Coronavirus law brings curbs on civil liberties and welcome reliefs

Emergency legislation is by its nature rushed and vulnerable to loopholes or unforeseen circumstances. There is no politician who objected to the need for the emergency Covid-19 Bill that came before the Dáil on Thursday.

But it quickly emerged during Thursday afternoon how a democracy such as Ireland’s differs from an autocracy such as China when dealing with such a crisis.

The Government had hoped the legislation would pass through the Dáil in three hours. But it took the guts of six hours for the debate to conclude. Some 83 amendments were tabled for the short Bill. Most of them were ruled out of order because of a cost to the exchequer, or because they were not relevant. But even then there was the prospect of a guillotine. It was a bit messy but that was democracy in action.

It is based on legislation from 1947 that was designed to curb the spread of TB, but the powers this time around are more extreme

The Health (Preservation and Protection and Other Emergency Measures in the Public Interest) Bill 2020 has sweeping and draconian powers.

Coronavirus: Cannes Film Festival postponed due to outbreak

---

Coronavirus: Garda numbers at record level as hundreds of recruits sworn in

---

Cancelled exams: ‘I got so annoyed and frustrated that I started crying’

---

The Irish Times view on Covid-19 crisis in Iran

---

It will give Minister for Health Simon Harris powers to restrict the movement of people; to detain people who have Covid-19 (or are carriers) but are refusing to self-isolate; and essentially quarantine entire areas and put them into lockdown. Those found to have breached certain restrictions will find themselves subject to fines and possible imprisonment, as is happening in Italy and France.

It is based on legislation from 1947 that was designed to curb the spread of other infectious diseases such as tuberculosis, but the powers this time around are more extreme.

Helpful measures

On the upside, hundreds of thousands of people who find themselves out of work or who are on sick leave after contracting Covid-19, will be entitled to jobseeker’s allowance or sick leave.

But the most potent parts are the prohibitions, the limitations on movement and the intrusions on personal liberty. There are sweeping powers to restrict travel to or from the State.

It gives the Minister power to make an “affected area order”. That is defined as an area or region of the State where there may be sustained human transmission of Covid-19, or a risk of it.

A person who contravenes a regulation, gives false or misleading evidence in purported compliance with this regulation shall be guilty of a Class C offence

The Minister can then restrict travel to and from that area. So if there is a cluster of cases in a town or region and the outbreak is believed to be serious, travel bans can be imposed into and out of that region. In essence, the region would be placed in lockdown as we have seen in Italy and France, and Madrid.

Travel restrictions can also be imposed upon people living or working in those areas. They may be required to remain in their homes or accommodation (if visiting) or workplace.

A person who contravenes a regulation, gives false or misleading evidence in purported compliance with this regulation shall be guilty of a Class C offence. That essentially will result in a fine of up to €2,500 or up to three months in prison.

Detention powers

The biggest concerns raised by the Opposition on Thursday related to the detention powers. Essentially, if a person who should be self-isolating because they are a potential source of infection refuses to do so, the Bill gives the Minister power to detain that person involuntarily.

A lot of the debate revolved around who has such powers. Fianna Fáil’s Jim O’Callaghan and Stephen Donnelly said that the Bill’s definition of a “relevant person” was too wide, and would allow too wide a circle of people to make serious decisions that would deprive people of their liberty.

Many TDs made the point that the powers of the Bill were extreme and that an end date should be specified

There was some give to that. There was also some concession by Mr Harris on allowing a sunset clause. In the original draft the legislation would end on May 9th. Crucially the Minister would have the power to extend that date without first seeking the prior approval of the Dáil.

Many TDs made the point that the powers of the Bill were extreme and that an end date should be specified, and that any extension would have to be put to the Dáil for approval prior to it coming into force.