Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank colleagues for their time, contributions, challenges and ideas.

These are extraordinary measures, these are extraordinary times and these sorts of powers should never sit comfortably with any Parliament. I do not think that there is any Member of either House that they do sit properly with. It is not just right and proper but essential that we have serious debate even on something that is a relatively modest proposal in terms of a 13-week extension followed by a need for legislation. These are serious powers and they must be interrogated seriously.

I had my closing remarks but I am not going to make them. What I am going to do is try to address the various points that were raised by colleagues, some of which pertained to this matter and some of which pertained to the wider Covid situation. So, with the indulgence of the Acting Chairperson, I will try to address the various issues in the order in which I think they were raised.

In terms of contact tracing in schools, we all want to do what is best for the children ultimately. That is the primary motivation of all of the policy recommendations in terms of schools. There was contact tracing, as colleagues will be aware, for schools. It came at a very serious cost to the children because children missed two weeks of schools. Indeed, after returning a child could miss another two weeks of schools if he or she was deemed to be a close contact.

Public health worked with the Department of Health in the round to say what are the risks in terms of Covid versus the known damage of these children being taken out of schools for weeks at a time. We are all very aware of the damage that was done last year, which was unavoidable, with children not being in school.

This morning, Dr. Henry gave an excellent interview on “Morning Ireland” when he went through some of the facts and figures. We found that the positivity rate on contact tracing in schools was a really small fraction of the positivity rate for the same cohort of children in the household. In other words, the data that public health has, and on which it bases its advice to me, is that the schools are low-risk environments. Great credit goes to the teachers, principals, parents and the students themselves because the infection prevention and control measures in the schools are working, and continue to work.

When public health and the Department of Health looked at this in the round they concluded that given the low-risk nature of schools, given that the infections in the main are happening for school children in households - so it is not on sportsfields and not in classrooms but in households - the thing to do was to continue protocols for household close contacts, which are happening and there are a whole set of protocols for that, but not to have them in the schools because we wanted to keep the students at school. However, I, the Minister for Education and the Chief Medical Officer are reviewing the potential for rapid testing. I know rapid testing is something that some of the education partners, for example, are considering. I have outlined why the decision was made in terms of contact tracing in schools but obviously we can keep that under review.

In terms of a booster vaccine for vulnerable groups, that is something that is being kept under review. NIAC is looking across a whole gamut of different individuals. Some of the vulnerable groups will have been picked up. People who are immuno-compromised are already receiving boosters. For that group, the booster has been deemed a third dose. Anyone who is 60 years and over in those cohorts will be covered by a booster vaccination.NIAC is currently looking at those with underlying conditions. We are forensically going through the most vulnerable populations, as we did at the start of the year, and going to them. I will raise the progress on the vulnerable groups with the Chief Medical Officer and Professor Butler.

With regard to fake Covid certificates and the question about enforcement data, I will ask the Department to provide all Members of the Seanad with the latest information on enforcement data. It is all available online. The enforcement data is published on garda.ie. I believe the latest data there is up to about mid-October, but I will ask the Department for a full report on that for the Seanad. As regards fake Covid certificates, it is a serious offence under the legislation to do this. There is a tiered set of penalties for first, second and third offences. The first offence starts with a fine of up to €4,000 and-or one month in prison. It is important that people who are thinking about falsifying Covid certificates understand that there is the potential to end up in jail for up to a month for doing that. It is a really serious offence. Essentially, what they are doing is choosing to put other people's safety at risk by falsifying documentation and bypassing important Covid safety protocols. Everyone who is going into a pub or a restaurant is doing so with a clear understanding that everyone else in the venue is fully vaccinated. It is a very important additional protection. That brings us to compliance, which I will address later. There must be rigorous compliance in terms of both checking the certificates and cross-checking identity. An absolutely zero tolerance approach must be taken to false certificates and that is reflected in the legislation.

Covid passes for those who cannot be vaccinated is something we have discussed previously. It is a difficult balance. In many cases the reason people cannot be vaccinated is that there are underlying conditions that put them at higher risk. When I have discussed this with officials and public health doctors previously they have pointed out that it is not fair to say to people who cannot get vaccinated, the vast majority of whom would choose to be vaccinated, that they cannot avail of pubs and restaurants indoors. The counter to that is that while it may not be fair, if they have an underlying condition that puts them at higher risk of Covid-19, there is a real risk to them in some of these situations. There is no clean or easy answer to this. It is a deeply unfair situation. It is a small number of people, but it is an unenviable position. The current position is based solely on their health and safety and minimising the risk of exposing them to Covid.

Regarding the position outlined by Senator Gavan on behalf of his party, we discussed this last night. I have made a point of not getting into political charges when it comes to Covid, because it has to remain above politics. Last night, when I heard the position put forward by Sinn Féin while I was in the Dáil, I made the decision to call that out. The reason is that I feel very strongly about the position that is being taken. We are in a situation where we have had in excess of 3,000 cases for two days in a row. It is very serious. It is essential that we can continue to regulate through the winter months. I find it hard to understand how a party that takes itself seriously - not an Independent Member, and I was formerly an Independent Deputy, or an individual - and talks about itself being in government would actually vote against us being able to regulate on Covid through the winter. I feel very strongly about that and that is why I called it out last night.

One of the arguments put forward by that party last night, not here, was that it was not appropriate for these to be regulations and that it all should be legislation that the Oireachtas can adapt. After last night's debate I asked the Department for a note on how many Covid regulations I have signed just in my time in office. The answer was 133, not including mandatory hotel quarantine. The officials are looking at how many were in mandatory hotel quarantine. If we just take the 133, I do not believe any of us would seriously suggest that there should have been 133 separate legislative processes. It just would not be feasible. It would swamp the Department of Health, the political system and the Oireachtas. As Senators will be aware, the Oireachtas legislates and governments regulate through statutory instruments. I fully accept that these are not normal statutory instruments. They are extraordinary statutory instruments given the powers contained in them. Normally one could make a very reasonable argument, and Senator McDowell did the last time we had this debate, that they are of such import that they would be comparable to what would be contained in legislation, with all the important checks and balances that the legislative process brings. The counter to that is that we simply could not legislate 133 times and whatever number we had to do for mandatory hotel quarantine. It is not a comfortable position for any of us. The Houses can annul the regulations when they are put forward.

In terms of parliamentary oversight and, indeed, it was raised at the end of the debate with regard to the Oireachtas Covid committee, that is a matter for the Oireachtas, not the Government. I have no issue with an Oireachtas Covid committee. In fact, I was a member of the Oireachtas Special Committee on Covid-19 Response before I was appointed to office. I have regularly come to the Dáil and the Seanad for questions and answers. The Department of Health received 63% of all parliamentary questions for the summer term, just to give a sense of how much the Department and the HSE are trying to answer questions. I am very open to more Oireachtas oversight in the Dáil and the Seanad, and committees can do things that neither House can do easily. However, it is a matter for the Oireachtas, not the Government, as to whether it wishes to instigate a standing Covid committee.

The final point I wish to make in response to the objections from Sinn Féin is about the depiction of the process. Some of the language used today was quite mild; some of the language used in the Dáil was not. There was reference to chaos, no plan B and all sorts of things in respect of the process of getting to regulation in the hospitality sector. The recent regulations were cited. We have had this narrative many times. The process is as follows - NPHET advises, the Government meets and the Government decides. However, Government decisions do not include regulations. It is broader and at a higher level than that. The next step is regulation. Quite properly, in terms of hospitality and many other regulations, the line Departments immediately engaged with the sectors. Then an agreement was reached, my Department created the regulations and I signed them. That process is somehow depicted as chaotic because the Government, in reaching its decision, does not walk out of Cabinet and say: "Not only have we a decision, but we also have all the fully formed regulations in place". It simply cannot be done like that. It does not work like that. One has to engage with the sector. The argument we seem to be hearing, and I presume there would be no objection to engaging with the sector, is that on top of that we should have a full legislative process as well and that this would somehow result in a clearer or faster process. This constant undermining of the development of the regulations is not helpful. There is a process and there has to be an understanding that it is right and proper that there would be engagement with the people affected, that there is a process in that regard and that then we reach some form of agreement.

These measures are important. Sinn Féin voted against the Covid pass. Not only did it vote against it, there was a very heated debate. It was at the end of the last Dáil session in the convention centre.Some very serious accusations were thrown about and some of the contributions were very heated indeed. That is fine. They voted against the Covid-19 pass, however, and that is what allowed us to open the sector. We were accused of all sorts of discrimination and apartheid and all sorts of things, but the pass is what allowed us to open the sector.

Turning to the winter plan, and concerning the questions from Senator Hoey, much work has been done and many of the measures are already in place. Last year, we had a comprehensive winter plan that involved spending of €600 million. The majority of those measures are still in place, including beds, patient pathways, diagnostics and many other aspects. We are working through additional measures now.

Regarding global vaccine justice, I agree with the TRIPS Agreement waiver. I said that before and I reiterate it now. I do not think it will solve the problem, but even if it were to prove nothing more than symbolic, then it would be the right thing to do. Analysis has been done at the level of the European Commission concerning the full pathway required in this regard. These are extremely advanced manufacturing processes and similarly advanced global supply chains are also required, while the transportation and storage of the vaccines after manufacture is equally complex. Therefore, a TRIPS Agreement waiver on its own would not solve the problem. A whole supply chain has to be put in place, and much of it is now being put in place.

What can Ireland do? One of the things that we can do, and which the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Coveney, and I regularly push, is to ensure that Ireland has a strong voice on this issue at the EU table. To its credit, the EU, by a large distance, has exported more vaccines than any other region in the world. As Members will be aware, Ireland has signed up to and has donated in-country vaccines to Uganda. We have also signed up to donate 1 million vaccine doses to COVAX. Those vaccines will not arrive in the country, but will instead go straight from the manufacturers to COVAX. We have much further to go in this regard and I will be bringing such recommendations to the Cabinet. We have the extraordinary luxury in this country of talking about booster vaccines for healthcare workers, when in some countries less than 2% of healthcare workers have had a first vaccination. It is something that we must be cognisant of when we talk about providing booster vaccines for more people here.

I will end by asking for the help of colleagues right across the House. The situation now is serious. We have a plan that is a national response. It includes actions to be undertaken by the Government, industry and individuals. We are doing a great deal in Government. We spoke about the booster vaccines. We are also increasing testing, PCR and rapid testing, and bringing in additional supports for nursing homes, including serial testing. We are signing up to efforts to encourage new drug therapies. We are not there yet, but the signs are encouraging at an EU level. We are also rolling out the flu vaccine and extending the regulations, which is part of what we are doing this evening, and pushing on ventilation, winter planning and more. Therefore, we are doing a wide range of things as a State.

The single most important thing that industry must do is to comply with the regulations and the public health advice. I acknowledge that most outlets in the hospitality, retail and other sectors, are doing a fantastic job. The evidence we have from surveys and compliance data, however, is that far too many premises are not checking Covid-19 passes or, if they are, they are not cross-checking the I.D. There has been a slippage, an understandable one, in aspects such as the use of hand sanitisers and an increase in overcrowding - not everywhere at all, but in some places. What we need therefore is for industry to go that bit further again. I refer to those businesses that are not adhering to the regulations and the public health advice. As I said, many businesses are complying with the measures.

Turning to what individuals can do, this is where much of the public health advice is targeted. The single most effective thing that could happen would be for the 7% of people who have not been vaccinated to get vaccinated. Were that to happen, then our numbers of Covid-19 patients in ICUs would be less than half what they are now. Our Covid-19 hospital patient numbers would also be at about half what they are now. Such a development would take an immense strain off our healthcare system and off our healthcare workers and it would mean that more men, women and children could have elective surgeries. It would be incredibly effective if that were to happen, and we are seeing encouraging initial signs in this regard. As I said, 24,000 people have signed up to be vaccinated for the first time in the last fortnight.

In addition, for a while we must reduce our discretionary social contacts. The public health advice that I have is that the R number is now above 1 and a relatively small reduction in our social contacts would help to bring that number down to 1 or, ideally, below it. Without everything that is going on, the thinking is that the current Delta variant would have an R number of around 6 to 8, which would mean that the virus would spread extraordinarily rapidly. The R number is still relatively low, but exponential growth makes the situation difficult. Therefore, a reduction, even for a short while, in the number of discretionary social contacts is one of the big messages and major requests that our public health experts are asking for. I refer to sticking with the basics that we all know, such as the use of masks, maintaining hand hygiene, etc. Critically, people who are symptomatic should stay out of work or school, or whatever it may be, isolate and get tested. That is very important.

That is where we are at now. This motion is an important part of addressing this situation in respect of being able to regulate for the next 13 weeks through these winter months. If all of us, individuals, industry and the apparatus of the State, can push again, as we have had to do every time we have seen a surge, then we will be able to push the incidence of the virus back down and we will be able to protect the hard-won gains of our society and economy being open.