David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I support all of the amendments in this grouping. They are variations on a theme. Essentially, the amendments propose that the regulations the Government will eventually craft will come before the Oireachtas for approval. I reiterate my earlier comments on a very important point that goes to the heart of my difficulty with the Bill. It provides for certain categories of fines and then provides for upper limits for those fines. Deputies know the on-the-spot fines will be less than €500, but we have no idea what the figure will be.

The Minister stated in his response on Second Stage that Deputies who have opinions on the Bill should give him a ring and have a chat with him. Would it not be preferable for them to bring those issues to the House to be explored in a proper debate, or include the issues to be addressed in the Bill such that Deputies would at least know what they are? We should know to what an on-the-spot fine refers, the definition of a "house party", the number of people who need to be present to constitute a house party, the meaning of straying outside a 5 km radius and what are the safeguards, checks and balances. None of that is in the Bill because it will all be in the regulations. The problem is that the regulations, when we eventually get them, will bear more resemblance to an Act or primary legislation than to regulations.

I assume the regulations that will flow from the Bill will be published tonight. I may be wrong. They may be published next week. I ask the Minister to please let Deputies know when they will be published and arrange a briefing for Oireachtas Members such that we have a heads-up about the publication before we receive calls from journalists asking about the regulations. Members have been caught on the hop many times in that manner in respect of statutory instruments and regulations. I ask the Minister to please ensure we are at least informed that he has published the regulations and they are being uploaded to the departmental website. I ask that he afford members of the Opposition the chance to ask questions.

If the Minister will not accept the amendments and will not come back to the Dáil for consent, there is a problem. All of these amendments relate to the public health advice and guidelines as well. I wish to respond to an earlier comment by the Minister in that regard because it is important for me to so do. I believe in the public health advice and guidelines. At every stage, my party has supported all of the measures brought in by the Government, no matter what level has been recommended. My party leader has supported them, as has our health spokesperson and party colleagues. What we have not done and will not do is to second-guess the public health guidelines. We have not tried to land on precise levels of restrictions or variations. That is what the Government has done, based on hours of opportunities to probe and interrogate the advice given by NPHET. Last week, there was a five-hour or six-hour meeting with NPHET. I am sure the Minister attended it. Deputies were told that very detailed presentations were given to the Minister. Was it then for me to decide whether the country should go to level 4 plus or level 5 plus? The Minister mentioned the Labour Party. It stated we should go to level 4. We eventually went to level 5. What difference did it make? It then accepted level 5. Sinn Féin stated that it will support any public health advice and guidelines that are brought in and it has done so. It has not gone against the advice or guidelines. It is appealing to people to abide by the advice and guidelines.

When I stated that the strategy is dead in the water, I was not referring to the public advice or NPHET or any other body. Rather, I was referring to the strategy to get us out of this. Deputy Shortall and other Deputies have rightly asked what is the strategy. Aside from a cycle of restrictions and lockdowns, what is the wider strategy? What more can we do to ensure we do not end up in endless lockdowns? That is the strategy to which I refer. It is not there. We need a new plan and a new vision and I wish to be part of that, working with other Deputies on how we get there. For the Minister to suggest that is somehow an attack on NPHET is disingenuous because he knows that is something neither I nor my party would do. We need to get back to having robust discussions on what we can be doing and being productive in trying to create strategies we all want. Every Member wishes to get ahead of the virus and lower the numbers to the greatest extent possible. We do not just wish for the Government to succeed, but for the State to succeed. That is not just about public health measures. The enforcement of fines is only one part of it. It is about everything else that must wrap around that. In some respects, that is absent. It is about the lack of capacity.

I cannot support the Bill if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendments. If they are not accepted, the Bill is giving him a blank cheque. There is no doubt about that. Deputies are being expected to take it in good faith that whatever will be in the regulations will be in the best interests of the people whom we represent. That may well be the case, but we do not know that it will. Would it not have been better for Deputies to have been given sight of the statutory instrument and the regulations even if they were not going to have the opportunity to vote on them? Deputy Howlin made that point on a previous occasion when we were discussing legislation that brought in similar penal provisions and Members had not had sight of the regulations. Members would have known precisely what were the fines, to what they apply, how much they were and what safeguards, checks, balances and protections were in place. We would have seen what the regulations were and known that if we were to support the Bill, we would support those regulations. We do not have that. We are fighting blind. The Opposition has been blindfolded and I do not believe that is acceptable.

That does not mean that I am against enforcement. I am not against it. Some people in this State are not abiding by the guidelines. As many Deputies have stated, if those people are approached by An Garda Síochána and asked to obey the rules, the vast majority of them will do so. There is a tiny percentage of people who will not comply and who are reckless and put the lives of others in danger. Of course, they should be subject to enforcement measures, but those measures must be fair and proportionate and Members should be able to see what they are before voting on them. Surely it is a fundamental and basic principle of democracy that Deputies would have some sense of the matters on which they are expected to vote. However, that is not the case with this legislation. That is my quarrel with the Bill and with the Minister on this issue.

See this speech in context