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

Earlier, I listened to the Tánaiste's contribution on the Bill. He made the point it is not perfect and he was not claiming it was perfect. I do not think any of us expect perfection in the context of the difficulties of dealing with Covid. To say it is not perfect is quite an understatement. I do not think for a moment that anybody is saying it is easy to legislate in the current circumstances. It is difficult. It is difficult to make decisions on this because it is all about balancing the risk of an unknown quantity, which is what Covid is, against the risk of people losing jobs and everything that goes with this. It has implications for the economy and for health, and mental health in particular. There is a very strong desire for people to try to get back to some kind of normality. There is no doubt it is a very strong desire. There are many things to be balanced and undoubtedly this makes it difficult.

This is all the more reason I believe it was a serious mistake to try to force through this legislation in the matter of a couple of days and bypass the normal checks and balances of scrutiny.

It is my view that the Minister misjudged the situation, and has been misjudging it for some time, in regard to the political sentiment around all the challenges of Covid. In fairness, in the previous Government, when the Tánaiste was Taoiseach, there was a much greater sense of collaboration with the Opposition. We sometimes had twice-weekly briefings and we were very much kept in the loop and up to date. That has changed a lot under the current Government. We had a briefing in December but none since, until a couple of weeks ago when we had to plead with the Taoiseach to bring the Opposition in and update us on what NPHET was saying.

We have, in the main, been supportive of the Government in dealing with Covid. Most members the Opposition have largely been supportive of the public health advice and the difficult decisions the Government has had to take over the past 18 months or so. The Government has missed that opportunity of working on a cross-party basis. A national effort is needed. We have seen a huge national effort by the public and there is also a national effort at political level. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government would choose to bypass all the normal procedures for introducing legislation. It has made a serious error in that regard.

By any standard, this is significant legislation and its provisions are far-reaching. It provides, for the first time, for discrimination based on a person's health status - in this case, his or her vaccination status. That has implications for solidarity across the generations. It is regrettable given the difficult time young people have had over the past almost two years. They have paid an enormous price. All age groups have paid a price but young people, in particular, have been affected. Many of their dreams, hopes and ambitions have been dashed. There is a very delicate balance between the generations at the moment and this legislation very much works against it. There are legal and ethical implications of moving to a situation where the Government is legislating for discrimination against certain categories of people based on their vaccination status, which amounts, in the main, to discriminating on an age basis.

There is a requirement under this legislation to share health data. Sharing such data with authorities, particularly health authorities, is one thing, but sharing them with random people who happen to be standing at the door of a restaurant or pub is really unacceptable. I have serious concerns about this. There are very important principles involved in what is being done here and it is breaching many fundamental principles. There is no information about data protection. What are the arrangements for keeping a record of the data that are contained on the Covid passport? We were told earlier by the Tánaiste that, in the context of the digital certificate, records would be kept in regard to name, contact details and also that the person passed the test. What kinds of data will be recorded and what are the protections around that? There are so many questions in this regard that it would be remiss and irresponsible of the Opposition to give these proposals the go-ahead. We cannot do so when there are so many outstanding questions. The reason we have pre-legislative scrutiny is to examine the implications of proposed legislation, consider the provisions and take advice, before moving towards a proper debate where those issues are teased out and assurances can be given. That is what scrutiny and proper legislating are about. The Minister is denying people the opportunity to do that by attempting to force through this legislation.

As I said earlier to the Tánaiste, it was a mistake that the Government did not take a collaborative approach and work with the Opposition on this issue. The approach should have been about sharing the modelling and data that are available from NPHET. This is all about relative risk. There is nothing we do during Covid that is without risk, especially when there is the added significant threat from the Delta variant and the numbers of infections are going up, as they will inevitably continue to do if we have learned anything from what is happening elsewhere. It is about assessing the relative risk. We do not know anything about the data underpinning judgments that have been made on the relative risk of different actions. All actions have an element of risk in them but we do not know what the relative risk is. That is why the data and modelling should have been shared, and should always be shared, with the Opposition.

There is obviously a serious risk involved in these provisions for unvaccinated staff working in hospitality and for under-18s. We know this is contrary to the advice of NPHET. What is the level of risk applying to children and teenagers coming into hospitality with their parents or guardians? What are the projections for the vaccination of under-30s? It is a long time since the Minister provided us with any hard detail in regard to the projected delivery and roll-out of vaccines. Other than telling us that they are being rolled out quickly, which I fully accept, what are the projections as to when the different age cohorts, including the younger cohorts, are expected to be fully vaccinated? What are the projections for the likely spread of the Delta variant? At one point, the Minister was talking about the projected number of deaths per 1,000 cases and what NPHET was telling him in that regard. Was that in the context of an unvaccinated, partially vaccinated or fully vaccinated population? None of those data are available. It would be really helpful to have that information and the public is entitled to it. Scenarios have been set out by NPHET that are very chilling indeed. What are the underlying assumptions on which the projections are based? All of that information should be shared.

The Minister's request to the health committee to waive pre-legislative scrutiny was unfair and wrong. It was an error in my view and many members of the committee, both Opposition members and members from the parties in government, were of the same view. A number of people from across the party spectrum said they were more confused after the briefing than they were before. That is no reflection on the officials who delivered it, who were simply not in a position to answer the questions. The Minister is, in effect, asking us to buy a pig in a poke. He is saying, "Trust us and leave all the detail to us." Other speakers referred to the devil being in the detail but we do not know any of the detail. We do not know what operating procedures, guidelines or regulations will be introduced. The Minister has not spelled out any of that kind of detail.

When we consider what we have heard so far in regard to these provisions and when we think through how these measures will work in practice, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that the system is not really designed to work. Some Ministers are at pains to tell us there will not be any serious enforcement. If there is not going to be any serious enforcement, then there are implications arising out of that. Why are we doing this, is there an element of charade in it and what are the implications for public safety? The comments by Ministers, including the Tánaiste, have not been reassuring. Is this a system that has been designed not to work? I am certainly of the view, and the Social Democrats have said it from an early stage, that apart from the serious issue of discrimination, which is involved here, it is very hard to see how this is workable or enforceable.

On the question of enforcement, we need to know who is going to enforce this and how they are going to do it. It looks like the enforcement will be based on the EU digital certificate system and that is fine. It seems to be quite a robust system. However, it is a system that was designed to operate as a means of assisting safe travel. When the various details of the certificate are checked, they will be checked by official sources and through official systems at the airports. There is a matching up of the certificate with the traveller's name, passport and ticket.

Therefore, that is a fairly watertight system. Showing a digital certificate to someone standing at the door of a pub or restaurant really does not sound like it would stand up to any kind of scrutiny.

What, then, is going to be checked? We know that the record for people who have been vaccinated in vaccination centres will be on these certificates. It will be stated that the people concerned have had their two vaccines and the date of the second vaccine - I got mine last night. It provides the date of the second vaccine. Of course we know that does not give people protection; in most cases, it is necessary to wait for two weeks, if not longer, after the final vaccine. Will that be taken into consideration when deciding to admit someone? We know there has been a shambles in relation to the whole question of records of vaccinations carried out by GPs and in pharmacies. There is still no clarity on that and how that will operate. Conflicting information has been provided by different Ministers yesterday and today.

Another provision is in place for people who have recovered from Covid-19 in the last six months. The understanding is that people have immunity or protection for six months - some say nine months - after recovery from Covid-19. Does that mean that a person standing at the door of a pub or restaurant must check if it has been more than six months since a person had Covid-19? Is that detail going to be provided? What are the implications of letting people into premises if it has been a year since they have had Covid-19? Many people had Covid-19 in 2020, but the medical advice now seems to be that anybody who had the virus then no longer has immunity. Therefore, are we saying that anyone who had Covid-19 in 2020 will not get a certificate? How does this work? That is yet another question. There is also, as I said, a question regarding dates of vaccination and details in that regard.

What is also not clear is why the Government has decided not to go with testing. If there are concerns regarding antigen testing, why do the provisions not allow for a person who has been tested with a PCR test, for example, in the last 72 hours, if there is a particular occasion? What is the rationale for this? Again, there is no explanation. I am also concerned about the potential for abuse and errors. I was contacted by a man yesterday who had had his first vaccine. He told me that he got a certificate by email yesterday. It did not have his name on it, but that of a woman whom he did not know. The certificate was sent to his email address saying it was his certificate. It stated the vaccination had been completed. The man did not know this person. That is one error which happened on the first day. Are there other errors? What is happening in this regard? What is the quality control? What about data protection in circumstances where errors are made?

I am also concerned about abuse. I printed off my certificate that I received by email last night. For the life of me, I do not know what would stop me, if I were so inclined, from printing it off and handing that certificate to, for example, Deputy Smith, or anybody else. If I did so, the person could go off and obtain admission to a restaurant or pub. Will the Minister tell us if there is anything in place to stop that type of abuse happening? Will any attempt be made to match the person holding and presenting a certificate with the relevant details and establish that the person presenting it is the same as the person named on the certificate? These things are important. We either have a system of enforcement or we do not. If we do not, let us stop bringing rules and regulations and the law into disrepute. This thing should work or not. All these questions need answers.

There is growing advice that we will all need booster doses, a third dose of a vaccine, before the end of this year. I asked the Minister before what he has done to prepare for that. Will the Minister clarify if this certificate will provide for the recording of the booster?

What is not clear at all regarding enforcement is the role of An Garda Síochána. Gardaí should not be put in a situation where they do not know what they should be doing and where people are pointing the finger. That happened last year and it should not happen again. We have also been told that the people responsible for enforcement are the environmental health officers and the Health and Safety Authority, HSA, inspectors. In total, there are about 420 of those. Presumably these people are working a full week and they are busy people with plenty on their plates. What are the arrangements in that regard, therefore? What discussions have taken place with them? Must they set aside all their current important work? Will they be allocated to checking out hospitality premises, or what will happen? What working hours will these people have? The hospitality sector, in the main, operates in the evening. I would like the Minister to tell us about that. This is why we cannot simply say "go ahead". There are umpteen questions which need answers.

I also mention, briefly, the question of how we can make hospitality premises as safe as possible. That should be the objective. We must ensure, if we are opening the hospitality sector, that we make it as safe as possible. The number one issue in regard to safety is ventilation. I do not know if the Minister has done anything about this issue in the meantime, but last week I told him that the current advice on the HSE website is that there is no strong advice to support the contention that Covid-19 is airborne. At this stage, that would be funny if it were not so serious. Has the Minister done anything about changing that? I asked the Minister if he would set out clear guidelines for the hospitality sector, and not guidelines from Bord Fáilte. I refer to expert-led guidelines. The Minister has two reports from two ventilation expert groups. I refer to proper guidelines which set out the risk and what needs to be done. At a minimum, I think the Minister should be seeking to ensure that all premises would have carbon dioxide monitors and that those monitors would be displayed so that the public could see the air quality in those premises. That would give confidence to the public and to the proprietors of those premises and, most of all, it would ensure a higher level of safety. Therefore, there must be clear guidelines regarding ventilation. In addition, clear guidelines should be provided regarding the maximum number of people that should be in premises.

The other point regarding safety is safety for unvaccinated staff working in premises. We all have concerns about this. We are saying unvaccinated people cannot enter premises because the risk is too high and yet we are saying that unvaccinated staff can go into these premises and serve vaccinated people. We need updated guidelines from the HSA regarding workplace safety. I am absolutely shocked in this regard, because I tabled an amendment to this legislation seeking updated guidelines on ventilation and workplace safety for staff. Just this afternoon, I got a letter from the Ceann Comhairle telling me that my amendment had been ruled out of order because it is in conflict with the principles of the Bill. If safety for customers and staff is in conflict with the principles of this Bill, then I do not see how we can support it.

See this speech in context