Alan Kelly (Tipperary, Labour) | Oireachtas source

The Labour Party is also putting its name to amendment No. 2, along with the Independent Group.

The powers that the Minister is asking us to extend are draconian in any form and nature and I assume the Minister accepts that. In any normal time, it would not even be countenanced in a normal democracy. However, we were not in normal times and it was necessary during the pandemic. We often talk about events that are going on in other countries across Europe that take away individual liberty and in some cases make people fearful. Any legislation that gives extensive powers to a government must have the utmost justification. While there was justification for this when the pandemic first hit us, it was unprecedented. None of us knew what we were facing. It was a once in a lifetime experience, I hope. We had to do it again when we went through our second and third wave. We really need to reconsider all this now. Our citizens are deeply concerned.

Thankfully, we are on the way back to some level of normality and that has changed things but it is hard to understand why the Minister is asking for these powers to be extended until November and potentially later. I will keep on reminding him that since these are extraordinary powers, we need to have measurements as regards the associated decision-making. When I say measurements, they need to be proportionate, fair and justified and they also have to have checks and balances that rotate and are used at all times.

Having studied what the Minister said in Seanad Éireann, I believe he has failed to date to give a satisfactory explanation as to why the powers need to be extended until November. That needs to change. The Minister said previously he has an open mind on this. Frankly, we will find that out. Many of us in the Opposition are saying the Minister should reflect on this. We will be satisfied if he accepts the amendment of the Labour Party and the Independent Group or that of the Social Democrats. To be proportionate, he should accept one of them because the time proposed by him is simply too long. It is unfair and unjustified and does not pass the tests I spoke about.

As matters stand, the Labour Party is of the view that these measures should be in place only until September. If the Minister supports that view or the other amendments proposed, we will come with them on this journey one more time. If he does not, we will not support him. It cannot be any clearer than that.

The Minister has admitted that 80% of the adult population will be vaccinated by the end of June or shortly thereafter. Non-essential international travel is due to begin at some time over the summer. There seems to be a complete contradiction in what the Government is saying and what it is legislating for. The opening up is proceeding at a different pace than the extension of powers. When we take these things in the round, it makes little sense to us to see the extraordinary measures being extended until 9 November if the opening up is to occur on various dates over the summer. Why can we not have a more proportionate response in line with the vaccine roll-out programme, which is going so well?

Yesterday the Government announced the unwinding of several support schemes, such as the PUP, from September. If we are seeking to unwind supports from September, we should surely be reviewing these emergency measures with a view to them ending in September. We have an opening-up programme based on one date and changes in regard to the PUP in September. An overwhelming majority of the population will hopefully be vaccinated by the same date, yet we are extending the powers for several months beyond that. It is inherently contradictory. Outdoor and indoor dining will return in June and July. As announced by the Taoiseach last week, people will be allowed back to view sports. It is hoped people will be going to League of Ireland and GAA matches over the summer. I still intend see Tipperary win its 29th All-Ireland final this year. I have high hopes for that. If I am to attend an All-Ireland final to see Liam Sheedy and his colleagues pick up the cup, I do not see why, proportionately, we need to have extensive draconian powers like those suggested until November.

We hope that as we unwind, circulate and have an outdoor summer, with a bit of an indoor summer in proportion, numbers will be controlled and the vaccines will be rolled out. As we do that, there will obviously be less of a threat although we have to watch for the variants and keep our guard at all times. By 9 September, this House should be back. We will have seen what has happened over the course of the summer and the gradual unwinding. That is why the Labour Party believes that would be a more appropriate point to extend the restrictions, if necessary. Importantly, the situation would be reviewed. That is our proposal. We believe it is a belt-and-braces approach that acknowledges what is happening now is proportionate, takes into consideration other decisions the Government has made and, in tandem, acknowledges the roll-out of the vaccination programme across the country.

I am uneasy over the fact that there has been little or no analysis brought forward to this House on the impact of the restrictions in the past 12 months. I now want to dwell on this. We have no analysis of the impacts on people. We have no qualitative or quantitative analysis of the impacts, including the hidden impacts, on people. This work should be done in advance or early in the timeframe we propose. In all good faith, it is very difficult for the Minister to come into this House and ask us to rubber-stamp the continuation of these measures without providing context and an analysis of their effectiveness, as well as an analysis showing they undoubtedly have negative consequences for people. None of that has been done.

It was difficult but understandable that pre-legislative scrutiny was waived last March when we were literally in the thick of it with Covid, but we are in a very different space now thanks to everybody across the country. My party and, I am sure, others in the House would have been much less uneasy if appropriate time and consideration had been given, in conjunction with other stakeholders, in respect of what would have been a more proportionate response. I refer to what could have occurred if we had taken more time and examined all the data. We had time. Nobody comes into this House more often than the Minister talking about data. I am not being funny in saying that. In fairness, we had time to analyse the consequences of this and prepare.

My colleague, Senator Hoey, rightly suggested to the Minister in the Seanad Chamber that there needs to be a human rights analysis of these measures. It needs to be carried out in advance. We should not be extending these measures beyond September without proper analysis and scrutiny. I, like every other Deputy, have been inundated with correspondence from so many people. They have contacted me by email, in writing, by telephone and orally. I have heard different opinions, some realistic, some fair and some unfair, but all expressing concern. We need to ensure the rights of people we represent are respected and that the most basic tenets of democracy that we are expected to uphold in this House are honoured. There is a sense of rush here. If the Minister is not going to accept the amendments, will he commit to a review of how these laws are being implemented and how often they will have had to have been used in the House before the end of July? That, at least, would be something.

When it comes to legislation such as this, we should be presented with more information on its effectiveness and necessity. It is not good enough to come in here and use the Oireachtas as a rubber-stamping body when it comes to draconian legislation such as this. Therefore, I am asking the Minister to meet us halfway and accept one of two timelines proposed in various amendments. If he does so, we will come a little bit on this journey with him again, but we cannot do so unless the legislation is proportionate, evidence-based, justified, fair and balanced.

Given what the Minister has articulated and put forward to date, it is simply none of those at this moment.

See this speech in context