buttimer, that small to medium enterprises will be looked at. I am dying to know what that will look like. I can commit absolutely to working with the Minister of State on that. In the few seconds remaining to me I will read into the record some correspondence from a constituent of mine, lest anyone go home thinking this is only a problem in certain areas and not a problem in Dublin. I will call him John.”
“I thank the Minister and everyone who contributed to the debate. I reiterate my thanks and that of my party to every person who stepped up and responded in the aftermath of Storm Éowyn. I want to respond to some of the Minister's contribution. We will work with the Minister, and right across the Dáil, to ensure future responses are fit for purpose and that those very famous lessons that have to be learned are indeed learned and acted upon. There was confusion and the Minister acknowledged it himself. I have been contacted by people who were told by officials that the scheme was closed. The Minister says now it is open. I welcome that it will be open until 25 April, but the Minister needs to publicise that now. There are TDs in this Chamber who did not know. These are people who are very closely engaged in it.”
“However, even after jumping through these hoops, no alternative was offered to businesses such as those in the seafood sector. My colleague, an Teachta Conway-Walsh, has raised the issue of the oyster farmer in the Minister's constituency. I am sure he is well aware of that case. We have heard of numerous cases of businesses in the hospitality sector that had to shut for the full three weeks. The loss in revenue is particularly acute given that tourist numbers are down on last month. With each new weather event on this island, we resort to another descriptor but storms like Storm Éowyn are no longer "once in a lifetime" events. Climate change is real. It is happening and it is changing our landscape more quickly than we ever would have thought. Future humanitarian assistance schemes cannot unfold the way this one has.”
“In the immediate aftermath of the storm, the Minister for enterprise emphatically assured businesses that the Government remained committed to supporting businesses throughout the recovery period and beyond. He knew full well that the Government had no intention of extending the scheme to businesses. In practice, the Minister clearly stated that businesses were on their own and put them at the mercy of insurance companies, giving no thought to the fact that excesses might be prohibitively high or that premiums could go up so significantly as to render them unpayable next year. The Government's amendment claims that the scheme will provide support where people have a valid reason for non-insurance and can demonstrate that they do not have the resources to make good the losses.”
“There must be accountability for potentially allowing people to fall through the cracks like that. I appreciate that responding to an emergency requires agility and that it does not always necessarily move in a straight line but people were really depending on this. They were living on the Government's every word on the radio and that did not match the supports that were available. The intended provision under the humanitarian assistance scheme was very modest. The scheme is not new and neither is it particularly complicated to administer. It boggles the mind that Government could not manage to devise a straightforward guideline as to what was covered under the scheme and what was not.”
“The Taoiseach himself assured the most vulnerable among the public that the humanitarian assistance scheme was open to those in need. These assurances proved to be somewhat wide of the mark. A shocking two thirds of applications were never paid out. The Government's amendment provides up-to-date data showing that 63% of stage 1 applications for essentials were rejected. Scores of people have reported that their applications were denied without any explanation. That is deeply frustrating for people. What is worse still is that they report being told by administrators in early March that the scheme was no longer accepting applications, although this had never been publicly announced. It was only after pressure was put on the Government from inside and outside this Chamber that the scheme was reluctantly reopened late last month.”
“They had the volunteers and the people who were willing to help but what they did not have was a bricks-and-mortar building to be able to work out of. Although the Government has tried recently to claim that the cost-of-living crisis is over, people's lived experience, along with the latest CSO figures and recent research from Damian O'Reilly in TUD, show that, as of today, more than 50% of the population are particularly vulnerable to food price inflation, with many households needing to earn an additional €4,000 per year just to stay in the same financial place they were in in 2021. Food poverty is very real today. The humanitarian assistance scheme promised to meet the cost of essential needs, such as food, clothing and personal items.”