Ms Doireann Ansbro:

I can speak to that. We have included a section on other jurisdictions in our submission to the committee. It is important to say that there is no golden example of another jurisdiction that has done everything right. Overall, Ireland has done a very good job. However, other jurisdictions have approached things in different ways. We can identify parts of those approaches as positive and ways in which we can improve our response in future. We addressed the approaches in France, Germany, New Zealand, Australia and the UK. I have no wish to take up too much time, but one or two things can be taken out of each of those responses, which, we believe, were a little more compliant with a human rights and rule-of law approach.

If committee members have our submission before them, they will see the reference to France on page 10, at paragraph 41. We know one of the ways France dealt with the pandemic. Rather than having large criminal sanctions, as we did from the outset, those responsible had a graduated response. A breach of regulations attracted a small fine first of €135. It rose to €200 on a second breach of the regulations. It went up far higher following a third breach. We believe having such a graduated response is potentially more proportionate than the provision for six months in prison and a €2,500 fine that we saw in our legislation. I will continue with an example from each country.

Many other countries' national human rights institutions were asked for or volunteered observations on legislation. Plenty has been done by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, IHREC, but we have been calling for this practice to be made mandatory so that the Government is required to consult with IHREC where legislation has such an impact on rights. That could start today and apply to all future regulations.

We would also welcome wider civil society consultation. Advisory groups in some other jurisdictions had wider memberships than ours. Rather than just health experts, of which the National Public Health Emergency Team, NPHET, is mainly composed, the French advisory body also included an anthropologist, a sociologist and members of civil society. Having a broader membership may be a positive way to ensure that other concerns are taken into account. Previous witnesses have spoken about New Zealand. That jurisdiction did two very noteworthy things. First, each new set of orders or regulations received wider parliamentary pre-legislative scrutiny. Secondly, a very high level of transparency was maintained. Meetings of the epidemic response committee which scrutinised the Government's actions were broadcast to the public. That could be a very useful way of communicating the precise evidence used to formulate both scientific advice and Government decisions. Some decisions must be private, but there is room for more discussions to be held in public. That would be a very positive contribution to public trust as well as the rule of law, transparency, communication, accessibility etc.

We would particularly highlight the requirement for UK legislation to be certified as compatible with human rights obligations, particularly those arising from the European Convention on Human Rights. In requiring that certification the British Act that implemented the European Convention on Human Rights, the Human Rights Act 1998, goes further than our own European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003. That could be introduced as a general requirement, but emergency legislation especially should be certified as compliant with human rights obligations.