Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE) | Oireachtas source

For months, RISE and People Before Profit have been to the fore in calling for mandatory hotel quarantine for all incoming travellers as part of a zero Covid strategy that is based on socialist policies. We are not alone in this. Nine and a half months ago, NPHET wrote to the Government calling for “a mandatory regime of self-isolation for 14 days at a designated facility for all persons arriving into Ireland from overseas”. That was 8 May. It repeated its call in August. That call has overwhelming public support. Multiple opinion polls show that approximately 90% of the public agree that we should be banning non-essential travel and that all essential travellers into the country should have to undergo 14-day mandatory hotel quarantine.

What we have in the Bill is not the mandatory hotel quarantining that NPHET was looking for, that the socialist left has been calling for and that has vast public support. Instead, we have a half-hearted attempt to pretend that the Government is introducing the necessary mandatory hotel quarantining. It is the practical equivalent of closing one window in an entire house when all of the other windows and the front and back doors are still open. It will affect a tiny minority of travellers coming to the State.

Unless we hear from the Government that it will be taking on board the Opposition's amendments we will be opposing this legislation and demanding instead that we have proper mandatory quarantine for all incoming travellers from all countries, without the sort of scope for outsourcing and profiteering that is contained in the legislation.

I want to focus on three key issues. The first is the structure of the Bill. While it is true that the 20 countries the Minister plans to include with a statutory instrument are not mentioned in the Bill, the Bill explicitly provides that countries will be added only on a state-by-state basis. With this legislation, the Government cannot do what is necessary. After this Bill passes, the Government cannot be persuaded that we must have full mandatory quarantine for all travellers. One cannot do this with the legislation. It is structurally entirely inadequate. What we should be doing is starting with the position of quarantining all travellers from all countries and then we can, bit by bit, establish green zones for international travel and take countries off the list. Instead, the Government is doing the exact opposite and is locking it in with the legislation.

The second point is on the provisions in the proposed section 38H, which is a recipe for outsourcing on a massive scale. The legislation provides massive opportunities for profiteering. As our amendment sets out, this should be provided by the HSE or another public body on a not-for-profit basis. Deputy Boyd Barrett made the point on Australia. There was a case, for example, in Victoria where some of these operations were outsourced and it was a disaster. The conclusion was that if it is done on a for-profit basis, there will be attempts to scrimp and save to maximise profits, there will be the transfer of staff from one location to another because they are poorly paid and public health will be undermined.

The third point is the list of countries. This morning, the Tánaiste asked why we would put someone in a hotel for two weeks when there is no Covid in those countries, speaking about the Isle of Man and Iceland. He did not ask why we would not put someone in a hotel when they are coming from countries such as the US and Britain, were Covid is absolutely rampant. It is very concerning that we have a list of 20 countries, 16 of 17 of which are based in Africa, when members of the US military are able to walk in here repeatedly and, at least three times in Shannon Airport, not abide by the guidelines. There is no quarantine for them and they are able to flaunt the regulations. It is the same with Britain. We have the British variant and the Californian variant. Will the Government act to say that now we will have to have quarantine for the US or Britain? I very much doubt it.

See this speech in context