Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, line 9, to delete "the later of" and substitute "9 October 2021".

The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that there is no option to extend the measures in this Bill, as is currently the case.

We have put down this amendment in the context that we are opposed to the Bill. Regrettably, we will have to vote against it. If, as is almost certain, the Bill passes, there should not be the option to renew the measures included in it after 9 October. The Oireachtas should now make the decision that this will be as far as these measures can extend. The reasons it should not be possible to extend them beyond 9 October are exactly the same reasons that we in People Before Profit feel we must vote against the Bill, full stop. The health status or vaccination status of a person should not determine his or her rights to access basic things in our society. That is our view. I say this as someone who is an enthusiastic supporter, as is our entire party, of the vaccination programme that is under way. I also urge everybody who is offered a vaccine to take one because the vaccination programme is our best chance of getting out of this grim situation, which has, over the last year and a half, cast a dark shadow over our entire society and much of the world, in terms of its economic, social and psychological impact. I firmly believe that the vaccines are what will potentially take us out of this situation and prevent the possibility of further lockdowns, which would become an inevitability if we did not have a vaccine or the other public health measures we have taken were not enough to defeat it. While the extreme hardship, commitment and solidarity of people have held the virus at bay, the vaccination programme gives us the opportunity to potentially exit all of that and leave lockdowns behind, which is something people yearn for.

The idea that whether you have been vaccinated would determine whether you could enter a pub or restaurant or access any service creates a two-tier society based on medical or vaccination status. I believe this is discriminatory. It is ethically problematic and starts us on a slippery slope with regard to a person's vaccination status, or health status more generally, with personal and private health information determining a person's right to fully participate in society on the same basis as the rest of the population.

This approach also has impacts on those who cannot be vaccinated. There are people with health conditions who are told by their doctors that they cannot have a vaccine and it would be dangerous to take it. There are also people who have not been fully convinced to take a vaccine. I want to convince them. I urge people to take the vaccines but there are some people who, understandably, have not been convinced and we must convince them.

Anything that smacks of coercion is unhelpful. It is worth noting that the World Health Organization has strongly argued against mandatory vaccination. It has argued that it can actually do damage to the effort to educate people about public health measures and vaccinations. It is worrying and telling that the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, whose members are not conspiracy theorists, are very much in favour of public health measures and are certainly not anti-vaccination or anything like that, has written to the Government to express concern that these kinds of measures are potentially counterproductive and smack of "mandatory vaccination by the back door". I believe that was the phrase the ICCL used in its letter to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and possibly also to the Minister for Health. There is a coercive pressure put on people to be vaccinated who either cannot be vaccinated, have not yet been offered a vaccine or have not been convinced about vaccination.

I oppose the Bill for the reasons that it is wrong to discriminate, it is wrong to create a two-tier situation and there are also ethical problems with it. More generally in the Bill, the health of those who work in these areas is being put in jeopardy. Younger people have not been vaccinated yet and their health is being put in jeopardy. We wonder why legislation on ventilation standards has not been rushed through into the Dáil as quickly as some of the other legislation we have seen this week. That would guarantee proper ventilation standards that might do more to protect public health and the health of workers.

I know the Government has said the choice is between opening up a bit on the basis of these measures, opening everything and risk public health or delaying. We will nail our colours to the mast. We would rather delay and not have discrimination, a two-tier situation and invasive questions, demands and obligations put on people about their vaccination or health status. We should delay so that we can all enjoy the reopening that will come on the basis of sufficient levels of vaccination being achieved, such that we will have population immunity and protection at the point at which that arrives. Hopefully, that will be quite soon because the vaccination programme is advancing pretty rapidly. At this stage, it seems to be efficacious and let us hope - fingers crossed - that it remains that way and we get to the point where reopening is possible. We would rather delay and not take the risk given the dangers of the Delta variant and given that this regime creates a sort of discriminatory two-tier situation and may be quite unenforceable in truth. That is the other point to make. Is any of this practical or operable in the scenarios to which it is supposed to apply?

This is the basis on which we oppose the Bill and feel obliged to vote against it. Insofar as we are pretty certain that the Government majority will ensure the Bill does pass, this amendment calls for a firm sunset clause, not an open-ended one that could be extended. This amendment says, in effect, "this far and absolutely no further" on these kinds of measures. This a reasonable proposal and I hope we will get the support of maybe even the Minister, who is nodding. Perhaps he will support our amendment.

See this speech in context