In the opening speeches of the debate, the prime minister was joined by the Ministers of Health and Justice to highlight that scientific research and statistics supported the idea of a vaccine mandate for part of the population. Prior to Wednesday, an independent group of experts appointed by the government said they supported a vaccine mandate for healthcare workers and the over-50s, rather than a general mandate.
Although Wednesday’s debate, which lasted around five and a half hours, did not result in any specific vote on the matter, Xavier Bettel said the government would table a text on the mandate based on the support shown from various political parties, all of whom were given a platform to share their views and concerns.
The government’s coalition parties (DP, LSAP and Déi Gréng) largely followed the advice offered by the expert panel, while the main opposition party, the CSV, called for a general vaccine mandate for residents and cross-border workers aged 18 and up. The remaining opposition parties, the adr, déi Lénk and the Pirate Party, said they were against compulsory vaccination, but would continue to support voluntary vaccines.
In his address to parliament, Xavier Bettel said the country was running out of time to protect the vulnerable with the current vaccine rate. Although a vaccine mandate is certainly an intervention in personal freedoms for a portion of the population, Bettel argued it could enable the country to regain certain other freedoms. He said a return to pre-pandemic times could hopefully be attained with a vaccine mandate, along with the more obvious benefits to the healthcare system, and it would enable the government to reduce restrictions to a minimum.
Minister of Justice Sam Tanson said the current restrictions already felt like too much for many people and the government had a duty to bring the crisis to an end as quickly as possible - which led them to the vaccine mandate. However, any mandate would require a clear, simple and transparent legal framework.
Paulette Lenert, Minister of Health, said a vaccine mandate was the last resort, but two years into the crisis, there appeared to be no other visible way out. She highlighted the fact that a higher vaccine rate would reduce the risks of a difficult autumn and winter period with high infections occurring for a third time.
In order to guarantee a healthy society, it is vital to reduce pressure on the healthcare sector, Lenert added.
CSV MP Claude Wiseler expressed surprise at the fact the government had tabled no alternatives to a vaccine mandate, and criticised what he deemed a lack of leadership. However, the party supports the initiative of a general vaccine mandate for all those working in Luxembourg and aged 18 and over, “from a sanitary, societal, ethical and legal point of view.” Wiseler called for the relevant draft bill to be tabled as early as February and no later than March, saying that to do so in September, for example, would be much too late.
The CSV also expressed support for a mandate for the over-50s and the healthcare sector, but considered this to be a “first step” only.
The DP’s Gilles Baum proceeded with a motion supporting the mandate as recommended by the expert panel in the name of the governing coalition. LSAP leader Yves Cruchten expressed support, but said there were details still missing before the law could go to a vote.
Sven Clement of the Pirates said the party opposed mandatory vaccination, but would not rule out their support if the situation changed for the worse.
Déi Lénk’s Nathalie Oberweis echoed the above sentiment, saying her party did not feel there was sufficient scientific data to support a vaccine mandate.
The ADR’s Fernand Kartheiser said he did not support a vaccine mandate and accused parliament of fear-mongering and “over-moralising” the debate.
Report in Luxembourgish.
