Jennifer Carroll MacNeill (Dún Laoghaire, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for coming to the House with these necessary, if unwelcome, measures. It is unwelcome for everybody to have to impose measures of this kind but of course the circumstances behind them are most unwelcome as well. We must deal with the public health measures and the enforcement of those public health measures in the interests of the protection of the health and well-being of everybody in our society. There is no Government or Member in this House that wants to introduce measures of this kind.

We have been through a detailed debate from the health, criminal justice and enforcement perspective about the need for these measures. We have discussed proportionality and the time-limited nature of it with the Minister, as well as the necessity for the Garda to have in its arsenal the capacity to enforce the regulations on foot of legislation passed by the House.

Without the capacity to enforce these regulations, we would undermine entirely the measures put forward by this House and the confidence of people that we are capable of delivering the sort of public health measures we need. We all had correspondence during the summer outlining the genuine frustrations felt by people who have been compliant, as other Deputies have mentioned, and who have found others not to be compliant. They expressed real frustration, hurt and anger arising from this, and they have asked us to introduce appropriate measures so enforcement measures could be improved. We know there is a particular link to alcohol and house parties, and we all acknowledge the impact on the licensed trade. We have tried to include supports for it. It is important that if we introduce legislation and regulations, we should have measures of enforcement with them.

It is concerning to hear Deputies from Sinn Féin introduce yet another element of confusion into this, implying that the provision of time-limited regulations linked to a published Government plan that is also time limited is confusing. Deputy Martin Kenny said this evening that in order to have buy-in from the public, there should be a measure of certainty with this and that people would not comply any more if they did not know what is going on. Surely coming back to this in a number of months would only give rise to this additional confusion. The Government has a plan and should be able to enforce it. Not doing so would generate its own confusion. It is surely entirely logical to have a plan, a means of enforcing the plan and for those elements to be linked in time at a minimum.

I do not understand the perspective being brought by Sinn Féin tonight. I cannot help but wonder if it is only about having the opportunity to say the Government is creating confusion when the Government has published a plan and tried to stick by it or adapt the plan where necessary. The Government is trying to provide a measure of enforcement appropriate to the different levels to ensure compliance with the plan in everybody's best interests. It is trying to do this by linking the elements explicitly in time.

Deputy Cullinane expressed concern about a "yo-yo" effect of coming in and out of levels rather than having a long-term plan. This also seems to introduce a measure of confusion and uncertainty in speaking about the Government's approach but I make the same point to him as I did to Deputy Martin Kenny. Again, a plan without an enforcement schedule only generates confusion rather than fixing it.

Deputy Pa Daly spoke about the criminalising of behaviour but that is not the point of what we are doing. He spoke about people who cannot go for a walk on the beach. He is right in the sense that we want people to be able to go for a walk on the beach. However, we need them to stay within the 5 km zone and if they are further away from the beach, we need them to stay at home in the best interests of everybody. That a person cannot go to the beach is a matter for regulations rather than the measure of enforcement of those regulations.

The Deputy makes the point about retail outlets closing and again we have tried to provide supports for the industries most affected by this desperate pandemic. The closure of retail outlets is relevant to the levels rather than enforcement. Accidentally confusing these elements, if that is what is being done, can only add to the confusion rather than solve it. The idea that coming back to have this conversation in February will give clarity instead of confusion is wrong.

As Deputy Howlin and others have said, these are extraordinary measures. The Minister is clear on that. We do not want to have to do this but Deputies realise these measures are proportionate, necessary and limited. There is also the possibility of review between now and the period at which they are meant to expire. It is possible, for example, that the Minister could provide an update to the justice committee on these on a regular basis, whether it is monthly or when we move through different levels. The need for enforcement, for example, is different at the different levels.

Rather than Deputies having to table parliamentary questions, the Minister could provide a written update every month or have the members of the justice committee ask additional questions. The Minister has said very clearly that she wants to be open about this and to provide information. The Garda has done this already with respect to the enforcement operations and the numbers have been very clear and quick. This is probably an appropriate and welcome measure because Deputies are uncomfortable with these regulations and for good reason. Nobody wants to have to do this but there are ways in which we can reasonably supervise the process.

To suggest that it is more rather than less confusing to change the time limit and have it be different from the measure in the plan, and the Government's plan to get to next summer, is distracting and difficult. I will be supporting the motion.

See this speech in context