Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I want to say at the outset that I wish and still hope that sanity will yet prevail and we will never have to enact what is contained in this legislation. We did not ask for, nor do we support, the British Brexit decision. We are as vehemently opposed to it as we have always been historically to British interference in our island's affairs and to the imposition of a British Border across our land almost 100 years ago.

There has been much commentary of late regarding the so-called "Irish Border", so I will repeat a lesson I have delivered on many occasions. It is not an Irish Border. It is a British Border, placed on our island against our will. The will of the people in the North on the issue of Brexit is repeatedly ignored by the British Tory Government and its Irish surrogates in the DUP. The people of the North voted to Remain. It was a clear majority and that should and must be respected. Whatever will yet transpire, be it before or after 29 March, serious consideration must be given to the holding of a referendum on Irish unity between North and South. Provision for the holding of such a Border poll is contained in the Good Friday Agreement. It is of course the Good Friday Agreement and the peace that has flowed from it that is under the most serious threat from Brexit. It is incumbent on us all to protect it and the rights and hopes that are contained in it.

The proponents of Brexit had no understanding of, or care for, the implications that Brexit would have for the day-to-day lives of ordinary people living in both parts of this island. No part of Ireland, North or South, has ever featured in their considerations. It is our job, and I contend that it is our duty, to ensure that freedom of movement and access to State supports and services, along with freedom of opportunity, is enshrined in Irish legislation irrespective of what happens in Britain. I speak tonight as a public representative with more than three decades of elected service behind me, and as someone who has lived through the existence of a hard and hostile Border that impacted the lives of my family, my community and my constituents for decades. This changed in 1998 with the adoption of the Good Friday Agreement. What has changed and where are we today? Gone are the armed Border posts and the military infrastructure. Gone are the discredited Royal Ulster Constabulary, RUC, and British Army personnel from the streets and Border crossings. Persons can now travel freely between North and South for social, cultural and economic reasons. There are no tariffs or duties. There is now ever-increasing co-operation across many sectors, including business, industry, agriculture, health, education, tourism and many others. This is what we desire to preserve and build upon.

I will now deal with the legislation specifically, with particular address to the health section, which accounts for the first critical mass of amendments to standing legislation. While acknowledging the apparently comprehensive construct of the measures in this Bill pertaining to health, I would like the Minister for Health to confirm that all current access to and provision of health-related services on a South-North and North-South basis is included and will be protected in the event of a no-deal Brexit. The health services measures are unfortunately not specific. While catch-all language appears to be employed, the arrangements are structured in such a way as to cast doubt. There is an absence of certainty.

I refer to the insertion of a new Part IVA in the Health Act 1970, which opens with the following:

The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, make such order or orders as he or she considers necessary to continue in being or carry out any reciprocal or other arrangements in relation to health services which were in operation between the State and the United Kingdom immediately before the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from membership of the European Union.

I ask the House to think about what I have just read from the Bill. The Minister "may" make such orders, and may do so with the consent of his colleagues. Surely it should not read "The Minister may". It should read "The Minister shall", and never mind his colleagues. This provision is either to allow for the continuation of current access and provision or it is not.

When one reads further into this section, one discovers the following: "When making an order under subsection (1) the Minister shall have regard to the following". Among the considerations that follow one finds paragraph (c) which states: "the need to ensure the most beneficial, effective and efficient use of resources". There is no certainty in this. There is only discretion for the Minister. The word "shall" applies only to what the Minster must take into account when considering an order to continue a given service. There is no obligation. There is no commitment to provide for the range of arrangements and services that currently exist.

The general scheme of this Bill was more specific. It was published on 24 January. Its provisions are most definite. I will cite just one section from page 7, under the following heading: "Head 1 - Provision of full Eligibility for Healthcare to Certain Categories of Person Who Are Ordinarily Resident in the State". The head was to "amend section 45 of the Health Act 1970". Subsection (1) lists as one of these categories: "Frontier workers, resident in the State and working in the UK – for so long as they continue to be employed or self-employed in the UK".

Despite what the general scheme presented just a month ago, the Bill before us contains no reference whatsoever to section 45 of the Health Act 1970, let alone a list of amendments as outlined on pages 7 and 8 of the general scheme presented just a month ago. The truth of the matter is that the Minister for Health might not act as we are being led to believe.

He might just as well decide that this or that current arrangement could be jettisoned because of resources considerations. Why are we being presented with such uncertainties in the health area in particular? This is legislation. It should be about certainties and there is no more important area for that, as many people I and the Minister represent will know and be deeply concerned about, as well as others both in the Border constituencies and through the length and breadth of this land.

I could cite several instances of cross-Border co-operation in healthcare delivery arrived at over these number of years and that warrant that protection and certainty in this legislation and it gives me great concern that that is not the case.

See this speech in context