The Malta Independent on Sunday
Caritas would have preferred a larger rise in the minimum wage - Director
The rise in the minimum wage given by the government was not enough, Caritas Director ANTHONY GATT tells The Malta Independent on Sunday in an interview. He spoke about Caritas’ proposals for the upcoming budget, which also include a suggestion for the government to build and sell affordable housing to people who are struggling to buy homes. He also spoke about Caritas’ position regarding the legalisation of recreational cannabis What is your vision, in terms of what you would like to tackle in Caritas and what issues you would like to resolve?
Caritas is a Church organisation and derives inspiration from the Gospels. One key phrase, from which Caritas takes its vision and mission is : “Whatever you did for one of these least of my brothers, you did for me”. The general vision is that people are welcome, they are seen as valuable individuals and, through the support we offer, we are helping them reflect on the beauty within them. They are people who are loved and are deserving of their dignity.
Continuity is most important, in terms of Caritas’ ethos and goal. It is a top priority. In terms of needs, although I understand the Director steers the organisation in collaboration with all the staff, management and the volunteers, we try to listen to the signs of the time in which we are living. The agenda is really set by the challenges and difficulties of the people we encounter and their real needs.
Some of the important areas for us are the continuation of the drug rehabilitation services and responding to current trends, the support services to vulnerable people such as counselling services, support groups and social work, being a voice for people who are marginalised and vulnerable and advocacy.
What are Caritas’ main proposals for the upcoming budget?
We would like to see everyone have sufficient means to get by. Caritas has always been involved with the subject of poverty and those at risk of poverty. We issued a minimum essential budget for a decent life in 2012-2016, and we are now going to work on the next one.
We acknowledge that, in our society, with the development of the economy, there are people who are doing well, financially. But there is also a section of society that is not making it: the indication is close to 80,000. Just recently, there has been a slight fall in the number of people at risk of poverty and social exclusion, so our focus is on helping those who aren’t keeping up.
When we talk about people in difficulty, we are talking about pensioners, people with mental health issues or those coming out of addiction, those who are going through separation, among others and also those who depend on the private rental market.
I referred to the housing situation and we definitely need to consider what action should be taken. The rental market White Paper has just been released. We are in favour of the regularisation of the rental market: the spirit of the principles in the White Paper appear positive. It has been established that if more than one-third of a person’s income goes in the cost housing, then they will be in difficulty. For people who fall into this category, we would like to see subsidies that reflect this reality – individualised subsidies. rather than having a set ceiling.
Is there anything that should have been included in the white paper?
One thing that was not mentioned is the setting-up of a rental index: an efficient monitoring of the rental market with the information being made public. If I needed to rent, I would be able to get an indication of the asking prices in a specific part of the country. This information is currently with the agencies, but making it public would have an direct influence on those who are renting.
Were I renting, I would then have some knowledge of the market. I’m talking about support measures that will not only allow a free market but will also make it fair. We would be giving people more tools to use when negotiating prices.
Another issue that was mentioned in the White Paper but which I would like to see more of, is the enforcement and control over abuse. We know this can be a challenge, so we are hopeful that the principles of the White Paper are implemented – and also enforced. Apart from having a free market, we want one that is fair and legal.
To return to the proposals in the Budget, there are those who do not have a sufficient income. We have seen a positive move in the past regarding a rise in the minimum wage, but we would have liked to have seen a larger increase.
We are also advocating a wage that is enough to live on, so those measures that increase the income of people in need are the that we support. According to the latest figures, there are currently 3,290 applicants for social housing, which is a slight increase. We know that money has been budgeted for social housing, but we want to ensure that it is enough and does not result in the creation of ghettos, putting people with social difficulties in one kind of location. The housing also needs to respond to the current needs. The income budgeted does not appear to cover everything that is required.
There are also difficulties faced by those who cannot afford to become home owners. Twenty per cent of the population do not own their home. We have en- countered situations, including those of younger people who are in employment, where it is very difficult for them to afford to buy their own properties. The government needs to consider providing or building accommodation that people can afford to purchase.
In the 1970s, 80s and 90s, many apartments were made available for people whose income was below a certain level to buy from the government. This is not ‘social housing’, but affordable housing that would be constructed by the government for people to buy.
There is another element related to education. Between 2014 and 2015, the government introduced a Child Supplement Benefit to reduce absenteeism, tied to 95 per cent attendance at school. When you reward the behaviour you want to see, you are reinforcing it. People who drop out of school early are at risk of drug abuse and unemployment. We propose the reintroduction of that scheme.
There are also schemes such as the ‘in work benefits’ and the tapering off of benefits, which help people leave the ranks of the of unemployed. These are good schemes and we want to see them continue.
What are your opinions on the decriminalisation of marijuana, the
legalisation of medical marijuana and the possibility of marijuana for recreational use?
Caritas has published two papers: one on medicinal cannabis and the other on the production. We are happy to see that formal discussion separated the debates on medicinal and recreational cannabis. Where cannabis can be used to treat medical conditions, then we support helping people contain their conditions.
There is strong evidence regarding the beneficial use of cannabis in the management of chronic pain, in managing the side effects of chemotherapy and for certain types of epilepsy. Caritas is not a medical authority, so we rely on medical literature, and in these cases we support this use.
We have a clear position when it comes to recreational cannabis and this is that it does more harm than good. When a substance is more easily available, the result is a rise in the use of that substance.
Some argue that it would reduce usage...
If you look at what happened with cigarettes and alcohol, two legal substances, there was an increase in use when a substance that gives you a high has its own attraction. If you lift the sanction, more people might end up using this substance.
Not everyone who uses cannabis will end up with a fullblown dependency on it but research has shown that one in 10 people who do become totally dependent end up with their lives revolving around the substance.
What about cannabis as a gateway drug?
The hypothesis of cannabis as the gateway drug has been chal- lenged. It does not mean that if a person begins smoking cannabis, he or she will automatically take other drugs, but the reverse is also true. Ninety per cent of the people who are dependant on other drugs will have started smoking at an early age, drinking alcohol and/or using cannabis.
For adolescents, the theory of the gateway drug can hold. There are neuropsychological studies which indicate that exposing the brain to cannabis during adolescence can increase the risk of developing dependencies – on cannabis and/or on other drugs.
We are cautious about saying that everyone who uses cannabis will use other drugs or develop a dependency, because this is not true. According to international research, the number of those who develop a full-blown dependency is around 10 per cent. Another 30 per cent may experi- ence serious repercussions, but might not necessarily have a fullblown addiction. So there is a large number of users who use cannabis habitually and socially but do not develop an addiction. This in no way means we should encourage people to smoke cannabis because it remains a psychoactive substance that impairs and harms the brain.
The younger you begin using a substance, the higher is the risk of developing a dependence. So if an 11-year-old is smoking and drinking, then this is indicative of a high-risk of developing addictions.
Lifting the sanction and saying it is ok to use cannabis recreationally sends a message that the drug is acceptable. Many studies show that cannabis wreaks havoc on an adolescents brain and we do not want to send the message that it is an acceptable drug.
We saw an increase in the popularity of cannabis with the decriminalisation law, and although we are in favour of strengthening the decriminalisation law, it is always a better option than legalisation. Caritas is against people going to prison as a result of drug use or drug dependency.
We have a situation where most people who are dependent on certain drugs, such as heroin, at some point will sell the drug to be able to cope with their situation. We are saying that in cases where people have a dependence on a drug they need help and support, not imprisonment.
The law stipulates that, for instance, if you have more than one plant of cannabis then there is mandatory imprisonment. We are saying that we should give the judiciary the trust to have more leeway to decide who is sent to prison or not.