Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I opposed this legislation when it was introduced in July and I am opposing it being rolled over again. In July, I predicted that it would be rolled over. Many Government Deputies said they found it unpalatable and they were concerned by it, but that it was for a limited period of time, so they would accept it. Now, they are accepting it because, well, it is a power that will not be used. I am suspicious of powers that will not be used being placed in the hands of civil servants or pliable Ministers who do whatever their civil servants want.

The Minister's speech referred to three different groups. Those who are vaccinated and those who have an immunity from recovery are two groups addressed in the law. However, when the legislation was introduced there was a third group, which the Minister may recall discussing, namely, those who were to have a certificate based on having tested negative for Covid-19. We were to see these certificates in the course of the summer. Where are they now? What happened to them?

The legislation provides for three different proofs of immunity. One is the EU digital Covid certificate. There was another certificate of a type prescribed by the Minister in regulations made under section 31AB.(4). It would have enabled the Minister to allow people who had a negative test to enter a bar. The silence now is as deafening as it was throughout the summer. We do not know what happened to that form of proof. The third proof of immunity was to be "any form of written information or proof verifying, in such manner as may be prescribed, in relation to the person to whom the document is issued, that the person has recovered from Covid-19." What happened to that? The Minister did not do anything with that either, notwithstanding that the recommendations from the start were that all those who had contracted Covid in the previous nine months would get an immunity certificate so that they could go about their lives. The reason was that the EU Covid certificate was those who had contracted Covid in the previous six months because at the time that certificate was introduced, the evidence was slightly different. It is still evolving. A recent study based on a considerable amount of data from the Maccabi Institute for Health Services Research in Israel showed that immunity acquired following recovery from Covid is far greater than the immunity acquired through the vaccine. That does not mean people should go out and get Covid because there are considerable risks involved in that and I am not suggesting people take that approach. You have to be careful to qualify everything because if you question any of this, you are labelled an anti-vaxxer for having legitimate questions.

I will raise the case of a constituent. All five members of her family had Covid in January. In May and August, two of children received a single dose of vaccine. In July, in response to a query, the HSE replied when a senior medical officer of the National Immunisation Office stated the children would be considered vaccination with a single dose. In September, the HSE issued immunisation guidelines based on the advice of the national immunisation advisory committee, NIAC, stating that a single dose would suffice for those who are under 50 and were immunocompetent. This family went looking for their certificates throughout August and September. The woman did not give a reason but it was presumably in order that they could travel and go about their lives. After calling three times a week for over four weeks, they got Covid certificates which suggest that they were partially vaccinated, contrary to the scientific advice that the Minister received from NIAC and the evolving scientific information coming out of the international community.

See this speech in context