Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Alan Farrell.

I hope this is the last time in this House that we have to debate the introduction of legislation to respond to the Covid-19 pandemic. As the Ceann Comhairle will be aware, the House last year enacted four items of substantive legislation as part of our response to the pandemic. We introduced the Health (Preservation and Protection and other Emergency Measures in the Public Interest) Act, the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act, the Criminal Justice (Enforcement Powers) (Covid-19) Act and the Health (Amendment) Act.

As everyone in the House will be aware, the benefit of enacting that legislation was that it enabled the State to respond immediately and flexibly to the new challenges posed to us by the pandemic. The great benefit of the legislation we enact is it provides the Minister for Health with power to make regulations. He can make them promptly having received advice from his advisers and legal advice from the Office of the Attorney General. That is the great benefit of delegated legislation. It can be done provided that it is within the principles and policies of the initial legislation, and I do not think there was any doubt the measures introduced by the Minister came within the policies and practices of the legislation that was enacted. All those Acts ultimately provided that they would be extended until 9 June, an extension from what was previously 9 November 2020. Nobody wants to keep this legislation in place, and I am sure the Minister for Health does not want to be in a position where he has these extraordinary powers. The legislation was enacted and we gave the Minister for Health these powers because we needed to respond to a desperately serious threat to the State.

Nevertheless, let us not underestimate the extent of the powers we gave to the Minister for Health and which this House gave indirectly to the Government. They were extraordinary powers. We told people they could not leave their houses unless they had a reasonable excuse, we told children they could not go to school to get an education because of the threat posed by the virus, and we told businesses they had to close unless they were essential. We told people there could be no travel, not simply out of the jurisdiction but, at some stages, not even beyond 2 km from their houses. That was then extended to 10 km and 20 km, and then to travel only within one's county.

These were extraordinary powers, and aligned with that was the great interference this had in people's social life and social development. People were not allowed to visit other people's houses for social purposes or to have others visit theirs for social purposes either. This was done because it was seen to be necessary, but we should not underestimate the extent of these powers. I very much welcome what I heard the Minister for Health say in the House at the commencement of this debate, namely, that these are draconian powers he does not want to possess, although his responsibility requires him to do so.

When we look back at how the State performed in response to the pandemic, I think it will be seen to have done a good job. Obviously, criticisms can be made. Perhaps we were too slow to respond at the beginning. Looking back now, with the benefit of hindsight, we got bad public health advice when we were told there were no difficulties with Italian rugby fans travelling here in February for the purpose of the Six Nations Championship last year. It was wrong when we said there were no concerns about people travelling to Cheltenham, but this was a developing-----

See this speech in context