Paul McAuliffe (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

On leaving the State, or being on a flight during a period when the Government was advising people they should not leave the State – that was a guideline, obviously – the question is whether that was enough. Was that a reasonable ground to assume people were leaving the State permanently? I agree with Mr. Bowes. I do not believe fair procedures were used here and that all the normal principles of natural justice applied.

This morning’s discussion with two international contributors was incredibly interesting. They spoke about the UK experience where the Civil Contingencies Act was not used but the Public Health Act was used. It is interesting because we also used the Public Health Act to implement some of the restrictions, or the lockdown as it is generically called. The Civil Contingencies Act was brought in in peacetime and in a way in which it was debated. Do the witnesses believe the Dáil should engage in consideration of what emergency powers could be implemented in a future emergency because obviously the Constitution refers to rebellion and war but this scenario does not fall into that category? Is there a need for that broader debate and legislation to be introduced in a non-emergency time?

The second question is around the right of Government to select which activities are permissible and which are not. Many people think it is far safer to be on the side of pitch watching a match than to be in a pub watching the same match.

I had a mother who contacted me to say that her 15-year-old had asked if he could go and watch the local club game with the father of a friend in a pub rather than being able to watch it at the side of the pitch. The Government should not be determining which activity we should have, but I accept that when I put that to the Minister at this committee, he said that we are in unprecedented times. Perhaps, as we move forward, we will be able to have a more mature and reflective view.