Dr. David Kenny:

That is a great question. The legislation did a reasonably good job in a number of respects. It did a good job in giving enough power to the Executive in terms of having to respond incredibly quickly in a situation where convening the Legislature was potentially impossible. At the same time, as both my colleagues have said, it did so in a way that attempted to restrict that power, in particular with what we call principles and policies, which is the idea that the legislation guides Ministers in making regulations and does not leave them at large to do simply anything they wish. The Health Act, in particular section 10, has a really extraordinary power to make regulations that can affect people's lives, livelihoods and fundamental rights, but it attempts to direct the Minister in how to use that power. It has a very detailed list of considerations the Minister must take into account and a further list of things the Minister may take into account. In doing that, it attempts to direct and guide the use of those powers. The legislation did a reasonably good job in that respect.

Also in terms of individual regulations made under the legislation, Ireland has wisely erred on the side of trying to use advice rather than coercive measures, particularly for some of the more personal restrictions we have placed on people. The concern that has been raised a few times here is that this well-intentioned soft approach may occasionally have gone too far, where things were being treated as if they were law but in fact were just guidance. Overall, I think Ireland has responded reasonably well. Many commentators who have commented for the observatory in Trinity have agreed, but there is always scope for improvement and additional oversight. We have to be wary of how these powers are used in the medium term if these extraordinary measures are to remain in force.