Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister said the Dáil has the power to scrutinise and annul regulations. For the avoidance of any doubt, I completely accept that the Dáil has the power to annul regulations, but it does not have the power to scrutinise them and therein lies the problem. The choice is either to annul or not to annul. I am sure that if a motion were put down to annul a regulation, the response from the Government would be to say that chaos would reign because there would be no fallback. We would be told, "If you annul this, there will be no provision in place immediately after you annul it." In fact, the reason I am sure of this is that it is exactly what the Government did on the one occasion a motion was brought forward to annul a regulation, which was done by the Rural Independent Group in Private Members' time. There is no possibility to scrutinise a regulation and ask what the basis is for it, whether there is a different way we could approach it and whether we could change and improve it. That power is not there. There is the power to annul or not to annul, and that is insufficient. It was insufficient at the very beginning of the Covid pandemic and now, two years on, the Minister is looking for powers that will extend for a further length of time. We need a little nuance. We need to be able to tease out and scrutinise measures and propose better solutions. In fairness to the Minister, he is not suggesting that he, NPHET or anybody else has a monopoly on wisdom. Surely we can all bring a perspective to these matters. Such views may not always be right but we can always benefit from listening to other people and perspectives. That is why I am supporting this amendment.

The Minister said the Oireachtas would become the regulator if these amendments were accepted. He will correct me if I am wrong but I think he meant the Oireachtas would become the legislator rather than the regulator. In any event, the Oireachtas becoming the legislator or having the power to make laws is not a bad thing. It is democracy and it is what we were elected to do. He pointed out that 171 regulations have been made. With respect, I suggest that is part of the problem. There is a new regulation every couple of days and people do not know what is lawful and not lawful because things are changing so quickly. I remind the Minister of the time during the summer when nobody knew what was lawful for an outdoor gathering. It took the Attorney General coming out with a clarification reminiscent of Rudy Giuliani during the Trump years to explain that, in fact, the Tánaiste did not break the law. The law was not what we thought it was or what people were told it was. The line was, "Hey guys, this is the law and we did not break it."

I am not saying regulations are not necessary but if we had fewer of them and if more thought was put into the ones we do have and there was more scrutiny of them, perhaps the public would have more buy-in to them or at least be more aware of what they are. If the public is not aware of them, at least the Tánaiste would be. We also need to bear in mind that these regulations are not just academic matters. They affect the lives and livelihoods of people across the country. At this point, the power to bring them in unchecked and without any scrutiny of them is undemocratic because it is not necessary. There should be an ability to scrutinise.

The Minister mentioned that he answered 490-plus parliamentary questions this week alone. I think I got the number right. The response I get to the majority of questions I put in to him is that it is a service level matter for the HSE, which will get back to me in due course. I am waiting two years for the HSE to clarify certain issues. Last May, we were given a figure for the number of people who died from Covid-19 in the mid-west. I asked whether it was the primary or a secondary cause, differentiation between the two being noted on death certificates. It is important to differentiate in this way. People can die primarily from Covid or they can die with Covid. We need to know what the increase in mortality is from the virus. I also had a parliamentary question about the incidence of pericarditis and myocarditis, to which I got no response whatsoever. We need to know whether there has been an increase in those conditions. If not, that is great, but if there is such an increase, we need to know about it. Just because the Minister is replying to parliamentary questions does not mean he is giving answers to them.

The Minister explained that the rationale for the Covid pass was public safety, notwithstanding what the Tánaiste said in the Seanad. I asked a specific question regarding what the Tánaiste had additionally said about further boosters possibly being necessary. Will the Covid pass be limited to people who have had boosters, if that is what is recommended? Will that happen or will it not? I would like an answer to that because if this amendment is not passed, it is something I will not be able to ask the Minister, or request an answer on, in the future.

Will people with natural immunity be allowed access to those premises as is envisaged in the Bill before us, contains provisions the Minister is seeking to roll over from previous legislation? That was a specific question I asked which was not addressed. I did not suggest that it is permanent; I stated that NPHET modelling was predicated upon infection-induced immunity. It was predicated upon being permanent. I said clearly that I had not read any medical journal to that effect, but I read medical journals which suggested that it is enduring and that immunity provided by vaccines wanes. However, the system we have in place is the opposite of that, whereby persons who have vaccine-induced immunity have permanent Covid-19 passes - I have asked the Minister if he will be changing that or not - whereas persons who have an immunity which is based on recovery have time-limited passes, even though the science suggests the opposite to be the case. I asked specifically about immunity.

I thank the Minister for the clarity around swimming pools, particularly because that is not what my constituents had understood. There is confusion because of the sheer volume of the regulations and how quickly they change. People often do not know what is the law and what is not. However, I thank the Minister for that clarification because I can tell him that it will come as welcome news to a family in Clare tonight.

See this speech in context