Darren O'Rourke (Meath East, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak about this Bill on Committee Stage. I support several of the amendments. Amendment No. 31 is in my name and that of Deputy Cullinane.

I will echo several comments made thus far regarding the analysis that the Government's approach to this issue not being a serious one. It strikes me that the evidence shows that this Government dragged along in this regard. It has not just been this Government but the previous one as well. I remember discussing with the then Minister, Shane Ross, the need to improve measures regarding international travel at our ports and airports. Every step of the way, Sinn Féin has called for the Government of the day to implement stricter measures. We can track that process over time.

Let us recall the introduction of the passenger locator form. It was initially a voluntary measure but that caused a media furore. Out of embarrassment, the Government then made the passenger locator form mandatory. The Government then continuously failed to follow up in this regard. Several Deputies tracked this situation over time and the follow-up has been pathetic to the extent that it raises serious questions about the Government's commitment to and seriousness about having the passenger locator form as an effective measure.

What was the passenger locator form? It was the Government's tool to monitor adherence to quarantine and restriction of movement measures. The Government essentially turned a blind eye at every turn. Even when the Government was embarrassed by the figures which were made public, it did nothing to improve that situation. Those figures regarding adherence in respect of passenger locator forms ranged at various times from 7% to 18%. Some people got a follow-up call, but most people did not. Those people who got a follow-up call were not really obliged to do anything, including not even having to give accurate information. It was a tick-box effort. In fairness, the passenger locator forms then moved online and there was greater adherence to completing them in the first instance but it was not a measure the Government was really serious about.

The same thing could be said about the experience over time in respect of testing. My own background is in medical science and I could not believe the Government's reluctance to introduce a testing regime at our ports and airports. I raised this matter for months with various Ministers and all I got was an outline of what would happen in the future. Reference was made to all the considerations necessary, the weaknesses of testing and the complications to be taken into account. Under significant pressure, the Government did eventually introduce a testing regime before Christmas. That testing regime was voluntary and expensive. A mandatory testing regime was only introduced when we had in the region of 8,000 cases a day.

The test that was introduced was one undertaken 72 hours pre-departure. As NPHET has said about tests conducted 72 hours pre-departure, if I am going away, I can get a PCR test now, have my going away party, mingle with as many people as I like wherever I am and then I can still turn up at the airport in a couple of days' time with my negative PCR test. That is the weakness of that measure. It is acknowledged that test will miss in the region of 40% of cases and that is a statement of scientific fact. The Government and NPHET know that but they are still insistent that we not have a mandatory, across-the-board, post-arrival PCR testing regime in place. In fact, Sinn Féin submitted an amendment to this Bill, which has been ruled out of order, that specifically requested the introduction of a mandatory, across-the-board, post-arrival PCR testing regime. It was ruled out of order because it might be a charge on the Exchequer. That is simply incredible.

In its letter of 14 January, NPHET requested "every effort be made to ensure that discretion as it currently applies to the need for restriction of movements and PCR testing post-arrival in Ireland is removed". We have done nothing on the second aspect because we are afraid it might have a cost on the Exchequer. Regarding making every effort to address discretion on the restriction of movement, that is why the Opposition is broadly speaking with one voice regarding this group of amendments on this matter. The premise of the Government's approach is that we will look at other countries, see when virus variants arise which are of concern and then consider the situation on an ongoing basis. We know, however, that the real world does not operate that way. At that stage, it is too late.

The Government is looking for credit in this regard. The Minister for Transport referred to this point earlier, and it is contained in the Government's new living with Covid-19 document published only a few days ago.

It was a case of saying look at how we quickly we responded when the British variant was identified but that is an example of why we need mandatory hotel quarantine for all countries, not just a limited number. We heard the Taoiseach outlining the difficulty with implementing and enforcing mandatory quarantine at home. He asked how it could be done, how we could check whether people were in their bedrooms. It cannot be done and that is the case for mandatory hotel quarantine across the board. We need to recognise that we are in a particular set of circumstances. We are not back in May, in the summer or even before Christmas. There are variants in the community and there is vaccine in the community, and that is the perfect environment for the development of vaccine-resistant variants. We really need to do something about that and we are in a position to do so, but we are not taking that decision here.

The British variant is now rampant in Ireland, as we know, and there is now the Bristol variant. We know that the South African variant is on the island, although we do not know to what extent. It is completely false to suggest that we know we have quashed it. We do not know the extent of it and have not genome-sequenced enough people. Furthermore, we do not know who may or may not have it in the community because of the limitations of our testing regime. The South African variant is cropping up in parts of London,from where direct flights arrive here every day, and there is also the Californian variant, with flights arriving from the United States a number of times a week.

In that context, we know we have to go further than is being proposed, which is why the Opposition is speaking with such a united voice. If the Government's argument is turned on its head, to look at what is not being done, it follows the logic of what Deputies have been saying. The Bill is tokenism, a box-ticking exercise, and is not a real effort to deliver on a public health objective. That we do not have a timeline of when the measures will be introduced gives rise to further concern.

I highlight the opportunity we have now, as we had last summer. It was mentioned earlier that we essentially won the battle against Covid in this State last summer. We got down to single-digit figures. I recall those great days, reported on television and radio, when there were zero new cases. We have seen the publication from Professor Paddy Mallon and the genome-sequencing group that mapped the variants over time and throughout the country. The Teagasc website contains really interesting information in that regard. It emphasises the need to take measures to grasp this opportunity and to go further than is being proposed in the Bill.

I call on the Minister to change tack and to recognise the logic of the argument being made by the Opposition and the considerable public support and demand. The public see the absolute contradiction and it is an insult to them and their efforts, and to the sacrifices that families and businesses have been making. We have had the longest lockdown in Europe and people do not see a return for it. They see the absolute contradiction of people taking advantage of the lax regime that is in place. I call on the Minister to change tack, to recognise the opportunity and to take on board the proposals of the Opposition.

See this speech in context