Rebecca Moynihan (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I did not use inflammatory language. I will read out what is in this Bill and how the amendment clarifies it. I will tell the Senator why I am asking for a specific change in language from "travels to the State for an unavoidable, imperative and time-sensitive medical reason". The previous language used in regulations was "who, being ordinarily resident in ... [this] State, is returning to the State having travelled to another state". I know that during the summer this was interpreted in a certain way, which did not include people who were travelling and coming back. That is why the difference between the two wordings is so important. While I welcome some element of clarification, what will be decided in any legal sense will be based on what is in the Bill at present. It is very clear that the Bill refers to someone who travels to the State and not someone returning from it. Vaccinations make a difference to that situation but antigen tests do not and they are coming in as part of the new restrictions. That is why I tabled this amendment.

It is also the case that there is huge vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women, rightly or wrongly. It could be said they should get vaccinated - I got vaccinated - but there is vaccine hesitancy among pregnant women. Are we going to say that because people did not get vaccinated they have to undergo traumatic travel that means they will not be able to come back into the State? That is the difference, that is why this is key and that is why we are seeking to clarify this. It is very important and that is why we are seeking to do it. It is not to use inflammatory language, for political gain or to make a point. It is to protect people coming back into the State.