Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The approach to reopening indoor dining should not be confined only to those who are fully vaccinated. Along with my colleagues, I have pressed Government on the use of rapid antigen testing. It should be the case that antigen testing at the door is equivalent to vaccination. We have been talking about antigen testing for the past 12 months and here we are, still talking about it and thinking about introducing it but with nothing happening on it. The reason I am so concerned with the Bill before us is we are discriminating against people who for one reason or another cannot get a vaccine. On top of that, we are putting pressure on individuals to get vaccinated.

I, for one, am thankful I am vaccinated and I actively encourage every citizen in the State who can get vaccinated to get vaccinated.

The Minister might recall that on 15 December last year, I raised this specific matter with the Taoiseach in the House, saying we could not have a position where people were put under duress to get the vaccine. Here we are now, doing that, in effect, with this legislation. If people want to socialise or go into a restaurant or pub, they must get vaccinated. I fundamentally disagree with that principle. I sought assurances from the Taoiseach last December, and he made it crystal clear that there would be no compulsion to vaccination in the State. He reiterated the statement last March when questioned on the subject, saying there would be no mandatory requirement for people to be vaccinated. This legislation puts such a compulsion on people in practical terms.

We have vaccine passports for travelling across Europe but there is an alternative and people can have a PCR test instead. We are not providing the same alternative within Ireland, however. A person can fly from anywhere in Europe to Ireland with a negative PCR test but the very same test is insufficient to allow entry to a pub or restaurant here.

When the Minister responds to the debate I would like him to deal with a number of contradictions in the legislation. I listened intently to Minister after Minister since yesterday morning in the media saying that somebody who is either vaccinated or has recovered from Covid-19 in the past six months and can show proof of that can access indoor hospitality if over 18. The HSE website indicates there is good evidence a person is immune or protected for at least nine months after Covid-19 infection, so there is a discrepancy in the advice. Medical advice is that a person is protected for nine months but Minister after Minister has stated that a person will only be allowed into a public house or restaurant up to six months after infection.

There is also the comparison between indoor dining and the hotel trade but nobody has mentioned cinemas. People are socially distanced in a cinema and take off masks in order to consume food and drink in a cinema, just as people do in a restaurant. A person does not need a vaccine passport or Covid immunity certificate for the cinema, however. We expect that of people going to restaurants, so what is the basis for allowing people into cinemas but not into restaurants without the vaccine passport?

I also raise the question of people within the entertainment business across the country. They will lose their pandemic unemployment payment from September and if they try to get gigs, they will lose it. This legislation, however, is to be in place until October, which is another contradiction.

See this speech in context