Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I support Deputy Howlin's amendment. First, it is reasonable to say that this is rushed legislation where there is much detail that needs to be scrutinised and fully understood. I do not accept that, because the committees were not up and running, we could not have done that. We set up the Special Committee on Covid-19 Response specifically to deal with Covid-19 matters, and I see no reason the Bill could not have been referred to that committee to undertake more detailed scrutiny on it.

I am conscious that we must bring in measures quickly to respond to an unpredictable virus that we do not yet fully understand and where we do not know the trajectory of infection, sickness, hospitalisation and where it could go. There is no doubt that one of the environments in which Covid-19 almost certainly likes to transmit is where there are large numbers of people in an enclosed space drinking alcohol, with raised voices, singing etc. We know enough of the science to know that this is an environment in which Covid-19 is likely to spread and it is right that the Government and all of us would want to ensure that we do not give licence to situations which are likely to become super-spreading environments.

Having said that, those who are concerned about this Bill have also made reasonable points. I took a staycation, as I suspect most in this House did, in rural counties and there is no doubt that the vast majority of licensed premises selling food and allowed to open were abiding by the restrictions and were being compliant. I have no doubt that if pubs reopen, the vast majority will do likewise. We also know that the potential is there. There have been some instances of reckless behaviour which could be extremely dangerous in terms of the transmission of the virus and it is reasonable for the Government to want to have measures in place to ensure that action can be taken swiftly to deal with that. Therefore, this is a fine balance.

However, and this is the point about this amendment and my party's amendment that comes later, there is a problem with the legislation, what the Government says it is about, and what it might allow the Government to do. Deputy Howlin points out that, in line 13 on page 5, where the Bill refers to "the purposes of giving a direction under section 31A(7) of the Act of 1947", the Health Act which has been amended to give powers in relation to Covid-19, it states in line 14 "whether in relation to a relevant provision or otherwise". Therefore, it is not only the relevant provision as set out in the amended legislation but could be something else. That seems dodgy from a legal point of view. It means we do not really know what we are doing here or what the possible consequences of this might be.

I will go on to explain, in terms of my party's amendment seeking to delete section 13, that similar problems exist there. The Bill says it is doing a limited set of things relating to pubs to ensure compliance and prevent the transmission of the virus, but it then possibly gives other powers or rights to the Minister to do other things under the Health Act that are not necessarily related to that at all, and potentially to do other things completely beyond the scope of the stated intention of this Bill. That is the concern. In that sense, it is sloppy or it is potentially giving the Government carte blancheto do other things that are not stated as the intention of the Bill. Deputy Howlin is right in this regard, and similarly, as I will go on to argue, in section 13, which should be deleted because it gives unspecified powers to do other things beyond what is stated as the intention of the Bill.

See this speech in context