Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, RISE) | Oireachtas source

I am opposed to the extension of the sunset clause for this and for the other matter we are debating today. Fundamentally, the Government is attempting to compensate for its mess-ups, blunders and lack of a clear strategy in dealing with Covid by doubling down on repressive measures. That relates more to the second element of what we are discussing today, but the two elements are related.

We have always been very consistent in being in favour of people following the public health guidelines. In fact, we have advocated a zero-Covid approach. There is strong evidence to suggest, first, that the kinds of repressive powers that are being extended today do not work, do not assist in encouraging people to follow those guidelines and can have a counterproductive effect, and, second, that they pose significant threats to our civil liberties. It is striking that on this element, there is no sunset at this stage, but on the other element to be discussed later there is a sunset of, I think, June 2021.

People will rightly contrast that with the sunset on the ban on evictions, which will end whenever level 5 ends, presumably in December. However, these repressive powers being given to the State will continue for another six months. The plan basically is for these measures to continue over the course of the entire pandemic, whereas the supports to enable people to do what they need to do are wound down as soon as we are out of the very highest level of restrictions. For me that encapsulates the problem with the Government's approach. The way to get people to follow the public health restrictions is to support them and have public education campaigns as opposed to repression, but unfortunately the Government is increasingly going down that route.

An iCARE study by Dr. Hannah Durand found that fines and other coercive methods are the least likely method to improve compliance. Dr. Durand stated:

If the Government takes a hard-line, paternalistic approach, such measures will make it less likely to encourage people to adhere to the guidelines. It might cause people to disengage and have the opposite effect.

We have concrete data now that threatening people with the likes of arrest is not going to work. The data is really clear that that is not the way to go.

That matches up with a range of other research, with another study finding that a sense of social duty overwhelmingly motivated people to comply with public health measures as opposed to being motivated by self-interest. Another study argued that repressive policing in the context of Covid-19 actually increases social disorder due to the increased mistrust between the population and the police. That concern was even echoed by the Garda Commissioner, Drew Harris, who pointed out that the UK has seen no benefit from its repressive regime.

It is vital that there be no carving-out of the essential right to protest. The Government could end up in court if there was an attempt to use the guidelines to restrict people from protesting or to fine them for protesting. That possibility is contained in the law. I make the argument that people have the right to freedom of assembly under the Constitution. It is extremely concerning that people are rightly able to make essential trips to do their shopping etc., including going beyond 5 km from home, but that, certainly according to the legislation, they do not have the right to do that for protesting. The law potentially allows the detention of everyone attending a protest at which anyone had Covid or was even suspected of having Covid. People can be fined up to €2,500 or imprisoned for six months without any right to trial as a result of organising a protest or failing to comply with the direction of a garda. These are extremely serious powers that are being given to the State. There is no evidence that they are necessary or that they work. There is plenty of evidence, as seen in the case of the Debenhams workers, that these can be abused.

See this speech in context