Independent Clare TD Michael McNamara

Yesterday.

Dail Eireann.

TDs debated a proposed extension of Covid emergency powers covering indoor dining by three months until January 9.

Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly said:

“The purpose of this motion is to extend the sunset clause of part 2 of the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2021, which is due to expire on 9 October and which provides that each House of the Oireachtas may, on or before, 9 October 2021, pass a resolution to continue part 2 in operation for a period not exceeding three months. Part 2 of the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2021 provides for the reopening of indoor hospitality under certain conditions. In essence, the Act gives effect to the Government’s decision to enable access to relevant indoor premises for fully vaccinated persons and persons who are immune from Covid-19, on the basis they have recovered from Covid-19, as well as certain children and staff.”

Later, he added:

“The following point is important. I want to assure the House and colleagues that existing regulations under the Act are due to be revoked with effect from 22 October, in line with the Government’s plan for this phase of Covid-19. Obviously, that is pending final Government approval and final analysis from our public health teams. However, the intention is that the restrictions on indoor hospitality will end on 22 October. We are not seeking, by means of this motion, to extend the timeline past 22 October. Rather, we are looking to extend the legal framework, should that be required, in the subsequent 12 weeks.”

Social Democrats co-leader Roisin Shortall said:

“As a compromise, I am proposing that the power to establish restrictions would only remain with the Government up until the point in the roadmap where most of those restrictions are due to be lifted, that is, 22 October. I ask the Minister to consider that. It is a reasonable proposal that we continue along the road of the roadmap – most people accept that and the vast majority of people are adhering to the requirements under the roadmap – but we expect that in less than three weeks’ time, there will not be any need for legislation to underpin the restrictions. I put it to the Minister and ask him to consider this proposal on the clear undertaking that if things do go wrong and if there is a new variant or whatever, there would be full co-operation right across this House in responding to that in an appropriate manner.”

People Before Profit’s Richard Boyd Barrett said:

“The use of coercive or discriminatory measures to achieve compliance with measures that are necessary to protect public health gives succour to a small minority of forces that are trying to undermine the public health effort. It gives them ammunition that we do not need to give them. It also unnecessarily discriminates against people who have genuine worries which, in many cases, I do not share. We need education and information to try to address those concerns. We should not be seen in any way to persecute those people or discriminate against them. I am not saying that is the intention, but the problem is, sometimes, that ends up being the effect of these measures. That is counterproductive and, for that reason, we will oppose this proposed extension.”

Catherine Connolly said:

“We have heard Deputies refer to The Lancet and the reduction in effectiveness of the vaccine five months after the last dose. We are now discriminating against those who had the double dose as well as those who did not. Then we have the people, including a member of my own family, who contracted Covid-19 who have a certificate for six months. Interestingly, in the Minister’s speech today he referred to nine months for such people. There is no clarity on anything. An all-party committee made recommendations that were absolutely ignored. I, among other Deputies, spoke out from the beginning on nursing homes and on the utter failure of the Government and NPHET to consider the vulnerability of nursing homes, meat plants and direct provision centres.

Independent Clare TD Michael McNamara said:

“I opposed this legislation when it was introduced in July and I am opposing it being rolled over again. In July, I predicted that it would be rolled over. Many Government Deputies said they found it unpalatable and they were concerned by it, but that it was for a limited period of time, so they would accept it. Now, they are accepting it because, well, it is a power that will not be used. I am suspicious of powers that will not be used being placed in the hands of civil servants or pliable Ministers who do whatever their civil servants want.

The Minister’s speech referred to three different groups. Those who are vaccinated and those who have an immunity from recovery are two groups addressed in the law. However, when the legislation was introduced there was a third group, which the Minister may recall discussing, namely, those who were to have a certificate based on having tested negative for Covid-19. We were to see these certificates in the course of the summer. Where are they now? What happened to them?

….A recent study based on a considerable amount of data from the Maccabi Institute for Health Services Research in Israel showed that immunity acquired following recovery from Covid is far greater than the immunity acquired through the vaccine. That does not mean people should go out and get Covid because there are considerable risks involved in that and I am not suggesting people take that approach. You have to be careful to qualify everything because if you question any of this, you are labelled an anti-vaxxer for having legitimate questions.”

The debate continues today with a vote scheduled for 10pm.

Transcripts via Oireachtas.ie

Meanwhile…

Mattie McGrath is absolutely right about one thing: this is a form of apartheid based on vaccination status. It is a blot on Ireland’s reputation as a free society. https://t.co/M20SqSsBLL

— David Thunder (@davidjthunder) October 5, 2021