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

I do not have any problem with the reintroduction of these measures and the Social Democrats will be supporting the legislation. I have a number of queries about this and other announcements the Minister has made in recent days. I want to make a few general comments as well. I hope there will be support across the House for the legislation. It strikes a reasonable balance between protecting public health and the need to ensure that we limit the risk of the importation of the new strain of the virus. We must act in a measured way. We all hope there will not be any need to commence this legislation but it is wise to get it onto the Statute Book so that in the event that things go in the wrong direction, there will be a facility to address the issue.

I welcome the fact that the UK moved very swiftly on travel. It is in marked contrast to last Christmas, when we found ourselves in this situation with the Delta variant and the critical time that was lost, which had awful consequences for us in this country, the UK and further afield. I do not have a difficulty with the Bill and the Social Democrats will be supporting it.

The Minister has made some good changes to the previous arrangements which are welcome, particularly in respect of the application for exemption prior to travel. That is sensible and practical. The Minister also talks about the grounds on which people will be exempted. The first is for medical or other exceptional reasons, including providing care to a vulnerable person. What is the definition of that going to be? It seems extremely loose. Lots of people are travelling for reasons such as visiting an elderly relative, seeing grandchildren or whatever. There is a need to be clearer about that because it could cover a multitude. What are the definitions and criteria that will apply?

There are other questions about the criteria that will apply, who sets them in a general sense and who oversees this. None of that is very clear. The Minister often signals things. Things are mentioned that seem to make sense but then there are questions about enforcement. The matter of who enforces and the criteria that apply are often quite loose. It would be very welcome if there was further clarity on that. On practice generally and legislation, while I completely accept that there is urgency about this as we are coming up to the recess, it is always good practice to have pre-legislative scrutiny. If there was a request, as there was in this case from the Department to waive it, the least the health committee could have expected would be to have a briefing on it. No briefing was provided. It would have afforded an opportunity for us to get clarity. That was a mistake. We all appreciate the urgency of this matter but people need to be treated with respect in here.

They need to be given adequate opportunity to ask questions. I endorse the point that has been made earlier about the infrequency of briefings. In the main, it has to be accepted that the Opposition is supportive of Government regarding steps that have to be taken to control the pandemic. Most parties on this side of the House have been exceptionally supportive. If anything, we have been calling for better enforcement or stricter application of the rules and, generally, to do things that are not being done. It is not that we are saying “don’t do this”. We are saying “do it better”. From that point of view, it is a missed opportunity not to work more closely with the Opposition, or to provide the kind of regular briefing that we used to get. Certainly, in the last Government, in the first six months of the pandemic, we used to get briefings at least every week and sometimes twice a week. They happen rarely now. I think we had two since the summer. I am just making the point we should be working on a cross-party basis. The response would be all the stronger for that. It would also send out a much clearer message. Not all wisdom resides on the Minister’s side of the House. People on this side of the House also propose actions. It would be encouraging and much more effective if some of the ideas from this side were taken on board and if there were closer co-operation.

In that regard, one of the amendments that I tabled asks for notice to be given about the introduction of regulations. It has been difficult to keep track of what is going on. The legislation tomorrow and, to some extent to this piece of legislation, are enabling pieces of legislation. When regulations follow on, they will have an impact on people's lives, on what people can do and what people cannot do. It is only reasonable that people are given some notice of when regulations are to come in. I have tabled an amendment asking that we would be notified 48 hours in advance of regulations, and that we would be told when the regulations are being laid before the House. That would be good practice. We know from past experience that when regulations were introduced, or when they were talked about, the gardaí were expected to implement and enforce them, but the regulations had not even been signed. Again, this idea of making an announcement without the follow through or without keeping people in the loop is not good practice. I would hope that the Minister might consider some of those amendments about providing notice at least.

Along with this piece of legislation, the Minister made an announcement in the last few days. It came out somehow, but it was not a very clear announcement. The Minister has repeated it here now today. He said: “We have also announced that from 3 December, people traveling to Ireland, regardless of vaccination, recovery status or travel history, will be required to complete a pre-departure Covid-19 test. Work to introduce regulations giving effect to this requirement is underway.” What does that entail? We have heard that the Minister is talking about the possibility of an antigen test within 48 hours of travel or a requirement to have a PCR test within 72 hours. The 72-hour window is too long.

This question was put to the Minister on "Prime Time" the other night. The Minister was asked about what happens if a person gets their test three days before travelling, and then they go out clubbing that night, go to a football match, or mix with large numbers of people over the following two or three days before they go away. Surely, then, there would be risks involved in traveling, because the person will not know the virus status in those circumstances. Therefore, 72 hours seems like a long time for a requirement for a negative PCR test. My main concern relates to the other aspect of that, the requirement for a PCR test or an antigen test within 48 hours. I cannot understand the science behind this or the evidence that supports this measure. The Minister, NPHET, and others in government have been telling people for the last 18-plus months that antigen tests are not reliable. They kept on saying that. The Minister has now come to the position where he accepts that antigen tests are very reliable for positive results. Now, late in the day, there are recommendations on using antigen tests. A positive result from an antigen test is regarded as being 80% reliable. However, the Minister keeps repeating - and nobody argues with him - that a negative result from an antigen test is completely unreliable. Yet, he is saying an antigen test is an acceptable measure to provide assurance that a person who is traveling is not infected with the virus. That does not make sense any sense whatsoever. The fact that the antigen test would be done professionally does not make a difference. If one does one antigen test before travel that gives a negative result, that result does not mean very much. How can the Minister defend that measure? This has to be about real measures that actually make a difference.

Yesterday, I listened to Assistant Professor Gerald Barry, a virologist from UCD on "Morning Ireland". He was very critical of these proposals. He described them as a box-ticking exercise. We are introducing travel restrictions, but as long as one has a negative antigen test within 48 hours or a PCR test within 72 hours, that is fine. Professor Barry said that the science does not support that at all. Other people have made that comment as well. Will the Minister address that in his wrap-up? How does that provide any protection? I cannot understand that. Professor Barry went on to say that this does not stand up to any kind of scrutiny. He finds it hard to understand why the Minister is doing this.

Professor Barry also said that we should be much better performers in testing. We know that tests are not available for large numbers of people. We should, of course, be doing sequencing. The scientific community has been calling for this for a long time. Currently, we are only sequencing 10% of tests. It would be much more effective to up that number, so that we can track down cases of the new variant. We would be on top of what kinds of variants we have in this country, as well as what is the spread and so on. All I can say is that this does not make any kind of sense. When the Minister is giving advice, it has to make sense to people. It is not just about “we're going to take this action and that action”. The actions have to mean something and they have to be effective. Can the Minister please address that specific issue?

I want to go on to talk about the general issue of antigen tests. I raised this earlier in the week. I raised it with the Taoiseach as well at Leaders' Questions. It was a mistake for the Minister to promise to introduce a subsidised scheme for antigen tests because they are a very useful tool and then do a U-turn on that. The Minister said the market has delivered. The market has not delivered. Some places have cut-price antigen tests available. In lots of places, they are not easily available. The first question is on affordability. If somebody does not live beside a discount supermarket, how do they access affordable tests? Many people buy them in a pharmacy. In some places, antigen tests are still being sold for €7 or €8. The fact that some supermarkets on particular weekends get into the business does not mean that antigen tests are generally available at affordable prices. Even €4 for an antigen test is expensive for a family of four. People are advised to do the right thing if they are out mixing, if they are in college or at school and so on. They are advised to do two antigen tests a week.

For a family of four, that can amount to €30 a week and that is a fair deal of money if they are on a low income. The tests are not generally available at an affordable price. That is the first point.

The second point is that the Minister seems to have washed his hands of any question of standards as regards antigen tests. If there is competition in the market, the big danger is that there will be a race to the bottom in terms of making the tests very cheap but we have no guarantee about quality whatsoever. I examined and researched this over recent days. There is no standard set in this country for diagnostic testing. There is no regulation of that whatsoever. There is very tight regulation of medicines, and that is only right, but there is no regulation of diagnostic tests, including antigen tests. We have no idea about the quality of the tests available and the Minister seems to have walked away from any responsibility for that. The concern is that the Government will now be encouraging people to use antigen tests but some of those tests are hopeless and completely misleading.

Looking at this from a European perspective, in the last five months alone the health directorate of the European Commission rejected 160 tests that were looking to come on the market. We do not know where those tests are now because there is no regulation. It removed some of the tests from a previously approved list. There is no requirement to have approved tests for sale here so there could be any kind of cheap ineffective tests on the market, in a situation where the Minister is saying the market will deliver. That is a serious abdication of his responsibility to ensure proper standards for people. I ask the Minister to address that. It may have been an off-the-cuff remark or a knee-jerk reaction because there was an estimate of what free or subsidised antigen testing might cost. In the context of the overall situation where we are trying to encourage people to do the right thing, the Minister needs to revisit that. I believe that very strongly.

The other question relates to things that have not been done properly. Many of us and others outside this House have been calling for very practical things to be done so people can be encouraged and supported in taking steps that are achievable and can greatly reduce the risk of spread of the virus. The outstanding question is what is happening in schools, or what is not happening. The Minister has been told by the expert group on ventilation that ventilation is a key issue and must be centrally addressed in order to reduce risk. The first of those two expert group reports came out in January and the second came out in March, but they have been largely ignored. The first one was ignored by NPHET and the second was ignored by the high level officials group. They were just buried. The public health messaging on the steps people can take avoided referencing ventilation until the last few months. Ads were continuing to go out and there were new ads on the radio and there was no mention, or hardly any, of ventilation. It is a clear thing. We have known for a very long time that Covid is an airborne virus and it should have been front and centre. It is just unbelievable that those comments were made yesterday by NPHET about measures to clean the air and HEPA filters. It underlines the need to have a broader range of expertise within NPHET, as it is quite limited. We must ensure it has the kind of scientific expertise that understands air filtration. It is very disappointing that this was not addressed at an earlier stage. People who have expertise in the area should have been drafted onto NPHET from that point of view.

NPHET has a very narrow focus. It is very much male-dominated and the voice of public health advice is very much male-dominated. I spoke about this over a year ago. The weakness of that is that sometimes people operate from a theoretical perspective. The announcement on mask-wearing in primary schools was coming from that perspective, without any understanding that you cannot make an announcement after 6 o'clock in the evening and expect parents to be prepared to implement that at 8 o'clock the next morning. It just shows a lack of understanding of how families operate. That caused a lot of concern. There is a need for a much wider perspective to be taken in terms of the advice. We need a much more practical approach to mask-wearing and having good quality masks, because there has been very little information on that and the Government should be setting the standard there. There are lots of things people can do with CO2 monitors, air purifiers and so on and the Government should be supporting them in doing that. Antigen testing is the stand-out issue there and I think the Minister made a mistake on it this week.

See this speech in context