Ivana Bacik (Labour) | Oireachtas source

Indeed. I speak for the Labour Party, but our health spokesperson, Senator Hoey, has already very eloquently expressed our serious concerns with the rushed process by which this Bill is being railroaded through this House. There will be much less than one hour for Committee and Remaining Stages, which is really inadequate time to give these serious and draconian provisions adequate and due scrutiny. There are some 45 amendments. Second Stage has not yet been concluded and the guillotine is to be imposed in one hour. I wish to reiterate what Senator Hoey said, outline our serious reservations about the Bill and express our reasons for supporting the sensible amendments put forward by colleagues seeking greater oversight of the provisions of this legislation. Unfortunately, due to the guillotine, we may not get to speak on the amendments. Very few of them are likely to get any sort of adequate scrutiny. That is really unfortunate and to be regretted.

Yesterday, in a debate in this House on extending the sunset clauses in the Covid-19 legislation for a period of seven months, I began by expressing my sympathy in respect of all of those who have been bereaved due to Covid-19, the more than 1,800 people who have died, their families and those who have suffered the ill effects of the virus. We are hearing more and more about the awful long-term effects of Covid-19. In the past 24 hours we have heard the very tragic news of outbreaks in various nursing homes. I wish to express my solidarity and that of the Labour Party with all of those working on the front line, particularly in the health service. We will support and have supported the efforts of the Government and of everyone else to flatten the curve, curb community transmission rates and work together for the next six weeks to get to a point where we can exit these very severe restrictions.

While we are being constructive, however, we need to hear a much more coherent medium-term strategy from the Government, particularly in the context of exiting lockdown. We must know the criteria for exiting level 5 in six weeks. What strategies will the Government deploy to ensure that we will not be back under level 5 restrictions in the new year? How will we avoid successive rolling lockdowns, with their hideous effects on so many families, communities, businesses and workers throughout Ireland? It is simply not sustainable to go straight from level 2 or level 3 to level 5. It is not what was envisaged in the framework for living with Covid-19, a plan that we supported because we saw it as a pragmatic approach. In order to live with Covid-19, as it seems we must, we must have a strategy beyond the six-week level 5 lockdown. We need huge investment in contact tracing staff. I have heard the Minister of State's colleagues talk of going from the current complement of 400 up to 750 or 800. Will that be enough to have the capacity to monitor outbreaks and identify and isolate close contacts to prevent the spread we very sadly saw in September and throughout the last month? That spread was seen after our gargantuan efforts succeeded in flattening the curve during the summer. We need reassurance on that point.

We also need investment in rapid testing. There is no sense of investment in that. That is the only way to ensure buy-in from the public and from all of us regarding the necessary public health measures. I have serious difficulties with the proposal to use the blunt instrument of the criminal law to enforce compliance. I have said before in this House and elsewhere that our best weapons in the fight against Covid-19 are goodwill, social solidarity and support across our communities. Introducing draconian legislation for a seven-month period, including provision for on-the-spot fines, is not an appropriate means of response. Why are we introducing on-the-spot fines when the District Court has not been overwhelmed by prosecutions for minor breaches of the penal provisions for which the law already provides? I have real concerns about that. Reading SI 448 of 2020, the new statutory instrument signed by the Minister for Health at 11.50 p.m. last night, I have real concerns about the breadth and scope of the penal provisions already in place, provisions which will be furthered by this legislation.

We welcomed section 5 of that statutory instrument, which provides for paired households, the social bubbles that our Labour colleague, Senator Moynihan, has taken a lead in advocating. That is very welcome. We do not see any Government commitment to extend protections for workers, tenants and families for anything like the extended lifetime of the emergency legislation. There has been no seven-month extension of the eviction ban and there has been no commitment to introducing the statutory sick pay that we in the Labour Party have been pushing for some time.

I have outlined our reservations about the legislation. I also have a question. As this Bill amends the Health Act 1947, I would like the Minister of State to confirm that section 5(5) of that Act will apply to any new regulations made subsequently to the passage of this Bill so that such regulations can be annulled by resolution of either House within 21 sitting days. Deputy Feighan's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Butler, stated that the measures could be repealed or shortened by ministerial order.

It would be good to hear a suggestion or confirmation of an exit strategy from the Government.When will we see an end to these draconian measures and penal provisions regarding travelling more than 5 km from one's home, visiting people and house parties? There are better ways to achieve public compliance and to ensure that we all continue to work together to flatten the curve. We would have infinitely preferred a far less rushed process for debating this very important and substantial legislation.