David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

At this point, I am not in a position to indicate whether Sinn Féin can support the Bill because it very much depends on whether the Minister will engage with the Opposition on amendments. The last time that similar legislation brought before both Houses of the Oireachtas, no Opposition amendments were accepted. Not only were they not accepted, most were not reached because very limited time was given on Committee Stage. I have already had conversations with our whip, and I am aware that the issue was raised at the Business Committee. Sufficient time really needs to be allocated in respect of Committee Stage this time around so that reasonable amendments being tabled by the Opposition can be debated and that some level of democratic oversight is brought to bear in the context of this very important issue.

As the Minister pointed out, the Bill is draconian. It gives him extraordinary powers. We are being asked to give powers to the Minister to make regulations we will not be able to scrutinise or evaluate and on which we will have no say. For those reasons, we need to be assured that the Minister has listened and engaged and that the voices of members of the Opposition are not only heard but are taken into account in the context of the Bill. The days of giving the Minister or anybody else a blank cheque to make responses of the nature envisaged are long gone. If the Minister was in my position, I imagine that he would argue the same.

When one looks across the political spectrum in different parts of Europe, by and large, the support the Minister and the Government have had from the Opposition in the response to the Covid-19 has been quite remarkable, especially in light of the huge difficulties to which the public health restrictions have given rise for workers, families and businesses.

I am one of those who gets a massive amount of lobbying from members of the public. The latter have many different views on the public health restrictions. Sometimes, and for different reasons, people argue for more restrictions, while others argue for fewer restrictions or do not want any restrictions at all. We all must show leadership. We all must follow very clearly the public health advice and ensure at all times that it is about keeping people safe. Nobody wants public health restrictions of the nature of those that had to be introduced over the past 12 months. Those restrictions were put in place because of the need to deal with a highly infectious virus that caused a pandemic. People were dying and action had to be taken. I accept that. I also accept that as we go forward there will still be a need for public health measures to remain in place. Like the Minister, I hope that we would not see them in place for a second or a minute longer than is necessary. The sooner the opportunity comes to ease those restrictions we should take them.

I celebrate the fact that major efforts have been made. I recognise the huge contribution of workers, families and businesses in recent past months, especially since January and the third wave, which took many, if not all, of us by surprise. It has been a really difficult couple of months for people given the restrictions that were put in place in early January and right through to now. The curtailment of people's ability to work, meet their families, socialise and live any kind of normal life has been absolutely horrendous.

The impact of the restrictions on healthcare has also been horrendous. We will discuss all of that in due course I am sure, as all of the consequences of missed care come at us. All of that will have to be dealt with. The restrictions we have put in place have not been without consequences. I would be the first to say they were necessary and I will not abdicate my responsibility in making sure that people's health is put first, in keeping people alive and in keeping people safe. Equally, when we approved the resolution to extend the sunset clause the last time around, I said to the Minister directly that I felt the length of time by which he was seeking to extend it was way too long. I say the same again now. An extension until November is far too long. Sinn Féin will table amendments to extend the sunset clause until 9 July. That will allow for democratic oversight and it will give the Minister the opportunity to return to the House to extend the restrictions again, if necessary.

Thankfully, because of the collective efforts of the vast majority of people in the State, we are now beginning to see an easing of restrictions. For the first time in a long while, last week and the week before people returned to work and non-essential retail opened.

There are now more opportunities for people to engage in outdoor and indoor activities. We celebrate, as anybody else does, all of that. It is a huge relief for people and it is a return to a level of normality. More restrictions will be eased in June and tomorrow we will see what is in the roadmap, which has been well publicised in advance. Potentially, there will be more easing of restrictions in July, with even travel being a possibility at the end of July and in early August. Again, I will support all of this. When the public health advice is clear and if it underpins what the Government brings forward, I will support it, including when restrictions need to be put in place and, equally, when they can be eased. We all want to see this relief given to workers, families and businesses.

It does not make sense to people looking in from the outside that when all of these restrictions are being eased at a certain pace, the House is being asked to extend the emergency powers until November. Essentially, what we are doing - and I have said this previously - is outsourcing the implementation of these emergency powers specifically to the Minister and to the Cabinet.

I know the Department, the HSE and the Minister were working under extreme pressure,. When the third wave came at us in January, speed was important and decisions had to be taken very quickly. It is a cause of irritation for those of us in opposition, who support provisions such as this and support public health advice, that when regulations are published, we do not get a heads-up or notification by email and there is no briefing. Sometimes, the first we learn of it is through the media or sometimes if we just happen to have staff who are refreshing their browsers when regulations go up on the HSE website or that of the Department. That is not acceptable and I have said it several times. This is why it is frustrating.

The emergency powers we give the Minister, after which he can make regulations, are not subject to any approval by the Oireachtas. We are not asked to give consent. We are not asked to give an opinion. We do not have an opportunity to review their effectiveness. Nor, by the way, at any time over the past 12 months have we had the ability to review the effectiveness of the provisions of the previous legislation, which are essentially the same as those in the Bill.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties has, as the Minister knows, raised concerns. Earlier today, I mentioned a briefing for health spokespersons. It was actually a briefing for the Oireachtas health committee so it was only for members of that committee. We were asked to waive pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. We had a hearing at which we listened to representatives from Mental Health Reform and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties. At the briefing with the Minister's officials, they told us, as I stated earlier before this debate started, that it was probably sometime in March or April that the Department became aware of the need for legislation. That was because the existing legislation includes provision in respect of "resolution" as opposed to "resolutions from time to time". It would seem that, out of an abundance of caution, we were told there had to be new legislation. When we go back over the transcript of the proceedings in the Seanad, however, there were contributions which show that it was known that there would have to be a new Bill once one resolution was passed. Notwithstanding this, the Department told us it knew in March or April, yet only last week members of the health committee were contacted to say that there would be need for a new Bill and we were asked to waive pre-legislative scrutiny. Why were we not told weeks in advance? Why was an opportunity not given to the health committee to probe this in greater detail?

I certainly will be reserving judgment on whether I can support the Bill. It will very much depend on the time allocated for Committee Stage and the Minister's willingness to engage and accept amendments. I will conclude by reiterating what I said earlier. Neither I nor my party can continue to give the Minister or the Government a blank check in respect of public health restrictions. There has to be democratic oversight and proper accountability. There has to be proper transparency. I cannot support many of the provisions in the Bill. I will seek to amend them and if the amendments are accepted I will be more than happy to support the Bill. Other than that, we will have to wait to see what transpires on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context