Ms Doireann Ansbro:

I thank the Deputy for his questions. In terms of what regulations we would have said were not necessary over the past 14 months, one of the key points we have tried to make over the period is that we need a human rights impact assessment to properly assess what regulations were necessary and those that may not have been and which did and did not constitute a proportionate interference with our rights. That is still outstanding. We have not seen a proper human rights impact assessment and it is something we think is necessary before we can properly assess whether we should have those regulations in place and whether we need to continue to renew the legislation that allows further regulation to be made in the future.

We have carried out some assessment of a number of rights and interference with rights over the past 14 or 15 months. Some of the elements that we had issues with from a rights perspective where the fact that when regulations were put in place, there were blanket bans on rights. At certain levels, there was a blanket ban on, for example, events and certain gatherings. Looking at other jurisdictions, we saw the constitutional court in Germany say that a blanket ban on protests was disproportionate and constituted a disproportionate interference.

When our regulations gave rise to the blanket ban on gatherings, we would have said that was disproportionate. We have constantly called for an exemption for the exercise of fundamental rights, including the right to protest, to be constitutionally reasonable if it seems to be done in a small safe manner. We were not saying that normal protests should have been allowed. Small, safe protests should have been allowed, however, given the fundamental importance of those to our democracy, particularly at a time when so many decisions impacting on lives and livelihoods were being made.

We also thought that there could have been a more targeted approach to restrictions on movement. The primary legislation gave the Minister the opportunity to designate affected areas. One of the fundamental principles here is that any decision to impact rights must correspond to good data and evidence of risk. We think that could have been done in a more targeted manner using the affected areas possibility.

We also thought that there were times when the regulations relating to criminal sanctions might have constituted a disproportionate penalty for the exercise of rights. We saw a significant expansion of powers for An Garda Síochána in terms of inspections, closure orders for various establishments and fines for the exercise of fundamental rights. Not only did we see the introduction of fines, we then saw legislation increasing the possibility of those fines. We do not think there should ever be criminal sanctions for the exercise of rights and that enforcement of public health guidelines should be done through proper communication and targeted supports. In respect of having regulations that are not clear, which has been identified as an issue not just by us but by the Oireachtas Special Committee on Covid-19 Response, the Policing Authority and IHREC, there were times when regulations were made in a way that was not clearly communicated. There were very subtle changes. There was no clarity among the population about what was law and what were guidelines. We then had the enforcement of issues that were not clearly communicated to the population using criminal sanctions. This has been identified as a major issue by us and IHREC. In terms of the changes, not only was there a need for better communication, there was a need for better consultation with human rights experts both as the regulations were being drafted and in assessing the impact of the regulations on us. There should have been better consultation in advance with Oireachtas committees and human rights experts like IHREC and better oversight and approval by the Oireachtas. IHREC recommended that ten days following the publication of each regulation, it should be approved by the Oireachtas, a call we support.