David Cullinane (Waterford, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Yes, and with Deputy Ó Snodaigh as well, a Cheann Comhairle, when he come in. We have a number of speakers. I will start straight away with my eight minutes.

First, I welcome the opportunity that we have been given to debate this plan. As he knows we have been looking for this debate for some time. As someone who has been calling for briefings and more interactions between health spokespersons and party leaders with Deputy Donnelly, as Minister, and with NPHET, I welcome an email I received from the Minister and his office yesterday saying that those briefings will be put in place. They are very useful and as much engagement as we can possibly have will be of benefit to all of us. Analysing, probity and scrutiny does not in any way underestimate the public health advice or indeed any decisions taken by the Minister. It strengthens the overall approach.

I also join with the Minister in calling on people to do whatever they can to play their role in suppressing this virus. Local leadership can play a great part. Look no further than Waterford, and indeed Tipperary and Limerick, as examples of that. I spoke to the CEO of Waterford City & County Council yesterday on this matter and he quite rightly pointed out that what we should be looking at is more localised input into the public health advice that is given, having local influencers, using the local radio station, using the local GAA, sporting, rugby and football clubs and getting as many people as possible to spread the positive message. Indeed this should include politicians, from councillors to Oireachtas Members. That is what we did in Waterford over the past number of weeks and we can see that the numbers have gone down. They have also come down in Limerick and in Tipperary. That needs to be looked at.

The national message is important. Sometimes the national message can get muddled if different counties are in different positions. The national public health officials and the Minister should also look at ways in which we incorporate more localised responses and leadership into the overall responses.

The plan to live with the virus has to do a number of things. It has to keep schools open which we all accept. I have two children going to school and I want to see them continuing to go to school for all sorts of reasons but mainly for their own personal development. We also have to ensure that we keep people in jobs and that people can go to work, which is of great importance to them. We have to protect our health services, which includes not just the acute services but mental health services as well.

We also, however, have to allow people to live. That is the more complicated part but it is important. Living means that people have to have social outlets and opportunities. We have to find ways where we can adhere to public health guidelines, keep socially distant, do all of the things that are required of us with the hand washing, cough etiquette, the wearing of a mask and all of the things that we need to do, but people need to live. When people hear that this will be with us for six, nine, 12 months or more, that is all the more reason that we must give people hope.

We also have to stop blaming certain sections of society, whether it is pubs or restaurants, or young people, for the spread of the virus. Some of the commentary that I have seen in recent times about young people has been unhelpful. We need to speak to young people and to acknowledge that young people play a role of great importance in suppressing the virus. When mistakes are made these should be pointed out, but it has to be balanced and proportionate. We have to understand that young people need social opportunities. It is a big issue for them when they cannot go to college, when it is online, when they cannot interact with people and when they cannot go and meet their friends in the way they did before. We have to accept that and explain that it cannot be the way that it was. We also have to give people hope that it can be better. That is what the plan should be about.

I need to put a number of questions to the Minister and I will give him two minutes to respond to them. One concerns comments from the acting CMO yesterday that the window of opportunity for it not to be a national issue is closing. Can the Minister reaffirm for this House that he was not talking about all counties going to level 3?

That is a very important point. There was a significant amount of speculation on social media about what the acting CMO said. It is very important that there is clarity. The plan has five levels and different counties will be at different levels. If the Government is looking to move the whole State into level 3, that should be communicated. If it is not looking to do so, then the acting CMO needs to explain better what he meant by referring to this becoming a national issue in the context of the various phases. It is important that there is no misrepresentation of what is being said. I am giving the Minister the opportunity to clear that matter up from the Government's perspective.

My final question relates to a comment made yesterday by the Tánaiste, Deputy Varadkar. He seemed to indicate that we should only use the incidence of hospitalisations to determine whether a county goes up a level or down a level, as opposed to all the other factors of which NPHET would take account. To me, that would be a departure from what is in the plan. That statement needs to be explained. Will the Minister explain what the Tánaiste meant? It is important that we do not have very senior politicians flying kites after the Government has published a plan that sets out guidelines. I ask the Minister to respond on those two issues.

See this speech in context