I return to an issue that was raised by Deputy Kelly yesterday during Questions on Promised Legislation and which I raised this morning with the Minister for Health. It relates to the Health (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill, which is before us today. We have concerns regarding the definition of "exempted traveller" and how that is being interpreted in reality. We would like an explicit statement from the Tánaiste, the Minister or the Government in relation to women having to travel to seek a termination. In our experience, many women have been stopped from travelling this year. They have not been included in the definition of "exempted traveller". We have an amendment before the House this evening which we will push to a vote but we seek clarification from the Government that women in possession of a medical certificate from a registered medical practitioner or person holding an equivalent qualification outside the State to the effect that she has an unavoidable, imperative and time-sensitive reason for travelling and complies with any request of a relevant person will be included in the definition. Can the Tánaiste be clear on that, please?

I will follow that up with the Minister for Health during the day. The point behind mandatory hotel quarantine, of which I am not a big fan, is that people are quarantined for ten to 14 days because they may be carrying a new variant of the virus. Unfortunately, while testing is very accurate, it is not 100%. That is the purpose of mandatory hotel quarantine and, for that reason, the definition of exempted travellers is narrow. It tends to be just people involved in, for example, being cabin crew, pilots or hauliers. However, it can be wider than that. People who have to travel abroad to seek medical treatment that is not available in the country, in my mind, fit into an appropriate category. I will raise it with the Minister and I am sure he will come back to the Deputy on it.