Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, in the names of Senators Gavan and Ó Donnghaile, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Health (Amendment) (No. 3) 2021: Committee and Remaining Stages
SECTION 1
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, after line 33, to insert the following:
“ “relevant statutory instrument” means any regulation made under the sections inserted in the Act of 1947 by—
(a) this Act,
(b) the Health (Preservation and Protection and other Emergency Measures in the Public Interest) Act 2020;
(c) the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020;
(d) the Criminal Justice (Enforcement Powers) (Covid-19) Act 2020;
(e) the Health (Amendment) Act 2020; and
(f) the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 2021.”.
I thank the Minister of State. It has been a good debate in respect of people expressing their views not only concerning why we are reluctant to support this legislation but also why it must be enacted. We have also detailed the experiences that, unfortunately, all of us have had regarding those fringe elements and some of the poisonous comments we are all receiving. There is something we can do in that regard and that is why we will be pressing amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
Let me be clear, again, that Sinn Féin supports this legislation and we will be supporting this Bill. However, we feel that there has been a lack of oversight, and sometimes the consequences have spilled out to affect all of us. If we had more consultation and oversight, that would give an airing to democratic debate which, at times, has been lacking. It has been frustrating for Members of the Opposition at times just to hear announcements without any consultation beforehand. It has happened on several occasions. These amendments therefore are intended to build-in that required parliamentary oversight.
Amendment No. 1 basically gives us a definition for amendment No. 2.
In amendment No. 2, we are seeking to ensure that any regulations made under this proposed legislation must first be approved by the Oireachtas two days before they come into effect. I think that is a reasonable request.
Hear, hear.
It is a request that would benefit all of us so that we are seen to be accountable and to take part in a democratic process where we discuss and air these issues rationally and reasonably. It would help to enhance the Bill and shore up support for it. We also recognise the fact that sometimes we will not have that luxury and that is why in amendment No. 2 we have also stated that urgent recommendations can be made and subsequently approved following consultation and agreement with the Joint Committee on Health. The Minister of State can hear that these are reasonable points and that they are trying to enhance the democratic process. We all recognise that these are quite extreme measures and we want to ensure we have accountability before further actions are taken. I hope the amendment would gain the support of colleagues across the Chamber.
As indicated earlier, I am supporting these amendments and I am doing so because of the rationale that has been teased out well. I will not delay the debate because it is time sensitive and there is nothing to be gained from teasing it out to that extent, other than to say that what Senator Gavan talks about is parliamentary oversight. That is really important. Nothing that is happening in these amendments or in any of the other amendments will in any way undermine what the Minister of State has said today or the principles of the Bill. They will not take from anything the Minister of State has said or from the key objectives of the Bill. It is important to make that point. I want to again refer to the ICCL, which I value as a wonderful organisation. A key line in its correspondence to all of us today is:
We urge the Oireachtas to demand that on the expiry of this legislation in three months from date of commencement, (if passed), sufficient time is given to members to scrutinise and debate its contents before it is renewed, if that is proposed, including a consideration of the human rights impact of its operation.
That is fair and reasonable and the Minister of State should not have any issue with that. It goes back to accountability and this is the national Parliament. We all value it and we are proud Members of it. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in no way take from the Minister of State's good and sound response, or from the Bill, which we have indicated we are supporting. For that reason I will be supporting and voting for both of these amendments.
Tacaím leis an leasú. I second the amendment proposed by Senator Gavan. Senators Gavan and Boyhan have outlined the clear and coherent rationale for this. I wanted to take the opportunity, without making a Second Stage speech, to reiterate our support for-----
We are well past that.
I acknowledge that. The Acting Chair knows I will always follow procedure. I reiterate our support for the Bill. I was following the discussion as I was travelling down from Belfast this morning to make sure I was across it. The debate has been in keeping with the tone of the approach of this House over the course of all of these Bills that have come before us during the pandemic. In the spirit of all the discussion thus far, colleagues would agree that this is a modest ask and that this strengthens our resolve and ability to go out there and advocate for public health, to encourage people to be vaccinated and to combat some of the atrocious rhetoric and narrative that is being pushed in sections of our society. As parliamentarians, we have the opportunity to have greater oversight of this legislation and collectively engage with the Minister of State and her colleagues and officials on this. That is of the utmost importance. In seconding the amendment, I reiterate the call for colleagues across the House to support this. It makes sense and it does the right thing. It strengthens our case as Members of the Seanad and the Oireachtas in ensuring that we advocate for public safety. It also ensures that we advocate for public safety legislation that is the best and most engaged with that it can be.
For the Senator's information there is no requirement for a seconding of a Committee Stage amendment but he is entitled to endorse the amendment anyway.
Consider it endorsed.
I thank the Deputies who tabled these amendments. There was a comprehensive discussion on this matter last night in the Dáil and Sinn Féin's spokesperson on health was to the fore of the conversation. The debate did not result in a vote and my understanding was that the Minister agreed that many publications have been compiled in the Department of Health on how mandatory quarantine has operated. The Minister has various publications he is prepared to share and that would help with some of the communications issues. That material has not been available before but he is prepared to make that available.
I note the intention behind the Senators' amendments but I am not disposed to agree to them. I would like to add that these same amendments were debated in the Dáil last night and the Minister indicated that he will commence by circulating a note to Members of both Houses on the new travel regulations, which he signed last night. He also gave an undertaking to engage with the Opposition to discuss how best to ensure effective communication takes place, whether through oral or written briefs or in some other way.
On amendments Nos. 1 and 2, I would add that the Minister acknowledged last night that accountability is the key element of democracy. I appreciate that the Senators are seeking to ensure that adequate accountability of powers is exercised under the Act. Those powers are considerable but I note that they are constrained by principles laid down in the Act and cannot serve to make mandatory hotel quarantine more severe, only to reduce its impact. For example, the Minister is empowered to reduce the number of days spent in quarantine or to add to the list of exempted travellers. The Minister has no power to increase the severity of quarantine. Also, such regulations are published in accordance with normal practice and the Minister is accountable to this House in the normal way for all regulations made. The measures proposed in this amendment would, in addition, have the effect of increasing the uncertainty around obligations under this legislation. In circumstances under which we are taking steps through section 38Z to increase the potential for travellers to have certainty on their obligations ahead of travelling, this would be unfortunate. I note that the Bill has been carefully crafted to be proportionate in its response to this real threat. The sunset clause places a clear limit on its operation and the Minister must attend both the Dáil and Seanad Chambers to justify any extensions to that period.
I thank the Minister of State for her response. There is a genuine difference of opinion here but I want to acknowledge the point the Minister of State makes about the Minister's offer to share information. That is something that would certainly be helpful but at the same time our position would be that the Act would still benefit from better Oireachtas oversight. It is not just the Act that would benefit; our Parliament would also benefit from that. At times there is a danger of us gifting issues to people on the far right by not having more debate and consultation. In fairness to the Minister of State she has acknowledged those communication and consultation issues this morning and we will hold her to that. We will have to agree to disagree on this but I appreciate the Minister of State's comments.
Is the Senator pressing the amendment?
Yes.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 1 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, after line 33, to insert the following:
“Parliamentary oversight of Covid-19 regulations
2. (1) Every relevant statutory instrument made by the Minister shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas not less than 48 hours before they come into effect and—
(a) where, before the date on which paragraph (b) would have effect, a resolution annulling the instrument is passed by either such House, the instrument shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under it,
(b) if, in respect of each House, a resolution confirming the instruments is not passed by it—
(i) on the day it is laid before that House or within the next subsequent 14 days on which that House has sat after the instrument was so laid, or
(ii) in any other case, within 21 days after the instrument was made, whichever first occurs, then the instrument shall be deemed to be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under it,
and
(c) where, following the agreement of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health, the need of such a regulation is deemed urgent, every relevant statutory instrument may be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made for the purpose of this section.
(2) The period of time to which subsection (1)(b) relates in respect of a relevant statutory instrument that has been subsequently amended is the period of time concerned for that instrument and not to any other period of time by reference to the amending instrument.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), subsection (1)(b) does not apply to a relevant statutory instrument where, before the date on which subsection (1)(b) would have had effect—
(a) the instrument ceases to have effect in accordance with its provisions,
(b) the instrument ceases to have effect in accordance with any subsequent amendment duly made to it or has been duly revoked, or
(c) the instrument has been annulled by either House in accordance with subsection (1)(a).”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 16, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“(fa) who, being ordinarily resident in the State, is returning to the State having travelled to another state for—
(i) an unavoidable, imperative and time-sensitive medical reason,
or
(ii) a termination of pregnancy,
and the reason is certified by a person who is a registered medical practitioner or a person holding an equivalent qualification outside the State,”.
In the debate on the Safe Access to Termination of Pregnancy Services Bill 2021, I asked the Minister to clarify regulations made under the current legislation, under which a person is an exempted traveller if ordinarily resident in the State and returning to the State having travelled to another state for an unavoidable, imperative and time-sensitive medical reason. Over the course of the pandemic, it has been questioned whether this applies to terminations of pregnancy and women who have to travel for an abortion after 12 weeks. I will read reports of a number of such situations that have appeared in The Irish Times. This first report was published in May.
'Bernadette' (not her real name) travelled to London last month. Her unplanned pregnancy came shortly after giving birth to a baby who had spent “a long time” in neo-natal intensive care.
“In advance of booking flights, I consulted with ASN and my doctor to confirm I should be exempt from Covid testing ... Both were confident my return should not be an issue based on the exemptions,” she said.
“However, on arriving at the check-in desk at Heathrow, I was told I was not exempt despite producing detailed documentation to confirm the procedure and my discharge. I asked to speak to a supervisor who informed me of the same thing after calling immigration to check the possibility of travel due to my circumstances. All of these discussions were conducted in front of other passengers at a busy check-in desk – a stressful and degrading experience.
“I was told that without a PCR test it was not possible to fly and I would have to go into mandatory quarantine on arrival home.”
Bernadette said she was provided with a number for the Irish Embassy and directed to the test centre in Heathrow Airport.
“Being very distressed at this stage, I was then told that the results of any test would not be back for up to 72 hours, meaning extending my stay, spending more money and not being able to return to my two children at home in the care of my partner, who was trying to work full time.”
Bernadette eventually found a rapid test centre near Heathrow and paid an exorbitant amount to get a three-hour turnaround for her results. Also reported in The Irish Times were the experiences of Terminations for Medical Reasons, TFMR, which has "come across at least 30 people who have been forced to travel during the pandemic". Its representative is quoted as follows:
They have to show that letter to strangers, who scrutinise it, asking if their reason for travelling is really essential. There have been women turned away who have had to reschedule and turn back. The fear and the shame and the stigma and the grief and the loss is just magnified 10 times over by going through those kinds of horrible circumstances, on their way to lose their baby.
The Minister did not clarify this matter when I asked him about it last month, nor has he clarified it in his answers to questions from abortion providers. They have received the stock response that the exemption applies to anybody travelling for unavoidable, imperative and time-sensitive medical reasons. I have been told that the people interpreting that do not consider abortion to be a time-sensitive medical reason because an appointment must be booked. There is great stress and anxiety on the ground, not to mention the additional expense of going through testing. A test in Dublin Airport before travelling now costs approximately €70 but, during the summer, it was €200 or more. The Minister of State can imagine what it must be like leaving a clinic after undergoing a surgical abortion only to have to run around trying to find a testing centre to get a test within that period. People are just not sure whether they will be able to get on the plane. In addition, the person checking passengers in at the desk may decide to turn the woman away or the woman may fail that test and be forced to spend an additional ten days in the UK. That happened to a client of the Abortion Support Network recently.
We tabled an amendment with that in mind and asked for clarification. We wanted termination of pregnancy to be specifically mentioned. The amendment was voted down by the Government last night. We were told it was not needed and that the matter would be dealt with in regulations. We are now 18 months into a pandemic and it has not been dealt with in regulations. It also was not clarified by the Minister when I gave him the opportunity to do so in this House a month ago, before we knew about this variant and the introduction of this mandatory hotel quarantine Bill. Senator Gavan asked the Minister about it and offered to cede time to allow him to confirm. The Minister said he had to go away and check. He would not confirm it. The Minister himself did not know whether this ground was included in the exemption. That is why we proposed this amendment to the Bill.
It is absolutely shameful that there are women travelling today who have had to go through the additional expense of testing. If they are vaccinated, they need antigen testing. This must be paid for privately. There is no State procedure. It is not easy to get the test and that adds a great additional burden. There are women travelling today who were told they had to do that. There will be women travelling next week but, after 18 months and at least 375 women travelling a year during that period, the Government has refused to confirm whether the exemption applies.
We are proposing this amendment to clarify matters. I will push it to a vote. I am greatly disappointed that the Minister would not confirm whether the exemption applied when in this House a month ago. I am also disappointed that the Bill was not amended last night when the Government had the opportunity to clarify the matter. Guidance should be given to the airlines that people with discharge letters from abortion providers in the UK, the Netherlands or elsewhere can travel freely. If, as a Member of the Oireachtas, I travel tomorrow, I will be exempt from the testing requirements and mandatory hotel quarantine. If I am travelling because I have had to get an abortion, it is not clear whether I am exempt. It is certainly not clear to people on the ground. That is why I will be pushing this to a vote.
I thank Senator Moynihan for clearly setting out the issues behind this very important amendment. I talked to the Minister of State earlier about clarity of message. Let us be clear because we are seeing the external results of the internal communications. We need to be clear about what we are doing and considering here today. It is my understanding that we are talking about our citizens, our people, who want to return to the State. This is the major focus of this amendment.
I spoke earlier about the submission the Irish Council for Civil Liberties made to us with regard to the Health (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2021. There is a line jumping off the page which provides that "All restrictions on [the rights of Irish citizens] need to be grounded in strong evidence proving they are necessary, proportionate and constitute the most minimal interference with rights possible." That is a very powerful message and is clearly reflected in Senator Moynihan's amendment. The Senator is right and has made a very good case. I am very happy to support the amendment.
I pay tribute to Senator Moynihan for raising this matter during debate on the Safe Access to Termination of Pregnancy Services Bill 2021 just a month ago. It is a little unfair on the Minister of State because she was not in the seat that evening. I also accept that it is a little unfair that the Minister for Health, Deputy Donnelly, is not here to defend himself. However, I cannot describe how frustrated I was when I gave him the opportunity to give an answer on the matter. I was happy to cede my time to allow him to clarify this point. He said he would have to come back to me. As Senator Moynihan has said, people have been seeking clarity on this point for months. The fact of the matter is that the Minister did not come back to us.
Senator Moynihan has spelled out the facts far better than I ever could. This is an issue. It is a real problem for women travelling and trying to travel home. It has not been addressed. I am genuinely disappointed and a little shocked that the Government did not take the opportunity to do this last night. We cannot fix that but we do have an opportunity to fix the issue here. There is a great tradition in the Seanad of, from time to time, putting our political badges to one side, recognising the common good and coming together to do the right thing. We did that with the Safe Access to Termination of Pregnancy Services Bill just last month. We should do it again now. The reason we should do that here now - and I have to be very direct here - is that I do not believe the Minister has dealt with this issue. I am trying to be reasonable but we know he has not. It is a massive problem. We have heard from civil-society groups and we have heard the figures. We need to deal with this because it is the right thing to do. I suggest we all do that now.
I am very happy to get to speak on this topic because it is something I feel very passionate about. I listened to the debate last night and the Minister clarified the situation. I do not believe there is any ambiguity or that there is anything to be fixed.
The Minister clearly said last night that terminations are to be regarded as "unavoidable, imperative and time-sensitive". That is the wording used in this exemption. The legislation we are debating is not the same as Senator Gavan's Bill, which we debated a couple of weeks ago in the Chamber. We are specifically debating the hotel quarantine measures. People who have travelled out of the State are not required to hotel quarantine if they travelled for an abortion because it is imperative, unavoidable and time-sensitive.
Last night, the Minister for Health, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, clearly undertook that this interpretation of the legislation would be communicated to all parties, including airlines. I have spoken to people who have had difficulties over the past couple of months when they came back after receiving terminations. I know the difficulties unvaccinated people have faced over the past couple of months. Luckily, vaccinations are freely and widely available in this country. We have had an enormous uptake of vaccines, so the number of unvaccinated people travelling out of the country for a termination and coming back in was very small. I acknowledge it was a very big difficulty for those people, but there is nothing to be fixed or clarified. The Minister clarified this issue last night.
We should not try to stoke up fear or use inflammatory language when we are just trying to get this across the line. Nobody wants to worry women-----
I did not use inflammatory language.
How dare Senator Clifford-Lee say that I am stoking up fear or using inflammatory language.
Senator Clifford-Lee should continue without interruption.
How dare I what?
I will let Senator Moynihan come back in.
How dare Senator Clifford-Lee say I am using inflammatory language. This affected me. How dare she say that.
I understand this is an emotive subject. I will let Senator Moynihan back in to speak and she will be allowed to reply to the debate. Please allow Senator Clifford-Lee to continue without interruption. I did not ask-----
I have never been interrupted like that before, with "How dare I."
I would stop anyone else from interrupting anybody else.
I said that difficulties had arisen for people. I have spoken to people who have experienced difficulties, but that does not relate to this legislation. The Minister was very clear on that. We have a Minister for Health who is very committed to women's healthcare and reproductive health in this State. An unprecedented amount of money has been invested in women's health. It should not be thought that the Minister is not alive to the situation faced by people. This legislation and the Minister's comments last night were very clear. Women who have travelled abroad for a termination that is imperative, unavoidable and time-sensitive will not be required to hotel quarantine. I am just restating what was stated last night for the purposes of clarity. I take offence at the language that has been used and shouted across the Chamber at me.
I will bring the Minister of State back in at some point, but does Senator Moynihan want to reply?
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.
I have no issue with us having a debate on this issue. I do have an issue with the charge of inflammatory language. I was extremely careful in how I spoke on this. Senator Moynihan was far more careful and articulate than I could ever be. I respectfully ask Senator Clifford-Lee to withdraw the charge of inflammatory language.
I thank the Senators for tabling this amendment, and for giving us the time and opportunity to discuss it and to tease out where there were perhaps challenges in previous hotel quarantine legislation. I hope that is what the Minister did last night in the Dáil. I will read out exactly what he delivered. The Minster said clearly last night that terminations are to be regarded as "unavoidable, imperative and time-sensitive", the wording used for exemption. He also undertook to make sure the implementation of the exemption would be understood in this way. The same wording used for the exemption for pre-travel Covid testing requires a doctor to certify same, as for all availing of the exemption.
It is important for me to read the script because I am delivering the Minister's speech, which I need to read into the record. This exemption worked well. The current Bill includes the same regulation giving power for the Minister to exempt certain travellers from the obligation to undergo mandatory hotel quarantine and it is the intention to again make provision by that means for individuals in these circumstances. It should be noted that the exemption provided for in the regulation also covered carers travelling with such an individual. The regulation-making powers have a degree of flexibility that primary legislation does not.
The second aspect relates specifically to one medical procedure - termination of pregnancy. The Minister did not provide for specific procedures to be grounds for exemption previously and it is not the intention to do so, should it be necessary to reintroduce mandatory hotel quarantine. It is important that those considering whether a traveller can avail of an exemption or not can access each case on its own merits and, where necessary, the HSE made available and will do so again, the advice of the public health doctor to determine if a traveller falls under the exemption or not.
Having said that, the intention behind the amendment to provide for particular circumstances of a woman returning to the State after a termination, and the additional stress and cost that entering mandatory hotel quarantine could involve, is recognised. Last night, the Minister made it clear that returning to Ireland after a termination falls within this exemption and undertook to engage with the relevant authorities to ensure that is fully understood.
I empathise with, and completely recognise, the text Senator Moynihan read out from Bernadette. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that.
I am pressing this amendment because, legally, if any bad faith actors were to do something, there would be a difference between travelling to the State as opposed to having returned to the State. I acknowledge that it is also possible to make that difference clear within regulations because the initial language comes from regulations. I would like to see that clarified. I am pushing the amendment because one of the issues around this is that bad faith actors put a chill effect on stuff. That is what I am concerned about. It is why I am concerned about that very specific difference in language between the initial regulations and what is included in this Bill. I am specifically concerned about that because I was told during the summer that somebody had a certain interpretation of that.
I am pressing the amendment because it is important to make that point.
I would like very clear guidance to be given to providers, particularly airlines. That is where this has been an issue. For airlines, this matter is not considered. I know, for example, maternity hospitals would not give guidance on this because they felt they could not do so as it was not clear and there was ambiguity around the language. That is why I am pressing the amendment.
The absence of the specific words "returning to the State" as opposed to the words "in the State" is very important. I ask that when regulations are being set down the language about people returning to the State having travelled to another state is included in them. It can be covered in regulations. I also ask that it be done for the purposes of testing with respect to the logistics involved in testing requirements. The logistics of that are very difficult, particularly when travelling to have surgery. A large number of exemptions from the testing requirements are available for other people coming back into the State. According to an abortion support network, one woman got stuck in the UK for ten days because she happened to fail a test. The question was whether she would isolate for ten days in the UK after going through a traumatic experience or whether she would end up isolating at home. The difference is clear, the expense involved is clear and it is also clear that these women are unable to be with their families.
To respond to the specific point made by the Senator, I give an undetaking to liaise directly with the Minister, Deputy Donnelly, to ensure provision in this respect is ring-fenced in the regulations. This is a very important point. I know the Minister will be very open to that. This has been a very difficult period, particularly for women, who have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. That is especially the case for women seeking a termination, whether in Ireland or abroad. We need to do everything to help the passage of this legislation while ensuring the rights of such women are looked after. I will liaise with the Minister on that point and get back to the Senator on it.
Does the Minister of State wish to add anything further?
I totally understand the reason Senator Moynihan is pressing this amendment is to ensure that there is a clear understanding of this matter in the regulations and that is set out within them. Wording is everything and we talked about communications earlier. In this respect, this needs to be set out and clearly identified as part of the exemptions. The Minister gave a clear commitment on the floor of the Dáil last night that this would be clearly articulated within the regulations.
Amendment put:
The Committee divided: Tá, 7; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Boyhan, Victor.
- Boylan, Lynn.
- Gavan, Paul.
- Moynihan, Rebecca.
- Ó Donnghaile, Niall.
- Wall, Mark.
- Warfield, Fintan.
Níl
- Ahearn, Garret.
- Buttimer, Jerry.
- Carrigy, Micheál.
- Casey, Pat.
- Conway, Martin.
- Crowe, Ollie.
- Doherty, Regina.
- Dooley, Timmy.
- Gallagher, Robbie.
- Hackett, Pippa.
- Horkan, Gerry.
- Kyne, Seán.
- Martin, Vincent P.
- McGahon, John.
- Murphy, Eugene.
- Ward, Barry.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Gavan and Rebecca Moynihan; Níl, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Seán Kyne.
Senator Lorraine Clifford-Lee has advised the Cathaoirleach that she has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Eileen Flynn for the duration of Senator Flynn’s maternity leave and accordingly has not voted in this division.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 3 agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 38, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
“Report of the Minister
5. Not less than two weeks before any motion for a renewal of the provisions of this Act, a report on how they have been applied or enforced shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. The report shall include:
(a) information, including statistical breakdown, on implementation of these provisions;
(b) information, including statistical breakdown, on breaches of these provisions;
(c) information on how public duty of equality and human rights has been reflected in their application: and
(d) concerns identified and recommendations for improvement.”.
This proposal is reasonable. We have spoken about the need for parliamentary oversight and accountability. This is a sensible amendment. It simply states that before a renewal of the Act, which would all acknowledge could be necessary, a report would be made on how the Act has been applied or enforced and it should be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The amendment details what the report should include, namely: information, including a statistical breakdown, on implementation of the legislation's provisions; information on breaches; information on how public duty of equality and human rights has been reflected in application; and concerns identified. That is a reasonable, sensible provision. The amendment would only enhance the legislation. I ask the Minister of State to support it.
This amendment relates to parliamentary oversight and accountability in the Dáil.
I do not think there is an issue with the Minister of State regarding that either. We talk about the quality of the debate in the Upper House, which I acknowledge, but it would be great if a Minister could come into the House and just support a very reasonable amendment. I know the Minister of State spoke about the collective in Government, and I appreciate that. There is a corporate collective overview and one cannot have people deviating all over the place. Again, that confuses the message, so I know where the Minister of State is coming from.
This is my last opportunity to speak so I wish to, again, say "Well done" to the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, for coming to the House and for really engaging with us not in a typical manner by reading off typed sheets. She deals with the facts and brings her own genuine concern, compassion and empathy to everything she does and her contribution is no exception. This debate is one of the better debates we have ever had in the House. I wish to finish on that point. I say "Well done" to the Minister of State and hope she gets a bit of time out over the weekend to recharge the old battery.
I support this amendment. It relates to parliamentary oversight and, as Senator Gavan said, all it seeks to do is provide a report on information, including statistical breakdowns, on implementation of those provisions within the legislation, which is very important. We need to see that. It may not be, but we need this information on how public duty of equality and human rights is being reflected in the application of the legislation. That echoes the concerns of the debate today. We talk about information but, somehow, we have a difficulty within the Houses of the Oireachtas supporting a simple amendment. Hopefully the Minister of State will support this amendment on information. All of us across the House are legitimately entitled to have concern. There is no difference here; we all share it. I picked up the messages from everybody today. People are genuinely concerned about the need to identify the recommendations and improvements.
On supporting this amendment, I too am very conscious of and am not deaf to the conversation we had in this House today about the enormous pressures politicians in the Oireachtas come under, as well as abuse and personal attacks, for standing up for principles. We need to call that out. The Minister of State spoke about language earlier. This afternoon, there will be a protest with approximately 1,000 people expected in Merrion Square. They are right and entitled to protest once it is done in a meaningful, peaceful and respectful manner. Everyone has a right to express a view and that should be valued. As I said earlier, there were many hundreds of people who wrote to each and every one of us with concerns. They were valid personal concerns for themselves, but we have to make decisions here in the national interest. I thank the Minister of State and, in particular, Sinn Féin and the Labour Party for coming with constructive and simple but concise amendments to this Bill.
I thank Sinn Féin again for giving us the opportunity to have this conversation. Yesterday evening in the Dáil, when the Minister, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, was present, there was a really good, comprehensive conversation on this. The Sinn Féin health spokesperson accepted the Minister's commitment and assurances to provide a report of the kind requested, in time. In the interest of ensuring the Bill passes as quickly as possible, however, and bearing in mind the urgency of having all the tools possible at our disposal to continue to deal with the pandemic, I cannot accept this amendment. That does not mean that there was not a real conversation around keeping everybody informed in both Houses. The Minister made a commitment to that yesterday and I am sure Senators Clifford-Lee and Murphy will ensure that he will keep this House, including your good selves, clearly informed on any publication made by him so that it will be replicated in this House.
If I were to suggest anything it is that perhaps we should look at this. While the heat and pressure are on today, there is nothing to stop us coming back in a couple of weeks' time to discuss the progress and regulations and how it has all worked out. I have no problem coming in here and answering the Senators and to see what the Minister has committed to do and following through on that commitment. That is awfully important because that builds trust. If people do not have trust in their elected representatives, it is very hard for the public to trust us in what we say or do. I would be quite happy to come into the House in a number of weeks' time with the Department officials, or perhaps the Minister would prefer to come in, to consider exactly what progress and reports he has cited and what has been done in the interim.
I thank the Minister of State again for the comprehensive response. In light of the points she raised and the commitments referred to which the Minister, Deputy Stephen Donnelly, made yesterday, I am happy to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
When is it proposed to take next Stage?
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Bill received for final consideration.
When is it proposed to take next Stage?
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Question, "That the Bill do now pass", put and agreed to.
The Seanad adjourned at 12.18 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 7 December 2021.