David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 2:

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

“Parliamentary oversight of Covid-19 regulations

1. (1) Every relevant statutory instrument made by the Minister shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas not less than 48 hours before they come into effect and- (a) where, before the date on which paragraph (b)would have effect, a resolution annulling the instrument is passed by either such House, the instrument shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under it, or

(b) if, in respect of each House, a resolution confirming the instruments is not passed by it-

(i) on the day it is laid before that House or within the next subsequent 14 days on which that House has sat after the instrument was so laid, or

(ii) in any other case, within 21 days after the instrument was made, whichever first occurs, then the instrument shall be deemed to be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under it,

(c) where, following the agreement of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health, the need of such a regulation is deemed urgent, every relevant statutory instrument may be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made for the purpose of this section. (2) The period of time to which subsection (1)(b)relates in respect of a relevant statutory instrument that has been subsequently amended is the period of time concerned for that instrument and not to any other period of time by reference to the amending instrument.

(3) Notwithstandingsubsection (2), subsection (1)(b)does not apply to a relevant statutory instrument where, before the date on which subsection (1)(b)would have had effect- (a) the instrument ceases to have effect in accordance with its provisions,

(b) the instrument ceases to have effect in accordance with any subsequent amendment duly made to it or has been duly revoked, or

(c) the instrument has been annulled by either House in accordance with subsection(1)(a).”.

On this group of amendments, the Minister may be able to respond to some of the broader points which were made.

Amendment No. 2 seeks to do a number of things. It states: “Every relevant statutory instrument made by the Minister shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas not less than 48 hours before they come into effect”. It talks about the statutory instruments being annulled if they do not have approval of both Houses. However, it also refers to exceptional circumstances where it may be deemed appropriate, because of urgency, that “following the agreement of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health, the need of such a regulation is deemed urgent, every relevant statutory instrument may be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made for the purpose of this section.” We discussed a very similar amendment on another Bill not long ago.

I want to make a number of brief points. I know Members who have not spoken will want to come in, and we want to get through as many of the groups of amendments as possible. Therefore, we will certainly co-operate with the Chair to make sure that happens.

I accept this is a very difficult situation for everybody. It is certainly difficult for citizens and there is a lot of fatigue out there at the moment, which we can all accept. It is difficult for workers, for businesses and for families. We are two years into a pandemic that nobody saw coming and nobody wants. Nobody wants to see public health measures in place which impact on people's lives but they need to be put in place at times, and public health measures are very important and have been important to keep us safe.

It is equally important to acknowledge that mistakes were made. Mistakes were made by this Government. I would imagine that mistakes were made by Governments around the world but, certainly, a lot of mistakes were made by this Government. The problem is that if we support emergency legislation and we support the provisions of this Bill, I can then be held to the same standard as the Minister.

I want to give the Minister one example because communication is coming up all of the time. The Government is now talking about communication, not just the Opposition, who have been saying for a long time that there have been communications failures. Even the Government has been acknowledging in more recent times that there have been real communications failures at the heart of Government in regard to the Covid response. I did a radio interview at the weekend and I was asked some reasonable questions about my interpretation of regulations and additional public health measures that were brought into effect. The last meeting we had with the CMO was one of the rare occasions where the Opposition had a chance to actually put questions to the CMO. It was a very good, constructive meeting. He set out, as did Professor Nolan, the trajectory of the disease, the possibility of increased hospitalisations, the worst-case scenario and the best-case scenario, although none of it was good. He said that, at that particular point in time, they were not looking at additional public health measures, and I believe he was right at that point, and maybe they were not. Not even a week later, recommendations were made in regard to children wearing masks in schools and recommendations were then made, which seemed to come out of the blue, that children should reduce their social contacts. We then got into the whole issue of whether children should go to pantos or go to social events, or pick one over the other, and, all of a sudden, we had more confusion and mixed messages. We had the public health experts saying one thing - that this should happen now and they were telling parents they should not go to any of these - and the Government maybe saying something a little bit different, which is what happens. That happened very quickly afterwards.

That was then followed by the additional public health measures that had an impact on the hospitality sector and the nightclub sector, and other measures.

I was asked my opinion on the regulations that provided for all of that. As I was giving the response, I was reminded that the Tánaiste was only speaking to the media on the same morning, thinking out loud as he does, asking and questioning the wisdom of the public health measures he signed off on. He is a member of the Cabinet sub-committee and I am sure he had all of the information on the potential risk of hospitalisations over the coming weeks. The point he was making was that hospitalisations seemed to be coming down and he expressed a presumption that we might have moved too quick with some of the public health measures. I did not say that; it was the Tánaiste. He sat at the Cabinet sub-committee and signed off on the measures and then signed off on the regulations as a member of Government but he was thinking out loud about whether any of this was necessary.

How in God's name is that fair to the Opposition? We have had no briefing since the meeting we had with the CMO. We have received no information or data on where we are with the trajectory of hospitalisations. We all celebrate and welcome the number of hospitalisations coming down. It is fantastic that they have come down in recent days - we all hope they will continue to come down - but I am assuming that the Minister has all that information and that the Tánaiste has it as well. I offer all of that as a good example of the position the Opposition finds itself in, which is not fair or reasonable. We are asked all of these questions and we are trying to figure out, without the detail the Government has, if it makes sense. At times, some of it does not make sense to people. There may be a public health rationale for it, but I am not in a position to answer those questions because I have not been given the relevant information. That is the problem. Then we are asked to give the Minister a blank cheque in this Bill to make regulations that we do not have any hand, act or part in drawing up. That is the fundamental point. Look what happened again in recent days. We have been saying for some time, as have others in opposition, that there have been mixed messages, that mistakes have been made, that there has been a lack of decision-making or poor decision-making and that there have been communication failures. The Government has been ham-fisted and gone about it in the wrong way again. It has given an impression that it is trying to gag public health officials.

There is an acknowledgement that at the very least there have been communication failures. One of the biggest communication failures that has been at the heart of Government is its failure to communicate with the Opposition. The Government has failed miserably in that regard in recent months. The Government’s communication strategy involves different Ministers saying different things and interpreting public health advice in different ways. The public health experts say one thing and the Government says something else. That leaves people confused and then we are all held to account.

I agree with Deputy Duncan Smith that we are having circular arguments. The reason for that is we are not seeing any changes or improvements. I wish it was different. I will not even respond to the political charges Deputy Kehoe made. I have been asked a million times if I support public health measures. I can be walked through every single one of them and I support them, as do the vast majority of Members of this House. That is because we know what is needed to keep people safe. However, I am not prepared to accept the clumsy way in which the Government have gone about it time and again. There is wisdom in what Deputy Duncan Smith said when he said that when we come back next year we have to look at how we do all of this. The quarrel is not about the public health measures as such. Rather, it is about: how they are all being put in place; how they are being communicated; the input from the Opposition or lack thereof; the lack of democratic oversight; and the lack of accountability and transparency, which are unacceptable.

If the Minister does not accept any of the amendments that try to give a semblance of democratic oversight, I cannot support this Bill, which gives the Government a blank cheque and which I am held to the same standard as the Minister on in respect of mistakes he has made in the past. I am assuming, given what I have seen already, that there is potential for mistakes to be made again in the future. That is not what I should do as a member of the Opposition. For that reason, I will be pressing amendment No. 2 and possibly some of the other amendments as well.

See this speech in context