Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will take five, please.

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their attendance and opening statements. It is generally accepted that certain intrusions into human rights and civil liberties took place as a result of restrictions introduced for a particular purpose. On balance were the measures taken necessary and did they do the job they were intended to do, that is, curtail the spread, and its speed, of the virus?

The FLAC submission referred to reasonable grounds and the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection. I spent some time in that Department as a Minister of State and am reasonably familiar with the application of the rules there. I was surprised at the surprise expressed at the methodology used for determining whether or not someone had eligibility as some of those means have always been used, as far as I am aware. Having dealt with countless queries and appeals before the Department's appeals officers, I questioned those areas repeatedly, but they were there. For example, on qualification for payment for jobseekers allowance or equivalent, it is necessary to be available for and seeking full-time employment, not part-time employment. I asked was that criteria taken into account and should there have been an amendment at that time to deal with issues that might arise. The counterpoint is that such is the severity of the virus that it was necessary to take particular precautions and some of those regulations might have to be set aside.

On the right to protest, having been involved in some protests in my previous incarnation, I observe that right. The question arises as to whether the restrictions introduced and imposed were on balance in line with the requirements of curtailing the virus and its spread or whether they were excessive. There are two kinds of protest, one which some members refer to as effective protesting, which means impeding the rights of others in the course of their business. Is it considered that the restrictions imposed were excessive or were in line with the requirements to curtail, slow down or restrict the forward speed of the virus?

Is it accepted that the State could have a liability in the courts if it did not take effective action to protect in general the lives and well-being of the community? I refer to various instances where the State was sued and sued successfully.