Róisín Shortall (Dublin North West, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

A national emergency existed last year and this House passed a number of pieces of emergency legislation, which the Minister is now seeking to extend beyond their express expiry date on 9 June.

The legislation before us provides for one extension and further three-monthly extensions of the four pieces of emergency legislation we passed last year. This legislation conferred wide-ranging and draconian powers on the Minister for Health, which he admits, and on members of An Garda Síochána. The legislation also gave a carte blancheto the Minister to introduce a raft of regulations, which impacted many areas of our daily lives and democratic freedoms.

This legislation was supported by the Social Democrats and other parties and groups in this House when it was introduced, because of the unprecedented nature of the emergency the country was facing. At the time, the country was battling a killer virus which has cost thousands of lives, brought our health service to its knees and forced the shutdown of vast sections of our economy. The only weapon we initially had in our arsenal in this battle was social distancing. People had to remain separate, stay apart from their friends and families and stay safe.

The draconian nature of the powers was directly related to the level of danger which existed in our communities when the virus was exponentially spreading in the community and leaving a trail of death, debility and grief in its wake. The Government needed extraordinary powers to deal with this extraordinary danger. However, there was an acknowledgement that once the danger receded, the requirement for these powers would too. A sunset clause was built into the legislation which allowed for one extension, after an initial period of six months, while a review of the impact of the legislation was also promised.

Today, we are still battling that virus, but now we have a powerful weapon, our vaccination programme. Consequently, our odds of success in this war have been markedly improved. Some 15% of the population has now been fully vaccinated and nearly 50% has received its first dose. All credit to everybody involved in that, especially the HSE. Businesses, closed since last year, have finally begun to reopen and that is to be warmly welcomed. There is hope, once again, that life can return to normal.

Yet, the Government is asking the Opposition to support its attempt to extend the same level of draconian powers which were required at the height of this crisis, despite the situation now being, thankfully, vastly improved. Some on the Government benches do not seem to accept the situation has improved and that we need to take a new approach.

The purpose of severe lockdowns and the curtailment of rights necessitated by the introduction of this legislation was to flatten the curve and stop the spread of the virus. When the epidemiological situation changes, so too does the need for the restrictions to the same extent. It is important that as a matter of course and practice, before we pass any legislation, we read it thoroughly and look at the analysis underlying the rationale for it.

There have been many problems with the manner in which the Government has exercised its powers since this legislation was passed. Some 67 separate sets of regulations have been introduced and more often than not there has been no advance notice, approvals, reporting, impact assessment, oversight, scrutiny or briefings. This is a weak spot on behalf of the Government.

In the early days of the virus, we were getting twice-weekly briefings which was helpful. It meant everybody was in possession of the same information and it was easier for us to work together in the national effort. The fact the Government has stopped doing that for some time is a problem. There has not been a briefing since last December. That is regrettable and I ask the Minister to try to address that issue because the Opposition, similar to much of the public, has been left completely in the dark on proposals in respect of regulations under this emergency legislation.

This lack of transparency has caused huge levels of confusion and anxiety. On occasion, there has been no clear distinction between activity which is illegal and that which is advisory. For example, some understood the advice last year that older people should cocoon to be an effective house arrest, when it was advice. There were other problems too. Travel restrictions prohibited people from leaving their county, even if that meant needing to travel 3 km to get to their nearest town. Many unintended consequences could have been foreseen with proper discussion and Oireachtas scrutiny in advance and avoided, for example, the problems we saw quickly emerge in terms of domestic violence and its increase. It was only after the event there was a response to that growing issue.

Regulations which precluded single people having any social contact made no sense and the Dáil had to insist they would be changed. It would have been better to discuss that in advance. The situation in which gardaí were required to record what food people were eating in pubs was a terrible one in which to put them. It should never have happened and should have been discussed. That and other actions were required of the gardaí, which they were quite reluctant about and, as we heard on several occasions, there was little guidance issued to them on what they were being expected to do with these special powers.

Emergency measures in respect of mental health tribunals were unnecessary and unused and yesterday, Mental Health Reform made it clear it is requesting those measures be scrapped. There is a need to recognise and accept some of these measures were excessive, unfair, unreasonable, confusing and made no sense.

The health committee had to deal with this last week. We appreciate the briefing we got from officials, but we were asked to waive pre-legislative scrutiny. For legislation which is so important, it was unreasonable and showed little or no regard for the parliamentary procedures and the requirement for parliamentary oversight. As the Minister knows, the committee had to write to him expressing its concern about that and requesting he would consider amendments to this legislation. That was not done easily and was done with the support of the entire health committee.

I ask the Minister to listen to other Members of the House who would like to see him taking a more reasonable and cooperative approach to this. We should not further extend wide-ranging blanket restrictions on people’s fundamental civil rights and liberties unless that extension is necessary. Therefore, the reasonable and sensible thing to do is to review the legislation, remove the draconian measures which can no longer be deemed necessary or defended and extend those measures which are required.

This review could be carried out in a reasonably short period of six weeks and would provide valuable information, for example, on whether enforcement powers have been disproportionately used in certain geographical areas or among certain demographics. We need to get that information as we have no disaggregated information on the imposition of fines and prosecutions.

The Social Democrats do not want to jettison all these measures. Instead, the proposition is simple. We want the Minister to consider amending this legislation to allow a rollover of the measures that are absolutely necessary, subject to a review being carried out. The Minister can then return to the Oireachtas prior to the summer recess to consider the outcome of the review and amend the legislation accordingly. Restrictions that are necessary to protect public health and protect the reopening and the hard work of the Irish people over many months should be retained but those that can no longer be defended should be dropped. In addition, I reiterate my request that the Minister give people notice prior to introducing any regulations, in order that they can be considered. Around 48 hours' notice would be appropriate. Ideally, the approval of this House or both Houses should be required for the passage of those regulations.

See this speech in context