Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am up here in the Gods. Like many other Deputies, I have real concerns about the proposed amendments. As Deputy Stanton has told us, we are looking at four amendments. Two relate to health, one relates to emergency measures in the public interest and one relates to criminal justice enforcement powers. These amendments were put in place to deal with an emergency.

As the nature of the emergency has changed since we first put the measures in place, we have to take account of those changes when we are discussing these proposals. Until now, I have voted with the Government in supporting the legislation and rolling it over. I had concerns but I took the view that the approach was a measured response. Any legislation, but especially emergency legislation, that gives significant and unprecedented powers to law enforcement, medical officers and the Minister has to be closely examined. We would be failing in our duty as Deputies if we did not do that.

I believe this legislation got the balance right last year and in January last. However, circumstances have changed considerably since then. In other words, we got the balance right but the balance has shifted. The legislation before the House does not reflect that shift in balance.

As we know, the vaccine roll-out has been successful. Time and again, many in the House questioned the ability of the Minister, the Government and the HSE to deliver. I was not one of those because I genuinely believed that everyone was doing their best and that the Minister was competent to do so. The result is that approximately 50% of the population are now vaccinated. I know that means 50% are not vaccinated but those who are vaccinated were those most at risk of hospitalisation and death because of Covid-19. Despite the disappointing news this morning with regard to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, our roll-out is still proceeding. When the Minister brought this draft legislation to the House the target was that 80% of the population would receive a first dose by the end of June. The Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but approximately 55% of the population was to receive a second dose by that date. However, it is a totally different context from last January, when fewer than 10% of people had been vaccinated. Our response needs to reflect that change in context.

In fact, I agree with Deputy Bruton who said that we should actually be looking at unwinding these powers rather than simply rolling them over. My colleague, Deputy McNamara, will bring forward an amendment. When this legislation was enacted, we gave the Minister unprecedented power to bring in specific regulations to increase restrictions. We are now rolling over this legislation and again giving him this power. I believe the specific regulations should come before the Dáil. We have to be able to debate the specific regulations rather than just the legislation that enables the Minister to make them. We have an oversight role. People outside the Houses may not often see that role as being very important until it affects their lives but, when it does, they realise just how important it is. It is incumbent on us, as Deputies, to ensure that oversight and to ensure the Minister is held to account.

In that context, I also support the Sinn Féin amendment which proposes to bring the date forward to 9 July. It is close but gives the House control, which is crucial. I have no doubt but that, if the Minister was on the Opposition benches and another Minister was bringing in legislation of this sort to give him or her unprecedented power to make regulations, he would also have concerns. An end date of 9 November is not reasonable. It is far too far away. It is not proportionate and does not strike a proper balance between public health and civil liberties. As I have said, I can live with a constraint on civil liberties in the middle of a pandemic because such liberties must be balanced against public health. We are, however, emerging from the pandemic, albeit slowly. We are therefore in a different space and a different approach is required.

It is also important to note that this legislation amends social welfare Acts. If a person is diagnosed with Covid and is sick or has to self-isolate, that person must retain entitlements to illness benefit, jobseeker's benefit and jobseeker's allowance. These provisions need to be rolled over. This presents us in the Opposition with a horrible choice. We know these provisions must be rolled over but we have serious concerns about some of the other aspects of the legislation. It is no choice at all because people have to be protected but, to some extent, what we are doing is protecting people from themselves when there is no longer a need to do so. That is a serious issue. Those protections around jobseeker's payments and illness benefit need to be rolled over but the other provisions need to be nuanced.

The Minister can improve this legislation by accepting some of the proposed amendments. They would help to provide the necessary safeguards and allow us to emerge with a proportionate legislative framework for not only the current circumstances, but the circumstances likely to arise in the near future.

Have ten minutes or 20?

See this speech in context