Paul Gavan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and thank her for the level of detail she went into with regard to the Bill. As she will be aware, Sinn Féin has tabled a number of amendments. When similar legislation was brought before the Seanad previously, we supported it. We will also support this Bill.At the same time, it is important that the Minister of State listens to what the Opposition is saying on the need for engagement, proper oversight, accountability and transparency when all of these decisions are being made. I welcome the fact that at least we are dealing with primary legislation, so that we can set out all of our views and tease out the implications of the legislation being proposed, as opposed to tabling motions on emergency powers, which has happened in the past, whereby we cannot amend or have proper debate and scrutiny. Unfortunately, all too often, regulations have been made without any regard for the Opposition.

To be clear, nobody wants additional public health measures and nobody wants additional restrictions. Each and every restriction introduced is extreme in its own right. While we need to put in place public health measures for travel, we always have to be careful and balance out the measures we introduce and the impact they have on citizens. We all know that because of the profile of the disease now and because of the potential threat of the new and possibly other variants, we may have to look at mandatory hotel quarantine at some point in the future. If that is the public health advice and if it needs to be implemented, measures will have to be introduced quickly by the Government.

The reason I support the Bill because of the threat that the new variant may potentially cause. We have to listen to the science and the medical experts. We have to wait and get the expert opinion as to precisely how difficult and challenging the variants will be. There is little point in speculating. We are learning more about it every day and over the coming weeks we will learn even more. It is also appropriate that we respond as quickly as possible.

In responding, what we need to do is not move ahead of public health advice or fall behind public health advice when it comes to international travel. We had many debates on international travel in the past, where my party was strong in supporting mandatory hotel quarantine, where it was necessary. Equally, every time it was introduced, we always said it is an extreme measure that should only be introduced and used in exceptional circumstances, when necessary and for only as long as is necessary. The same logic should apply here.

The response from the Government generally with regard to many of the tools that the State has at its disposal and that the Minister for Health has to deploy, has not been adequate. Mistakes have been made. There has also been an appalling lack of consultation with stakeholders in many areas. The most recent example of this has been the decision to ask children aged between nine and 11 to wear face masks. This is the public health advice and I accept it. The difficulty is that this decision was made quickly with no consultation whatsoever with teachers, teaching unions or the National Parents Council. It was simply brought in. As usual, there were mixed messages in the early stages when it was first introduced. It landed on the laps of school principals and teachers. The direction given to schools was seen as an overly confrontational approach, which I believe is unnecessary. We need to be careful, when dealing with public health measures and particularly when they impact children, to not take a confrontational approach. We should take a common-sense approach. In my view, this is what should have been done in this instance. When there is non-engagement and when something like this is landed on schools, teachers and parents at the eleventh hour, without any consultation or engagement, it causes concern and it presents challenges. I suggest that the Minister needs to re-examine the way this particular piece of advice was given and to re-examine exactly what instruction is being given to schools. She also needs to ensure that there are sufficient flexibilities within that advice to acknowledge that this will be difficult for schools, parents and teachers.

The Minister of State will be aware that we have tabled a number of amendments to this Bill. This is all about parliamentary oversight. The reality is that when statutory instruments and rules are introduced, many times overnight without any consultation, all of us are held accountable. For that reason, we are asking the Minister of State, and I think it is reasonable to so do, to ensure that there is a degree of parliamentary accountability. That is what our amendments Nos. 1 and 2 basically do. We want to ensure that regulations made under the Act must first be approved by the Oireachtas two days before they come into effect. As we also recognise that regulations could be an urgent measure, we provide for urgent regulations to be made and to subsequently be approved by the Dáil, following consultation with and the agreement of the health committee.

Those are reasonable requests. People on all sides have been frustrated by a lack of consultation and a lack of effective communication on the part of the Departments in relation to these regulations. The difficulty is that this causes a lack of confidence in the public. We know where that can lead. It is in all of our interests to ensure that a reasonable degree of parliamentary oversight is maintained in this process. We will be supporting the Bill because we recognise its urgency and its necessity. However, it is a reasonable question. I welcome Senator Boyhan’s response about supporting these amendments. These amendments do not undermine the Bill. They simply ensure that there is a reasonable degree of parliamentary oversight. We will get to discuss them hopefully on Committee Stage and I look forward to the engagement with the Minister of State.