David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

It is a very disappointing day for all of us for a number of reasons. First, we are again being asked to keep on the Statute Book, and keep in use, emergency powers that we all hoped would be long gone. It is equally disappointing because of the recommended changes that have come from NPHET, which the Government will have to decide on over the next number of hours and days. I say that in the context of the public health advice, which is what it is, and my support for public health measures. It is disappointing because many people will feel that we are going backwards even though we had such a major uptake of the vaccine during its roll-out and people have done their absolute best over the past, almost two years, to do what they can to protect themselves and their families. It will feel like this is again a step backwards.

It has to be said that there have been two characteristics to the Government's approach to Covid, which has again landed us in a situation where the Minister is asking us to give him and his Government a blank cheque to extend emergency powers, along with the prospect of additional restrictions to the hospitality sector and household visits, the extension of the use of Covid certificates in certain circumstances and limitations on indoor events. Those two characteristics mean the Government has been very quick to take away income supports for workers and families. We have seen that happen again over the past number of days. It has been far too slow to implement the measures and supports it can and should put in place to keep people safe and to ensure that the first principles of test and trace, isolate and vaccinate work to the extent they should. That is the background against which we are having this discussion today.

I will get to what I and Sinn Féin would do, which is often what the Minister and many of his colleagues ask in response to our criticisms when they are on the airwaves. The last time we had a debate like this, the Minister accused me and my party of being against public health advice because we were against the extension of emergency powers. He cannot have it both ways. I fully support public health measures and their provision. I will not oppose them, but what I cannot do is give what I believe are emergency powers to a Minister who, on several occasions, has not got it right. As I said, he has been too slow to respond on occasion and clumsy at times in how he has approached many of the issues. It has to be said, and I will put it bluntly, that he has made a dog's dinner of some of the responses. All of that has created confusion and led to the mixed messages people have spoken about over the past while. It has created anger, resentment and frustration at a time when people are very tired and fatigued. They want to see strong leadership, but they also want to see a coherent response and be confident that we are making the correct decisions for them.

People want the response to be done correctly and they want proper debate, scrutiny and accountability. I remember when the Merriongate story first appeared in the public domain. What was its characteristic? Confusion. The Tánaiste at the time was not aware of the difference between the guidelines and regulations. We had all of that and I will not go back over that ground. That confusion was created because there was no clarity. There was no debate on the regulations. Even the Tánaiste was not aware of precisely what the regulations were to do. Yet, the Minister is asking this House again to give him a blank cheque to go away and make new regulations.

I have read the media reports and I assume we will again learn about the regulations in the media. There has been no offer of a briefing to the Opposition. I wonder if we will get one over the next number of days. We have again had recommendations coming from NPHET, which I support. It is its right to give public health advice. In more recent times, the Minister and his Government have nuanced that public health advice. That is their right too. It is the Government's job to take the advice and put measures in place that it believes are most appropriate. My point about the nuancing of the message is that we are not asked for our opinion, we are not part of that discussion or debate and we do not have any hand, act or part in the development or creation of those regulations. They are crafted by the Minister and the Government. As he said, they are published and put on the website. Today, if I vote for this Bill without any amendment, I am in effect saying to the Minister to go away and again make those regulations and nuance the public health advice in whatever way he sees fit, without any debate, scrutiny and accountability regarding what people in this House believe. There will no discussion or debate whatsoever.

I come from a school of thought that says if you get your hand burned on one occasion, you do not put it back in the fire. That is what happened to us on previous occasions, in the early stages of this pandemic when the Dáil was not sitting and there was a real crisis in terms of learning about what this virus was, when there was a need to have emergency powers. We are not at that point now because circumstances have changed. There is a difference between that and not needing public health advice or public health measures. Of course we need them, but we do not need the level of emergency powers that, in essence, take powers away from the Oireachtas and give them to the Minister to go and make regulations. We are then all held to account because if there are any mistakes, and there have been many, I am then asked to account for that in the same way as the Minister. It would be correctly pointed out to us that we voted for this, we gave the Minister for Health those powers and we surrendered accountability and transparency. I simply cannot do that.

We have tabled a number of reasonable amendments that are very similar to those we debated last night in respect of a different Bill. They state that the regulations made under the Act require the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Again, we were pragmatic enough to say that in circumstances where it is urgent, the Joint Committee on Health could give the approval of the Houses as soon as is possible. The Minister could make the regulations but they would need retrospective approval from the House. Our amendments would require a report reviewing the use, functions and impact of the provisions of the Acts at least two weeks before a proposed extension and they would mandate reporting of Covid-19 infections in the workplace. We have many more amendments. I assume that other members of the Opposition will also table very similar amendments, as they did yesterday. If the Minister does not accept those amendments, we will be back to a situation where a blank cheque is provided to him and his Government. That is where we will end up, which is very problematic.

If we look at what is being proposed by NPHET, and again I can only go by what is in the public domain, it is back to front that its advice is published even before the Government makes any decision. There is all this speculation about what it means, we are asked for our view, there is radio silence from the Government for a couple of days, it then makes a decision and we have to react to it without any engagement whatsoever with anybody else in the Oireachtas. That is what happens.

Let us look at what is being proposed. For the hospitality sector, six people per table will be allowed, there will no multiple bookings, it will be table service only and there will be an 11.30 p.m. curfew.

I assume that all of that will have to be done by way of new regulations. Nightclubs will be closed to all intents and purposes. How else could the advice being given be read? Live venues will have only a 50% seating capacity. Household visits will be reduced to four, including the host household, per home. There is to be extension of the Covid certificates to gyms and hotels. Again, I assume that would require regulation. As for indoor events, there is to be 50% capacity for cultural, entertainment, community and sporting events. Again, I assume that all that would require regulation. If it requires regulation, I do not know what provisions, of all the advice that has been given, the Cabinet will sign off on. I have no idea. Maybe the Minister will accept all of them; maybe he will not. Maybe he will not go the full distance regarding the 11.30 p.m. curfew. Who knows?

We have to wait and see what the Government does, which is precisely my point. We vote for this, the Cabinet goes off and makes a decision, the Minister makes the regulations, they do not come back to this House and our view is immaterial, yet we are then held to account in the same way that the Government is. I have no doubt whatsoever but that if the Minister were standing where I am, he would see the difficulty in which that places me and many other members of the Opposition. Therefore, when he appeals to people to vote for this legislation, he should at least make a distinction between that and supporting emergency powers and public health advice. I have been very clear right through this pandemic that public health advice has to be heeded and supported. It is the job of the public health experts to give advice to the Government. Yes, on occasion there can be nuancing of that for practical reasons because the job of the Government is to look at a whole-of-society response. I get that, and we in the Opposition have done that on occasion as well. As closely as possible, however, we have stuck to the public health advice because that is the right thing to do. These are experts who give advice. We cannot change it. It is what it is. Then we have to make decisions, but we do not make the decisions. The Minister makes the decisions.

I wish to go back to some of the issues on which the Government has failed and fallen down in recent times. There has been some movement on antigen testing, which I welcome. Unlike some others, I welcome the fact that antigen testing is now being used in respect of travel for people who are vaccinated. That is an appropriate use of antigen testing. However, it can be made free and accessible. The Government could decide to provide for that. There could be a really strong communication campaign on how people should use the tests and in what circumstances they should and should not. Then we could hardwire antigen testing into our overall response. That was not done. That was a failure of government.

We have talked about ventilation in schools and in workplaces time and again, and again the Minister's Government has dragged its feet. We had expert groups on antigen testing and for far too long the Government ignored the advice from the advisory panel on antigen testing. We had an expert group on ventilation. The Government just binned the reports and did not listen whatsoever. We had people resign from that group, people who were on the group who were quite critical of the fact that we have not responded. It is flabbergasting to people that we are again at a point when more restrictions are being considered and we have not done what we need to do in respect of ventilation in schools and workplaces.

Consider the ICU capacity in our hospitals. Again, the Government flunked that one and we do not have the capacity that is needed. Contact tracing in schools was ended. We went from the bizarre situation whereby schools were the safest environments you could possibly imagine and we did not need contact tracing, air circulation or ventilation, and all of a sudden the one cohort of the population that was unvaccinated, the Government says, is now the problem. It finally accepted that measures had to be taken in schools, and what did it mandate? Mask wearing, which is the public health advice, but none of the other issues such as contact tracing or ventilation were acted on and children are now freezing in schools because windows are open. That is the level of frustration that principals, teachers and parents have. The Government took away the supports for workers and for families, with a 40% reduction in the EWSS and a sliding scale reduction to the PUP. Looking at the booster jab roll-out, the Government reduced the capacity that was there in the summer when the vaccines were being rolled out. That capacity was scaled down and we are now not rolling out the booster jab as quickly as we can. That is the central problem.

I will finish my contribution by reminding the Minister of a number of things. If he wants the support of the Opposition, he has to work with it. We have to be part of the solution. Decisions have to come before the Dáil to be made. The Government brought forward a Bill on mandatory hotel quarantine last night through primary legislation. We had proper debate and scrutiny on it and we supported it. I cannot support the emergency powers Bill as it is if the amendments are not accepted. I cannot understand why they are not being accepted. Similar amendments will be tabled, I am sure, by the Labour Party, the Social Democrats and others. It is really frustrating for us, as I said last night, to hear the Minister time and again say the Government will change and will engage with the Opposition and that there will be briefings and discussion, yet I have not been informed of any briefing flowing from NPHET's recommendations, which end up in the public domain. We are all asked about them. I have been invited onto media programmes, as I am sure others in the Opposition have, and we speculate in the dark. We can go only on what is in the media, and I assume we will not be briefed for the coming days if at all. Yet the Minister then expects us just to give him a blank cheque to go and put in place whatever regulations he likes. He is unable to respond quickly. He has been too slow to respond in too many areas. The approach of the Government far too often has been clumsy, and a dog's dinner has been made of so many of the regulations and guidelines in the past. The confusion even tripped up the Government's own Ministers. That is not something I want to see continue and is not something I will support. I very much hope the amendments will be accepted. I know we are in a difficult situation. It is difficult for everybody. It is difficult for all the workers and families out there who will be listening to the news later and watching the recommendations and the changes which are coming. None of them are easy for anybody. Some people will lose their jobs. Some businesses will feel all that, but there is a real frustration out there that while all this is happening, the Government is not getting it right in so many places. I simply will not give the Minister or this Government any blank cheque.

See this speech in context