David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

"In page 5, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following: “Definition

1.In this Act, “relevant statutory instrument” means any regulation made under:

(a) the Health (Preservation and Protection and other Emergency Measures in the Public Interest) Act 2020;

b) the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020;

(c) the Criminal Justice (Enforcement Powers) (Covid-19) Act 2020;

(d) the Health (Amendment) Act 2020; (e) the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2021; and

(f) the Health (Amendment) (No. 3) Act 2021.”."

I expected this amendment to be grouped with others because it is relevant to a number of other amendments. I will speak to this one as quickly as I can. Essentially, it proposes to include in the Bill a definition of a relevant statutory instrument. The reason is we want any statutory instruments which may arise from the emergency powers the Minister for Health has been given, to be properly debated, scrutinised and voted on, if possible.

This a bit like Groundhog Day because we are having the same conversation over and over again, the reason being we have had so many of these Bills. As they were not consolidated in one Bill, we are routinely coming back to the House to approve motions to allow for the sunset clauses to be extended without debate or scrutiny. We have sometimes reached the maximum number of motions that can be moved in respect of primary legislation. We have therefore had many similar debates on these issues.

We had a lengthy Second Stage debate on the substance of the opposition to what is being proposed in the Bill. I may be wrong - the Minister does not tend to answer questions on amendments when he is asked in advance - but I am working on the basis that none of the amendments will be accepted. I am working on that basis because that is what happened when similar amendments were tabled to previous Bills. In many ways, unfortunately, we will go through the motions again, which illustrates and proves my point that the Government is not listening and is not willing to accept eminently sensible amendments. Many of them have been proposed by parties across the Opposition for all the right reasons.

In his Second Stage contribution, the Minister spoke about his desire to improve communication and consultation with the Opposition. To date, I have not seen any evidence of that. However, I look forward to him again articulating clearly what that improved communication, consultation and dialogue will entail. It has to be said that, over the course of recent months, the communication has been poor. The most recent regulations were introduced without consultation with the Opposition or debate in this House. No time was provided for any of them.

People often have questions about what the regulations entail. As Members of the Opposition, we are asked our opinion on the workings of those regulations. Of course, we have not been briefed and we are not acquainted with the rationale behind many of them, which leaves us at a disadvantage.

It is not unreasonable to provide that statutory instruments be laid before the House. It is certainly not unreasonable that the Opposition would be briefed on those statutory instruments when they are put in place or that we would have a vote on them. The Minister stated on Second Stage that he had made an awful lot of statutory instruments and regulations and asked whether it would it be a good use of our time to debate and approve many of them. That can be done and worked out at the Business Committee. That is the purpose of the Business Committee. Some of the regulations have more profound implications than others. Some have real implications given their impact on businesses, citizens and individuals, while others may be more technical in nature.

Some might be more technical in nature, although they are obviously all important. That is why in later amendments we provide for the Oireachtas health committee to be able to waive scrutiny in the Dáil by saying that the statutory instruments could be laid after the Minister has made the regulations, with the approval of that committee.

It almost does not matter what mechanism anybody in the Opposition has tried to bring forward in order to have any level of accountability, transparency or democratic oversight for these emergency powers. They have all been blocked and voted down and the Government has given a reason or excuse as to why it cannot be done. That does not wash in the real world when people can see the Dáil is sitting. We are sitting tonight until midnight. The Dáil is sitting and has been sitting over the past number of months, pretty much as normal, and is well capable of scrutinising statutory instruments or regulations. It is certainly well capable of scrutinising primary legislation, as we are doing now, and yet we are not being given that opportunity. It is important to restate the reason we are here. The reason we have submitted these amendments is that we simply have not had any reciprocation from the Government about any of the legitimate and genuine concerns that have been raised by the Opposition on the manner in which these statutory instruments are being brought in.

I said this already on Second Stage and I will say it again. There is a big difference between supporting public health measures and supporting giving the Minister emergency powers. The question is how we bring in those public health measures in a fairer and more democratic way, in which there is at least some level of oversight. At the moment there is not any. For that reason, unless amendments are accepted I do not see how I can be in a position to support the Bill. However, I will listen to the Minister's responses as we work our way through the amendments.

See this speech in context