If the Health Minister is opposed to mandatory vaccination, then why is he consulting on it? That is the question posed by local politicians who are concerned over the potential infringement of civil liberties by a new public health bill put out for consultation by the Department of Health.
It comes as Health Minister Mike Nesbitt announced on Thursday (19 September) that the public consultation on a new Public Health Bill for Northern Ireland has been extended by two weeks until 14 October 2024. The Department said the extension will help maximise the number of responses on the proposed legislation.
The planned bill will replace the 1967 Public Health Act, ensuring Northern Ireland can respond to a wider range of severe threats to public health.
While the 1967 Act focussed on infectious diseases, the new bill will also cover infection and contamination from biological, chemical and radiological sources. If adopted the new legislation to cover all hazards will bring NI legislation into line with the rest of the UK.
However aspects of the bill, which includes a provision for mandatory vaccinations under certain circumstances have provoked a negative response from a large part of the local population, particularly in the aftermath of the Covid pandemic and up mic health restrictions that were introduced at that time.
Yesterday, Friday 20 September, the TUV (Traditional Unionist Voice) published its response to Health Minister Mike Nesbitt’s consultation on policy underpinning the Public Health Bill.
The party also challenged the Minister on why he is consulting on mandatory vaccinations if, as today’s Belfast Telegraph reports, he is opposed to such a move.
TUV leader Jim Allister said:
“TUV is in receipt of a large volume of correspondence expressing concerns about the consultation on policy underpinning the Public Health Bill and having studied the proposals in detail we share many of the reservations.
“I was amazed to read Minister Nesbitt’s comments in today’s Belfast Telegraph in which he said, “I am not in favour of mandatory vaccination even in limited and tightly prescribed circumstances.” That is exactly what he proposes in paragraph 143 of the document - a document which carries his name on page 3!
“The Minister should not seek to patronise the public by telling them that he was always opposed to something which he is himself proposing.
“Consultation is a crucial part of any legislative process as it allows the public to have their say on proposals which legislators plan to bring to the Assembly. If Minister Nesbitt is now saying that he is opposed to mandatory vaccination why is he consulting on the issue? Did he read the document before he published it?”
TUV MLA Timothy Gaston added:
“In our response to Minister Nesbitt’s proposals, TUV highlight a raft of significant civil liberty concerns. In addition to the mandatory vaccination proposal from Minister Nesbitt this document suggests:
• Power to introduce domestic travel bans;
• Power to make regulations which require a person to submit to a medical examination;
• Removing the 1967 Act requirement that a resident magistrate to make an order before a person with a notifiable disease be removed to a hospital and
• A new offence if a head teacher fails to provide a list of the names, addresses and contact telephone numbers for all the pupils of that school, or such group of pupils attending that school as the Public Health Authority require.
“I have today tabled a priority question to Minister Nesbitt asking why he is consulting on mandatory vaccination while claiming in the Belfast Telegraph to oppose the practice.
“Far from being misinformed about what is being proposed by the Minister, reading the document will reveal that many members of the public have a grasp of many of the key issues. Those who don’t should take the opportunity to consider our detailed response - which is footnoted with the relevant sections from the document issued by the Department. It is online here.”
Paul Frew, DUP MLA for North Antrim, has also been highly critical of the Department of Health, saying he has moved to reassure “the many people from all over Northern Ireland” who have contacted him that he will be tightly scrutinising any moves by the Department of Health “to take away our fundamental rights and freedoms including informed consent, the right to refuse a medication that could cause adverse effects, and the right to live a normal life when ill.”
Frew stated:
"The Democratic Unionist Party takes any proposed legislation that could impact personal freedoms extremely seriously.
“During the pandemic, The DUP consistently raised concerns regarding the closure of schools, the scale of restrictions on businesses, and were the only Party in the Executive to vote against the introduction of Covid vaccine passports.
“When reading and responding to this consultation people shouldn't assess it as some dry abstract document producing obscure laws that no one will notice or see applied, consider it as if it’s your daughter or grandchild, if they happened to fall ill or test positive for a virus, how would you like the state to treat them?"
Northern Ireland Health Minister Mike Nesbitt (UUP), speaking on Thursday said:
“I would encourage any individual, group, or organisation with a view on the consultation to submit a response ahead of the new closing date of 14 October. This is your opportunity to help shape this important legislation.
“There has been significant public interest in the consultation. As we seek to replace outdated legislation, it is important that we consider all options. I am not in favour of mandatory vaccination even in limited and tightly prescribed circumstances.
“Nevertheless, it is right that we have a public conversation about all potential options in the public consultation, as we decide what should be in the final Bill to protect us all.
“Unfortunately, there has been some misunderstanding about the planned new bill.
“Any draft legislation emerging from the consultation must go through the Northern Ireland Assembly's normal scrutiny processes, including a detailed review by the Health Committee and an Assembly debate followed by votes of the full Assembly.
“It is important we have vigorous debate on the proposed legislation, which is why I welcome the strong interest in the consultation.
“I am determined that the planned Bill will strike the correct balance between the state’s responsibility to protect the public’s health, our collective responsibility to protect each other, and the autonomy, rights and dignity of individuals. The public consultation process and the subsequent Assembly scrutiny processes will help us achieve that balance.”
The Consultation documents are available on the Department of Health website:
Comments