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

People Before Profit has proactively supported the vaccination campaign and has encouraged people to get vaccinated as a critical measure to give us a layer of protection against Covid-19. The vaccination programme undoubtedly has done this, putting us in a position whereby, fingers crossed, we can edge our way out of the grim period we have been through and the terrible hardships, mental stress and anguish that people have had to endure for the past year and a half.

Our view and our record on this are both clear. We believe that vaccination was critical to respond to the Covid-19 crisis and that more than 90% of adults have been vaccinated is a tremendous show of solidarity and wisdom on the part of the people of this country in the face of a really horrendous society-wide and global threat. It would, however, be a mistake to imagine that that success has been achieved through coercion or mandatory measures. Overwhelmingly, the pressure on Government and politicians to take public health measures, which were, in some cases, very difficult, in the face of the pandemic quite often came as a result of people calling for them. They did so on a voluntary basis because they listened, reasoned out the information they were being given and concluded that compliance with public health measures and vaccination were the right things to do to address the threat that Covid represented, particularly to people who were vulnerable, the elderly and so on. In my view, coercion and legal requirements were not in any sense the significant factor in assuring the levels of compliance and support we have achieved for the public health campaign and the vaccination campaign. I do not accept some of the slightly inflammatory explanations with regard to extending the emergency powers contained in the legislation. I do not agree with some of the language that has been used around that. Such language is not helpful. I am of the opinion that what is proposed in the motion is not the right thing to do. We opposed previous legislation in this area because it has the potential to be counterproductive. I have great faith in the wisdom and common sense of ordinary people. That faith should have been reinforced as a result of what we witnessed the people of this country do over the past while.

The use of coercive or discriminatory measures to achieve compliance with measures that are necessary to protect public health gives succour to a small minority of forces that are trying to undermine the public health effort. It gives them ammunition that we do not need to give them. It also unnecessarily discriminates against people who have genuine worries which, in many cases, I do not share. We need education and information to try to address those concerns. We should not be seen in any way to persecute those people or discriminate against them. I am not saying that is the intention, but the problem is, sometimes, that ends up being the effect of these measures. That is counterproductive and, for that reason, we will oppose this proposed extension.

I will give an example. The other day, I met a man on the street who told me he wants to get vaccinated but he is terrified of needles. He is hoping that a pill or spray will be developed that will enable him to get vaccinated. I heard Luke O'Neill say that he is hopeful that such a spray will become available. I do not love needles, but some people are genuinely scared of them. For that reason, they may not get vaccinated. There are some who had bad reactions to vaccinations in the past and who are, therefore, genuinely afraid. They are not conspiracy theorists. They are not trying to whip up opposition to the vaccination campaign, they are genuinely concerned. Some people have concerns about the speed at which the vaccines were developed. I do not share them. The evidence is there, but I understand that some people may have not yet been convinced. I do not think the best approach is to, if you like, discriminate against those people when we have achieved the high levels of vaccination and compliance with public health measures on a voluntary basis through the enthusiasm and, often, endurance of hardship of ordinary people in compliance. This is a mistake and it is unnecessary.

The Opposition has always facilitated the Government. Where it is necessary to respond to particular stages in the development of the pandemic, we will facilitate any reasonable request by the Government, but I do not think this is necessary. What is proposed is potentially somewhat counterproductive. For that reason, we will oppose it. I ask the Minister to reconsider whether it is necessary.

See this speech in context