tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35626894944072799622024-03-05T23:42:08.815+00:00COVID-19 Law and Human Rights ObservatoryThe Observatory’s Blog publishes academic commentary on Ireland’s legal response to COVID-19 as it evolves. Over the next few months, the Observatory will also publish a range of public policy reports that address critical aspects of Ireland’s response to COVID-19.COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-10991821576681556432021-06-01T04:31:00.000+01:002021-06-01T06:44:29.634+01:00 Creating an Enforceable Right to Disconnect in Ireland<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><br />Mark Bell, Trinity College Dublin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Alan Eustace, Trinity College Dublin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Marta Lasek-Markey, Trinity College Dublin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Thomas Pahlen, Trinity College Dublin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">The pandemic provoked a sudden increase in the proportion of people <a href="https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/elec19/employmentandlifeeffectsofcovid-19/" style="color: #954f72;">working remotely</a>. While the vaccination programme is creating conditions that should permit a gradual return to workplaces, it seems likely that remote working will remain a prominent feature of the post-pandemic labour market. While remote working offers flexibility in respect of where and when work is performed, it poses challenges for <a href="https://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/report/2020/regulations-to-address-work-life-balance-in-digital-flexible-working-arrangements" style="color: #954f72;">work-life balance</a>. In particular, there is a risk that remote working gives rise to an organisational culture of constant availability. If work can be performed anywhere, and at any time, then workers may find themselves ‘always on’, with damaging consequences for physical and psychosocial well-being. In response, there are growing calls across Europe for the creation of a legally-enforceable ‘right to disconnect’. These are supported by a new <a href="https://www.tcd.ie/law/news-events/remote-working.php" style="color: #954f72;">public policy report</a> published by the Covid-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory, which recommends that Ireland adopt legislation creating a right to disconnect. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">The report explains that there are already enforceable rights to rest found in the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997. Recently, this has been complemented by a Statutory <a href="https://www.workplacerelations.ie/en/what_you_should_know/codes_practice/code-of-practice-for-employers-and-employees-on-the-right-to-disconnect.pdf" style="color: #954f72;">Code of Practice on the Right to Disconnect</a>. This is not legally-binding, but it can be taken into account when the 1997 Act or any other relevant legislation is applied. The government has already committed itself to introducing legislation to provide <a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2020/12/baby-youre-boss-at-home-giving.html" style="color: #954f72;">a right to request remote working</a> and, due to the EU <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019L1158" style="color: #954f72;">Work-Life Balance Directive</a>, it will have to create a right to request flexible working arrangements for parents and carers by August 2022. It seems, however, that the right to disconnect will not be included in such legislation and it will remain dependent upon the non-binding Code of Practice. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">The report examines the situation in EU Law, followed by discussion of the position in France and Germany. At EU level, in 2020, the European Social Partners adopted a <a href="https://www.etuc.org/system/files/document/file2020-06/Final%2022%2006%2020_Agreement%20on%20Digitalisation%202020.pdf" style="color: #954f72;">Framework Agreement on Digitalisation</a>. One of the four themes in this Agreement is ‘modalities of connecting and disconnecting’. This includes a commitment for the social partners in all EU Member States to engage in collective bargaining in order to clarify the ‘legitimate expectations’ of workers when using digital work devices. In January 2021, the <a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0021_EN.html" style="color: #954f72;">European Parliament</a> went a step further, calling for legislation on the right to disconnect. Its resolution included a draft Directive fleshing out what is entailed by such a right. This included an obligation on Member States to take measures such as: ensuring practical arrangements for switching off digital tools; creating systems for measuring accurately working time; providing health and safety assessments related to remote working, including psychosocial risk assessments; and establishing criteria for derogations and any related compensation for work outside normal working hours. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">As described in the report, the European Parliament’s initiative builds on the experience of other Member States that have already introduced legal measures on the right to disconnect. France was the first European jurisdiction to enact a statutory <a href="https://droitaladeconnexion.info/" style="color: #954f72;">right to disconnect</a>. Its experience demonstrates that practical implementation of this right demands the active involvement of employers and trade unions. In contrast, Germany has not yet adopted such legislation. Nevertheless, as in Ireland, there is an active debate on the rights already flowing from the law on working time and <a href="https://www.spiegel.de/karriere/erreichbar-nach-dienstschluss-massnahmen-der-konzerne-a-954029.html" style="color: #954f72;">certain businesses</a> have already taken initiatives designed to facilitate disconnection by workers. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">The report identifies those measures that should be addressed in any future legislation on the right to disconnect in Ireland. Legislation needs to clarify the distinction between ‘working time’ and rest periods; during the latter, the worker should not be expected to be normally available to the employer, albeit that there may be circumstances where flexibility is required. This non-availability is key; rest periods must be protected from the risk or expectation of being contacted for work purposes, whether or not work is actually performed. However, account needs to be taken of the realities of the business – including any business conducted across time zones, and flexible working arrangements. For such laws to function in practice, it is necessary that they are implemented by employers with the participation of trade unions or other workers’ representatives. To be effective in practice, all workers should be included and this should encompass ‘non-standard’ forms of employment, such as those in the ‘gig-economy’. Finally, it is important that the law provides for adequate remedies if it is breached and effective enforcement mechanisms.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Mark Bell is Regius Professor of Laws and Head of School at the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin. He has published widely on Anti-Discrimination Law and Employment Law, particularly in relation to EU law.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Alan Eustace is a Scholar of Trinity and a PhD candidate in the School of Law. The subject of his thesis is The Worker and the Constitution: A Theory of Constitutional Labour Law, and his research is funded by the Irish Research Council.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Marta Lasek-Markey is a PhD candidate in the School of Law. The subject of her thesis is Posted Workers and Precariousness in Practice, and her research is funded by the Irish Research Council.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Thomas Pahlen is a PhD candidate in the School of Law. His research examines the horizontal effect of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in employment law.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Suggested citation: Mark Bell, Alan Eustace, Marta Lasek-Markey and Thomas Pahlen, 'Creating an Enforceable Right to Disconnect in Ireland' COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Blog (1 June 2021) https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/05/creating-enforceable-right-to.html<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-14569510538725127382021-05-25T10:15:00.000+01:002021-05-25T10:15:08.967+01:00Shareholder Meetings in Virtual Formats: From Crisis Response to Covid-19 to Permanent Feature of the Corporate Landscape<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Philip Gavin, Trinity College Dublin</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Introduction<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB">The movement towards a digitalised world has significantly impacted virtually every facet of modern life. It is indeed unsurprising, that the agenda of corporate governance reform has also, in recent years, grappled with the movement towards digitalisation. It is equally a trite point, that digitalisation efforts have been significantly hastened by the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. One area where this digitalisation appears to have had a lasting legislative impact is the ability of companies to hold virtual shareholder meetings. The digitalisation of shareholder meetings became necessary during the pandemic and were permitted through temporary amendments enacted in August 2020. However, while the permitting of virtual shareholder meetings was initially conceived as an interim response to Covid-19, Minister Robert Troy recently </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/cb315-minister-troy-publishes-general-scheme-for-small-and-micro-business-administrative-rescue-process/#:~:text=As%20part%20of%20the%20government's,for%20a%20stand%2Dalone%20rescue">announced</a></span><span lang="EN-GB"> the intention of the Government to draft a framework for permitting virtual meetings on a permanent basis through amendments of the Companies Act 2014. The objective of this post is to identify which aspects of the interim framework are likely to remain on a permanent basis and which will be terminated upon the conclusion of the temporary measures responding to Covid-19. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Pre-Pandemic Status Quo<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">At the outset of Covid-19, the use of technological communication for shareholder meetings received only limited statutory recognition. A company holding a meeting outside of the state is under a duty, under s 176 (3), to provide technological means of participation to participants wishing to engage without leaving the State. Likewise, where a company holds the meeting over multiple venues then the company, under s 176 (4), is to use technology which provides members the opportunity to participate. In either instance, there is still an in-person meeting and physical venue and the aim of the technological access is simply to facilitate distanced engagement with that otherwise physical meeting. Therefore, the statute does not explicitly anticipate a scenario where the meeting is to occur in a wholly virtual setting, something which became an understandable necessity during Covid-19. These provisions are also of limited assistance because they apply to particular scenarios – meetings abroad or in multiple venues – rather than a singular domestic meeting. While there does appear to be a budding intention to digitalise corporate engagement in the Companies Act 2014, there are clearly shortcomings when faced with the challenges of the pandemic and lockdown.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Interim Measures During Covid-19<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB">In response to the outbreak of Covid-19, several temporary amendments to the Companies Act 2014 were introduced in August 2020 through the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Covid-19) Act 2020 (hereafter the 2020 Act). The amendments made by the 2020 Act all sought to address particular concerns raised by the Covid-19 pandemic, either focusing on the impact Covid-19 as a shock to the economy or the particular concerns of Covid-19 as a virus and the need to facilitate corporate activity despite social distancing. Rather obviously, it is the second of these categories which is of relevance for the digitalisation of general meetings of shareholders. The 2020 Act goes beyond the Companies Act 2014 in facilitating virtual meetings in that it does not require a physical venue to anchor and legitimise the shareholder meeting. The 2020 Act instead states that ‘[a] company need not hold a general meeting at a physical venue but may conduct the meeting wholly or partly by the use of electronic communications technology as long as all attendees have a reasonable opportunity to participate.’ This reasonable opportunity of participation requires the technology to effectively facilitate engagement, ensure secure voting and ensure the identification of participants where necessary. The notice of the meeting must also note the platform being used and explain the means of accessing the virtual meeting and any procedures in place during said meeting. Furthermore, the Act states that </span><span lang="EN-GB">temporary disruption will not invalidate the meeting and the company will not be liable provided the disruption is not attributable to a wilful act of the company. This would be of particular comfort to companies given that the adjustment to distanced meetings on virtual fora arose in the tumultuous context of Covid-19 which may have limited the time and resources available to the company to prevent such disruption arising.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB">The focus of the 2020 Act being squarely on Covid-19 is best evidenced by all of its substantive provisions applying solely for the ‘interim period’ included in the Act. This interim period is defined as ‘ending on 31 December 2020’ unless extended by Governmental order. Ultimately, the interim period had in fact been </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/ea7c8-companies-miscellaneous-provisions-covid-19-act-2020-extension-of-the-interim-period/">extended</a></span><span lang="EN-GB"> to June 9<sup>th</sup> 2021 and then </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/82492-government-approves-extension-to-interim-period-of-companies-miscellaneous-provisions-covid-19-act-2020-until-31-december-2021/">again</a></span><span lang="EN-GB"> to December 31<sup>st</sup> 2021, reflecting the continuing threat of Covid-19 and imposition of social restrictions. Limiting the application of legislation to an interim period is of course understandable in the context of a pandemic given that the measures put in place may not be desirable outside of a crisis. Of further interest however is that interim measures can serve as a guinea pig for future legal reform. In the case of virtual shareholder meetings, the Government has indeed indicated its desire to permit such meetings on a permanent basis going forward, transforming an exceptional statutory instrument during Covid-19 into a permanent feature of the corporate landscape. This is perhaps unsurprising given that digitalisation has been an ongoing trend for years. While Covid-19 acted as an accelerant, it would be regressive to remove this option for companies who find the virtual format preferable going forward. The main question however lies in the extent to which the regime enacted by the 2020 Act will be replicated by the permanent framework.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Drafting a Permanent Framework for Virtual Meetings<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB">While the temporary Covid-19 measures have served as an impetus for permanent reform, the future framework cannot be a direct transposition of the existing temporary measures. Most obviously, existing provisions directly addressing Covid-19 would be omitted. For instance, in order to comply with public health advice, directors may cancel the meeting, change the venue or move the meeting to an electronic format with only one day notice – or in exceptional circumstances, no notice at all. Such an inclusion would certainly have been an unusual addition to permanent legislation and as such it is unsurprising to see its removal from the newly proposed framework. Furthermore, given that the power is available to companies notwithstanding any limitation to the contrary in the company’s constitution, this might be seen as too great a power for management with too little accountability outside of the context of a global pandemic. Indeed, prior to the 2020 Act, abrogation from the constitution to facilitate virtual meetings during Covid-19 was something which required judicial approval per </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/93e4b6f5-b12a-4b86-b21a-620bc8eccd7a/2020_IEHC_330.pdf/pdf#view=fitH"><i>Xtrackers (IE) Plc v Companies Act 2014</i></a></span><i><span lang="EN-GB">. </span></i><span lang="EN-GB">It is understandable that directors require the flexibility to cancel, postpone or change the format of meetings during the pandemic and that the courts should avoid a flood of applications, but it would be a significant power were it preserved within the permanent framework, meaning the likely reversion is to judicial approval for such changes contrary to the company’s constitution. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Now that the drafting period has commenced it is likely that the Government will respond to feedback from practitioners who experienced the virtual process under the temporary Covid-19 measures. The notice required to members as well as the obligation to provide technological means to access the meeting as far as practicable will likely remain in place. What will be of importance is whether there is any need to expand further on these obligations. For instance, the permanent regime may want to clarify whether the obligation to ensure that members can, as far as practicable, speak and submit questions should explicitly extend to both written and oral communication over the technological medium. Furthermore, while the protection for companies that temporary disruptions do not invalidate meetings is worthwhile preserving, guidance may be needed on what is meant by a temporary as where a disruption goes beyond that, then the meeting may become invalidated under the existing regime. One can also foresee the permanent regime providing a narrower protection for companies in this context. Given that companies have time to prepare outside of the pandemic and that virtual meetings will not be the only option once lockdown ends and in-person communication resumes, there may be less latitude for companies whose meetings are ultimately disrupted through negligent preparation by the company. Thus, while companies are now only liable for wilful disruption to the meeting, the standard may feasibly be lowered within the permanent framework to cover negligent preparation by the company.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Covid-19 has served as an impetus for the digitalisation of personal and commercial communication. This has clearly been the case also for corporate engage and shareholder meetings. Now that the Government has announced its intention to permanently allow virtual meetings to take place, the framework adopted the pandemic will need to be adjusted so that it is fit for purpose outside of a crisis scenario.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Philip Gavin is a PhD Candidate and Adjunct Assistant Professor in the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Suggested citation: Philip Gavin, ‘Shareholder Meetings in Virtual Formats: From Crisis Response to Covid-19 to Permanent Feature of the Corporate Landscape’ COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory (25 May 2021) <o:p></o:p><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52);">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/05/shareholder-meetings-in-virtual-formats.html</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 32px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-49564454549379324022021-05-13T10:59:00.000+01:002021-05-13T10:59:03.212+01:00Appealing mandatory hotel quarantine: a procedural perspective<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Cian Henry, Honourable Society of King's Inns</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Introduction<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Mandatory hotel quarantine (“MHQ”) has been the source of significant controversy since its introduction in Ireland via the <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2021/act/1/enacted/en/print.html">Health (Amendment) Act 2021</a> in March of this year. Much debate has centred on whether the deprivation of liberty and curtailment of associated rights which is entailed by MHQ can be justified by the public health rationale which underpins it. Approaching this question from a legal perspective, posts on this blog have considered both the <a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/questions-about-quarantine-exemptions.html">constitutional</a> and <a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/is-mandatory-hotel-quarantine.html">EU law</a> dimensions of MHQ generally. The prevailing view emerging from legal commentators, as reflected in a <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/women-who-refused-quarantine-face-very-steep-hill-in-legal-challenge-1.4529574">comment</a> by David Kenny to the Irish Times, is that the substance of the MHQ measures is likely to survive constitutional challenge, but aspects of the procedure underpinning it may be more vulnerable. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">In this post, focus is placed on an important procedural aspect of MHQ, namely the process by which a person can review the imposition of MHQ on them. This review procedure has generated much media attention in recent weeks, in light of a number of notable appeals brought by individuals in MHQ. In many of these cases, these people have failed in multiple attempts to review their obligation to remain in MHQ via the statutory procedure and have initiated Article 40 proceedings to challenge what they maintain is their wrongful detention. In many cases, the State has released persons bringing Article 40 proceedings such that the proceedings have been struck out; however, several of these cases shed light on certain notable features of the review procedure and will be considered later in this piece. This piece will provide a short analysis of these features, but first a summary of the measures governing the MHQ review procedure is provided. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Outline review procedure in Health Act<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB">The review procedure for MHQ is provided for by s. 38B(17) of the <a href="https://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/1947/act/28/revised/en/html">Health Act 1947</a>, as amended. A review is triggered by a request from a quarantined person. Where such a request is made, the Act requires a designated appeals officer (“DAO”) to conduct a review as soon as practicable and in any case within 24 hours of the making of the request. A DAO is described by s. 38B(25) of the Act as “</span><span lang="EN-US">an independent appeals officer designated by the Minister”.</span><span lang="EN-GB"> In answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister for Health has <a href="https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2021-04-22/126/#pq_126">clarified</a> that there are 35 appeals officers, who have been selected from the ranks of barristers who have provided a previous service to the International Protection Appeals Tribunal. The DAO responsible for reviewing a particular request is required to call on and consider “such evidence as he or she requires to make a decision in relation to that request”. Having done so, they must either determine that the person is no longer obliged to remain in quarantine or refuse the request and provide reasons for such refusal. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Section 38B(16) sets out the possible grounds on which a person can rely when making a request for review. It would appear from the language of the Act that the grounds therein listed are intended to be exhaustive. For purposes of illustration, the seven grounds listed can be divided into two categories: one where release is justified on the basis of a reduced risk of COVID transmission, the other where release is justified on non-COVID related grounds. The first category includes instances where a person never met the entry requirements for MHQ (s. 38B(16)(a)), where they now meet the exit requirements ((b) and (c)), and where they have undergone pre-quarantine and certain testing (g). The second category, being less technical and touching more directly on certain kinds of rights deprivations, has generated more controversy. In particular, there is an exemption for medical and other exceptional reasons including the necessity of providing care for a vulnerable person (d), urgent humanitarian grounds (e), and for dependant persons with special needs or other circumstances pertaining to them which make quarantine inappropriate (f). It should be noted that, where the DAO is satisfied that a ground for appeal has been raised, they must determine that the person is no longer obliged to remain in MHQ. In this sense, s. 38B(17) does not appear to vest the DAO with discretion as to the determination of appeals.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Regulations setting out precise procedure <o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Pursuant to s. 38G of the Act, the Minister for Health has made <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2021/si/143/made/en/print">regulations</a> which set out in more granular details the procedure to be applied with respect to these appeals. These regulations clarify a number of significant points. First, the process for making a request for review is that the request is made to a state liaison officer who is a responsible person present at a designated facility. A request may be made any time from 8am – 8pm and is made by way of an application form. A person must be given this application form upon their arrival at the quarantine facility if they have not already been given it at the airport or port into which they arrived. The completed application form should specify which of the grounds set out above are to be relied upon, and should include such information and documents as the applicant wishes to include. Where a translator is required, the regulations require that arrangements are made for this. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Second, regulation 5 provides for the role of chief appeals officer (“CAO”), who is appointed by the Minister for Health. On a day to day level, the CAO receives the review request from the state liaison officer and allocates it to a DAO, who returns the completed decision to the CAO to be passed back to the state liaison officer. At a higher level, the CAO reports to the Minister the number of requests received and the outcome of these requests. In addition, the CAO may issue guidelines to DAOs in relation to the conduct of, or arrangements for, any requests for review. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Third, the regulations give more detail on the form of procedure which is required where a request is under consideration. Notably, regulation 8 states that a decision in relation to a request for review shall be made without an oral hearing, except in exceptional circumstances which are determined at the discretion of the DAO. Any exceptional oral hearing which occurs is to be a remote hearing. A DAO may, for purposes of clarification or verification, seek further information from any person, including the applicant. In making their decision, the DAO is required to have regard to the application form, further information submitted, guidelines set down by the CAO, and any other relevant information. Having done so, the DAO must provide a decision, one way or the other, in writing, including reasons for that decision. Finally, the regulations clarify that second or subsequent requests for review are possible, and that there is no fee payable for the making of a request. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Review procedure in practice <o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">While the procedure for appeals as set out in legislation and regulations has been set out above, the manner in which it is applied in practice is less clear. Although the CAO reports to the Minister on the operation of the review process, these reports are not required to be published, and have not been. However, media reporting and answers to parliamentary questions have provided a snapshot of what is occurring. Notably, the Irish Times recently <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/hotel-quarantine-appeals-unsuccessful-in-90-of-cases-1.4549465">reported</a>that, as of 26 April, there had been 685 reviews initiated against MHQ. Of these, 614 (just under 90%) had been refused, with 71 granted. Unfortunately, this provides little insight into the reasons for decisions and the procedure which is in reality being adopted (for example, how often oral hearings are held). Notwithstanding the relative obscurity of the system, it seems that three issues with the operation of MHQ have been persistently raised by concerned parties, and these are examined below. In some instances, cases which have received media attention, usually through the initiation of Article 40 proceedings, can shed some light on tensions emerging within the review process. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Detention as pre-requisite for challenge <o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">An apparent anomaly in the review procedure is that it can only be initiated after a person is detained. This became apparent in a <a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2021/0501/1213259-courts-mandatory-hotel-quarantine/">recent case</a> involving a man who wished to travel home from the United States to visit his dying father. Prior to travelling, he sought an exemption from MHQ on humanitarian grounds, but was advised that in order to challenge his detention he would need to travel to Ireland and be taken into a designated facility. He did so and was successful in his review, however some have argued that the requirement to be detained in order to claim an exemption is unsatisfactory. Indeed, the unavailability of a pre-detention review has been criticised in the Dáil by two opposition TDs, <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/hotel-quarantine-appeals-unsuccessful-in-90-of-cases-1.4549465">Holly Cairns</a> and <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ministers-defend-mandatory-hotel-quarantine-system-1.4538222">Roisin Shortall</a>, on the basis of the practical and financial difficulties it creates for certain travellers. Such difficulties are well illustrated by a <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/fully-vaccinated-irish-woman-unable-to-fly-home-for-brother-s-funeral-1.4534199">case recently reported in the Irish Times</a>, where a woman in Dubai wished to travel home to Ireland for the funeral of her brother who had died unexpectedly. As observed by the woman in a comment to the media, in order to challenge the imposition of quarantine, she would be required to book not only a flight but also a stay in MHQ (itself costing €1,875), in addition to actually beginning the detention. The uncertainty that this would entail, alongside the financial barrier, deterred her from travelling. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">On one account, this is MHQ working as intended by deterring international travel. On another, the manner in which the procedure is set up creates serious practical and financial barriers for people wishing to exercise their right to seek an exemption from MHQ. Arguably, this state of affairs possesses a discriminatory edge insofar as, in practice, only those with the means to pay the cost of an MHQ stay upfront can avail of their right of appeal. In the case where a person has an exceptional reason to travel to Ireland, giving rise to a good reason for an exemption from MHQ, but cannot in reality benefit from same, their rights are harmed in a manner that on the face of it seems disproportionate. For this reason, the State may at some point be required to justify its omission to allow reviews to be taken prior to travel. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Fair hearing <o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">As alluded to previously, it is difficult to know exactly how often an oral hearing is held in order to determine a request for review. However, the strong presumption within the regulations that an oral hearing is not to be held, coupled with the short 24-hour turnaround time, would suggest that an oral hearing is rarely held. The lack of an oral hearing for reviews has been denounced in a <a href="https://www.iccl.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/ICCL-briefing-on-mandatory-quarantine.pdf">legal briefing</a> written by the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL), which also criticises the absence of legal representation for persons requesting reviews. It is a well-recognised principle of Irish and European law that a heightened obligation to ensure robust procedures exists where a possible consequence of a hearing is the detention of a party. Thus, this criticism clearly raises the issue of whether the requirement to stay in an MHQ facility can be classified as a matter of law as ‘detention’. It appears that it has generally been accepted in Article 40 proceedings taken thus far that being compelled to stay in hotel quarantine is a form of detention. For example, in the <a href="https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/travel-advisory-unit-must-meet-more-often-says-sc-in-detention-case/">case</a> of an Israeli woman who initiated habeas corpus proceedings on the basis of her vaccination status, it was conceded by counsel on behalf of the State that the applicant was being detained. This seems a logical conclusion to reach based on the essential nature of MHQ as a requirement to stay in a particular place, enforceable by Gardaí and by criminal penalty as seen <a href="https://www.thejournal.ie/two-women-arrested-after-refusing-to-go-to-quarantine-hotel-when-returning-from-dubai-5399796-Apr2021/">in the case of two women</a> arrested and charged for refusal to undergo MHQ. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The robustness of procedures required where involuntary detention is concerned was considered by the Supreme Court in <i>Croke v Smith (No. 2)</i> [1998] 1 IR 101, where it was held that there was no general requirement for a review to be made of a patient’s detention under the <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1945/act/19/enacted/en/html">Mental Treatment Act 1945</a>. It is notable, however, that this area of law has since been reformed by the <a href="https://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/2001/act/25/revised/en/html">Mental Health Act 2001</a> and now every involuntary detention requires a tribunal hearing. However, some other factors may militate against a finding that an applicant for review is denied a fair hearing. Most particularly, the maximum period of detention in MHQ being relatively short means that the interference with liberty is significantly smaller than most comparable situations. Further, given the necessarily short turnaround time, it is likely that a paper-based review would be justified from a practical perspective. Additionally, a person in MHQ at all times retains the ultimate right to review the legality of their detention via the Article 40 procedure and this aids in mitigating any infirmity in the statutory procedure. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Failure to account for personal circumstances <o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">As explained above, the possibility of success in reviewing MHQ is entirely tied to the exemptions set out in s. 38B(16) of the Act. It would appear that the said list of exemptions is exhaustive and that appeals officers are not vested with any discretion. Some have questioned whether this method of decision-making is too rigid, and whether it prejudices applicants by restricting appeals officers from considering cases on an individuated basis which takes account of all personal circumstances. This argument was <a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0417/1210451-court-quarantine/">raised</a> in Article 40 proceedings where a South African woman contended that an appeals officer could not consider her personal circumstances and in particular her status as partly vaccinated. However, the High Court judge found that the woman had been detained lawfully. Since that time, the law has been tweaked so as to add vaccinated persons to the category of exempted travellers. To a significant degree, the validity of the concern that appeals officers cannot consider individual circumstances depends on how restrictively exemptions are interpreted in practice. For example, in principle ‘humanitarian grounds’ is capable of encompassing a broad range of circumstances. In one case, a seemingly very restrictive approach was taken to the interpretation of humanitarian grounds, in circumstances where a man was returning from Israel to visit his dying father and was <a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0411/1209125-court-quarantine/">twice rejected release</a> on the basis of humanitarian grounds. However, in a <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/man-who-took-court-action-over-quarantine-released-on-appeal-1.4553482">more recent review</a>, a man returning from the United States in very similar circumstances was succeeded in demonstrating humanitarian grounds. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">It seems that this criticism of the MHQ review procedure tends to collapse into substantive criticism of the narrowness of the exceptions for which the legislation provides. While potentially valid, returning to the beginning of this post, it was suggested that such criticism is unlikely to undermine the legality of the MHQ review procedure. In a similar vein, the European Commission has <a href="https://www.thejournal.ie/european-commission-irish-government-mandatory-hotel-quarantine-5411942-Apr2021/">denounced</a> the Irish MHQ regime on the basis that it fails to set out ‘clear and operational exemptions for essential travel’. This comment can best be understood by reference to the principle of proportionality, which of course occupies a central role in European law. Whether the exemptions set out in Irish law are disproportionate and in breach of European law is a worthy question which has been considered <a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/is-mandatory-hotel-quarantine.html">elsewhere</a>, but does not as such go directly to the question of whether the Irish review process is procedurally defective. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">With a new set of regulations, the Minister for Health has provided a procedure for the review of MHQ by reference to a set of explicit legislative exemptions. This post has summarised the procedure to be applied and suggested that three features of this procedure have in particular generated controversy and, to varying extents, come into tension with the rights of persons detained in MHQ. First, the lack of facility for a pre-detention challenge means that in practice significant practical and financial barriers stand in the way of a person seeking to claim an exemption from MHQ. Second, the rarity of oral hearings and absence of legal representation in circumstances where a person is detained in principle raises fair hearing concerns, although such concerns will be counterbalanced by the relatively short period of detention and the exigencies of public health. Third, there is some concern in relation to the rigidity of the exemptions to be applied and the extent to which appeals officers can consider cases on an individual basis. Given that procedural infirmities are more likely to undermine the legal validity of the review process, these matters will be of concern to detained persons and the State going forward.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>Cian Henry is a graduate of Trinity College Dublin and Harvard University, and a student at the Honourable Society of King’s Inns.</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB">Suggested citation: Cian Henry, 'Appealing mandatory hotel quarantine: a procedural perspective' COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Blog (13 May 2021) </span><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52); text-align: left;">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/05/appealing-mandatory-hotel-quarantine.html</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-33554204212324257892021-05-11T09:26:00.001+01:002021-05-11T09:26:48.243+01:00Broadening access to Covid-19 vaccines: intellectual property dilemmas and the role of the EU<p><span style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Giuseppe Mazziotti, Trinity College Dublin</span></span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 22px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN"><b>Introduction</b></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN">In the past few months, the World Health Organization (WHO) has been claiming that the only effective solution to immunize the<i> </i>world's population from the SARS-CoV-2 virus is a vaccine intended as a common or public good, accessible to everyone without geographical and economic discriminations. However, it has been hard to achieve such an ambitious goal at a time global intellectual property law, as defined under the </span><span lang="EN-GB"><span lang="EN"><a href="https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_01_e.htm">TRIPS</a> </span></span><span lang="EN">(Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) Agreement administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO), conceives drugs mostly as a form of <i>private</i> property subject to patent protection. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN">Unfortunately, none of the limitations of pharmaceutical patent protection embodied in the TRIPS Agreement applies to a health emergency with no geographical boundaries, such as the current pandemic. A specific solution to this problem might derive from the adoption of a </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.who.int/news/item/30-03-2021-global-leaders-unite-in-urgent-call-for-international-pandemic-treaty"><span lang="EN">pandemic treaty</span></a></span><span lang="EN">, an idea that the WHO will start discussing in an assembly in May 2021. Such an unprecedented instrument could pave the way for international obligations enabling free access to life-saving drugs, such as vaccines, and effective standards of supranational sharing of scientific knowledge on a free or at least sustainable basis for all the world’s countries. </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN">At government level, the disruptive effects the Covid-19 pandemic has had even within the most-developed countries have spurred a predominantly nationalist approach to public health protection, to the detriment of an international cooperation and solidarity. This approach has made the wealthiest countries compete in securing the largest supplies from each of the vaccine manufacturers for their own peoples, to reach a long-awaited (although purely territorial) herd immunity. In this scenario, least developed countries and other poor economies have been benefiting from initiatives that public-private institutions and consortia such as </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://medicinespatentpool.org/"><span lang="EN">Medicines Patent Pool</span></a></span><span lang="EN"> (United Nations), the WHO’s </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.who.int/initiatives/covid-19-technology-access-pool"><span lang="EN">Technology Access Pool</span></a></span><span lang="EN"> (TAP) and GAVI’s </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.gavi.org/covax-facility"><span lang="EN">Covax</span></a></span><span lang="EN">initiative are currently putting in place to broaden distribution of available vaccines. </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Compulsory licensing<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN">In this unprecedented situation - at least in the past century – it is hard to understand why the European Union and its member states have not tried to implement powerful legal instruments that are expressly contemplated under the TRIPS Agreement, such as compulsory licences of pharmaceutical patents. The sole fact of openly taking them into consideration or threatening their use within their own borders, while negotiating with pharmaceutical companies, would have allowed EU members to obtain better prices and conditions for their vaccine supplies. </span><span lang="EN"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN">According to the original version of the TRIPS Agreement (1994), each WTO member was entitled to allow uses of a patented drug without the right-holder’s consent in cases contemplating national emergencies or circumstances of extreme urgency, predominantly for the supply of the domestic market. This exception entailed that countries without domestic manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector could never have used this tool to enable access to generics. It was </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/scp/en/meetings/session_27/3rdparty_comments/south_africa.pdf"><span lang="EN">South Africa</span></a></span><span lang="EN"> that, in 1997, amended its patent law to allow its </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="background-color: white;">Minister of Health to provide affordable generic forms of essential drugs, including anti-HIV therapies,</span><span lang="EN-GB"></span><span lang="EN">triggering a harsh reaction from pharmaceutical groups and the US government, which claimed a violation of WTO law. It was in that historical context that the 2001 </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/dohaexplained_e.htm"><span lang="EN">Doha Declaration</span></a></span><span lang="EN"> on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health amended the Agreement to allow WTO members not only to locally manufacture but also to import (and export) generic versions of patented medicines. The EU strongly supported this amendment by passing </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32006R0816"><span lang="EN">Regulation 816/2006</span></a></span><span lang="EN">, which enables EU member states to readily respond to help requests coming from third countries </span><span lang="EN">having no manufacturing capacity and legalize production and export of generics within the limits justified by each health emergency. </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b><span lang="EN">The role of the EU </span></b><b><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">What should the EU have done, and what it could still do, to make access to available Covid-19 vaccines faster, fairer, and wider, even in least developed and developing countries that, for obvious historical reasons, look at Europe in situations of health and humanitarian crises?<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN">Serious delays in the current vaccine rollouts are not entirely a European Union’s fault. The Commission and other EU bodies have found themselves facing the Covid-19 pandemic emergency without controlling two essential areas which are fundamental to the development and distribution of vaccines, namely: <i>(i)</i> health systems, which are strictly state-owned, and <i>(ii) </i>the European patent system, whose organization, the </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.epo.org/"><span lang="EN">European Patent Organisation</span></a></span><span lang="EN"> (which includes the European Patent Office) is not a EU institution and does not pursue full harmonization (or unification) of national patent laws, especially in the domain of patent exceptions and compulsory licences. </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN">The purely contractual path the EU Commission has decided to take, with the support of its complex bureaucracy, by centralizing all acquisitions and supplies of vaccines for the EU population, proved to be much less effective and timely than vaccination campaigns in the United States and the United Kingdom.</span><span lang="EN"> </span><span lang="EN">The ensuing restrictions EU member states took, in an uncoordinated and very often anti-European fashion, established unprecedented exceptions to the principles of free movement of people and unity of the Single Market, which are authentic cornerstones of the European Union. This nationalist approach has resulted in immeasurable damages to European economies and the sacrifice of European citizens’ fundamental rights that national authorities have imposed without adequate justification and a reasonable time limit. The fact that the Commission intends to re-establish free movement of tourists and other travelers through a </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_1181"><span lang="EN">Digital Green Certificate</span></a></span><span lang="EN"> without seeking to ensure a significant acceleration of vaccine rollouts is a further blow to citizens’ fundamental rights and to the Schengen agreement. </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN">If vaccination campaigns are being so heavily delayed and widely unpredictable, causing so much economic harm, why has not the European Union discussed and tabled intergovernmental or legislative initiatives that could have significantly increased production and supplies of Covid-19 vaccines on a EU-wide basis? Why has not it encouraged EU member states to plan a concerted application of Regulation 816/2006, to help third countries produce and import life-saving vaccines? Even more importantly, why has not the EU immediately endorsed the proposal for a </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/IP/C/W669.pdf&Open=True"><span lang="EN">temporary waiver</span></a></span><span lang="EN"> of Covid-related pharmaceutical patents that India, South Africa and dozens of other countries made before the WTO Council, from October 2020 onwards? Having expressly acknowledged the relevance and desirability of a relaxation of patent rights and having advocated, one year ago, the idea of vaccines as public goods through its President Von der Leyen, the EU should have taken the lead in supporting compulsory licences or temporary waivers at international level. A lead that is now being taken by the US trade representative before the WTO following a </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/05/us/politics/biden-covid-vaccine-patents.html"><span lang="EN">statement</span></a></span><span lang="EN"> of President Biden on May 5<sup>th</sup>, 2021. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The position of EU member states <o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN">Given this inaction at the EU level, and lack of uniformity under national patent laws, national governments found themselves in very different situations. Most EU countries (including Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain, Finland, Greece, Croatia, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden) already had provisions in their legislation allowing compulsory licences to enable access to essential drugs on public health grounds or, through a broader definition, in the public interest. Other EU members (such as France, Germany, and Hungary) took a step further by reforming their patent laws to be able to broaden and streamline use of this powerful tool for specific purposes related to the Covid-19 pandemic. Other EU countries, instead, did not take any measures in this field, buying the argument of the pharmaceutical industry that vaccine manufacturers could have coped with the ongoing emergency doing their business as they usually do, i.e., through voluntary licences. The fact that countries like Ireland and Italy are part of the latter group should not come as a surprise if one considers how strong and influential the lobbying of large pharmaceutical companies headquartered in both countries can be on governments, political parties, and the media. </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">A policy agenda under the control of the EU<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Within the policy areas entirely under the control of the European Union, two of them could play a greater role in improving and broadening access to vaccines in the current pandemic. The first is the pharmaceutical law concerning quality and safety controls, as well as market authorizations, based on the federal regulatory power of EMA, whose acts are uniformly valid throughout the EU. The second one is competition (or antitrust) law.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN">As regards pharmaceutical regulations, one can only imagine the administrative and public health chaos the EU would have faced if a pandemic like Covid-19 had broken out before the establishment of a </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LSU/?uri=CELEX:32004R0726"><span lang="EN">centralised procedure</span></a></span><span lang="EN"> for market authorisations in 2004. Twenty-seven national pharmaceutical agencies would have made potentially conflicting decisions, making the actual harm even bigger than it has been. In this context, the authority of EMA ensured not only uniformity but also availability of <i>ad hoc</i> and fast-track procedures, where all the relevant data and clinical trials related to Covid-19 vaccines have been examined as soon as their manufacturers submitted them (<i>rolling review</i>). What could be done at this stage is a reform of the EU regime of market exclusivity, which currently grants pharmaceutical companies a proprietary right to control access to their drugs’ clinical trials and data and to prevent third parties from producing generic versions. In a context such as a pandemic, these exclusive rights should be limited or suspended to make compulsory licences immediately effective.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="background-color: white;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN">As far as antitrust is concerned, the EU Commission has extensive powers of investigation, inspection, and sanction against companies to verify whether serious delays and failures in the supply of Covid 19 vaccines to EU countries are in any way linked to any refusal to grant licences or to agreements (which would clearly be illegal) aimed to slow down the sale on the market of much larger amounts of vaccines. A serious investigation on this front would be much more effective than any lawsuits like those that the EU Commission and some national governments (including Italy) have threatened against manufacturers because of their delays and failures to provide contractually agreed supplies. </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN">Exceptional circumstances such as a pandemic justify limitations of the scope of intellectual property rights, whose strict enforcement has harmful consequences on people’s right to health and other fundamental rights. It is time for EU institutions and national governments to act in a much more coordinated way and to use exceptional powers they have at their disposal or whose availability depends on reforms and policy changes that, especially at international level, would greatly help face global health emergencies in the future. </span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-US" style="border: 1pt none windowtext; padding: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Giuseppe Mazziotti is a Fellow and Assistant Professor at Trinity College Dublin.</span></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Suggested citation: Giuseppe Mazziotti, ‘Broadening access to Covid-19 vaccines: intellectual property dilemmas and the role of the EU’, COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory (11 May 2021) <o:p></o:p><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52); text-align: left;">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/05/broadening-access-to-covid-19-vaccines.html</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-21923469917999683572021-05-06T10:59:00.000+01:002021-05-06T10:59:19.597+01:00Ireland most stringent Covid restrictions in EU since January: Way out of lockdown has to keep on prioritising children’s education<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Stephan Köppe, UCD School of Social Policy, Social Work and Social Justice </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Robert Cazaciuc, UCD College of Social Sciences and Law</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Inrtroduction</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Despite the vaccine rollout, governments across the globe still grapple with containing the Covid infections, keeping hospitalisations down and preventing a surge in fatalities. Since last spring, a group of researchers and volunteers, led by <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/covid-19-government-response-tracker#data"><span lang="EN-GB"><span lang="EN-GB">Oxford Universit<span lang="EN-GB">y</span></span></span></a></span>, have tracked the multiple government restrictions to citizens, businesses and society at large in almost every part of the world. Last week we have launched the UCD Covid Compared dashboard – in short <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://publicpolicy.ie/perspectives/ucd-covid-compared-ucd-coco-displaying-restrictions-across-the-globe/"><span lang="EN-GB">UCD CoCo</span></a></span> – to easily access the underlying data of these Covid policy responses and make the tremendous work of the Oxford team more accessible to everyone through simple colour-coded tables and graphs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Table 1: Ten most stringent countries in Europe since March 2020<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></i></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ9wHG2AC8yQ9cgOldOSlfBBekUj5D-IveEl0JsSgUX4YJbKVOW8RKGLZFS91pazbUVTuG_tOtTdyrUVg786IZZi6fb9ULKUD4RdZfbonqwfsdZHNi5yrvNNiAPbelSGTi7vk-ZCkCxdiP/s512/Koppe+Table+1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: black; font-family: helvetica;"><img border="0" data-original-height="278" data-original-width="512" height="307" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZ9wHG2AC8yQ9cgOldOSlfBBekUj5D-IveEl0JsSgUX4YJbKVOW8RKGLZFS91pazbUVTuG_tOtTdyrUVg786IZZi6fb9ULKUD4RdZfbonqwfsdZHNi5yrvNNiAPbelSGTi7vk-ZCkCxdiP/w567-h307/Koppe+Table+1.png" width="567" /></span></a></div><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Following the third lockdown and opening up of Ireland in April, the obvious question is how strict were Ireland’s rules compared to other EU countries? Out of 42 countries, Ireland had the 3rd most stringent restrictions since the beginning of the pandemic. Only Italy and the UK had enacted tougher rules since March 2020. Broken down by some key indicators, Ireland had closed workplaces and businesses much longer and tougher than any other European country. Similarly, on public transport restrictions Ireland is within the top 5 and for stay-at-home requirements and school closures within the top 10. Most noticeable is that Ireland’s rules on international travel were very lax throughout 2020 and were only tightened after the Christmas travel debacle (Figure 1).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Figure 1: Lax international travel restrictions compared to EU28<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></i></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUafj_SLJ7KtPO-n6yStpBf9dxMSWc0rLtgSuvKyOAV99c2tHcTu-1vXYXVbQj5Vlim9o7lAmuI9bUuHXTWOcQhk4P921cbsyc56D3Mb3cKZLxTHk1ufhU6QPvmgy3UcFYYyoOSp6-Z9Vt/s602/Koppe+Figure+1.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: black; font-family: helvetica;"><img border="0" data-original-height="250" data-original-width="602" height="284" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUafj_SLJ7KtPO-n6yStpBf9dxMSWc0rLtgSuvKyOAV99c2tHcTu-1vXYXVbQj5Vlim9o7lAmuI9bUuHXTWOcQhk4P921cbsyc56D3Mb3cKZLxTHk1ufhU6QPvmgy3UcFYYyoOSp6-Z9Vt/w685-h284/Koppe+Figure+1.png" width="685" /></span></a></div><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Toughest Lockdown in First Quarter of 2021<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Between January and March this year, Ireland had the toughest restrictions in place across Europe. Of course, Ireland also faced the worst incidence rate during that time and the health system was at the brink of collapse. It is still too early to fully assess if these tight rules have contributed to the overall low mortality rate. In the middle of a pandemic it is very hard for social scientists to evaluate which of the policy measures has contributed to keep the infection rate down and how other factors outside of the control of governments have mitigated the mortality rate. It has been argued that the <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/david-mcwilliams-are-ireland-s-relatively-low-covid-deaths-due-to-emigration-1.4527159"><span lang="EN-GB">relative young age profile</span></a></span> of the Irish population might have kept the mortality rate down, despite the virus circulating relatively freely in December. On the other hand the returning Irish diaspora, who was desperate to visit loved ones over Christmas, might have fuelled the surge of the virus back then more than in other countries. Despite the overall tight the restrictions, the <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/03/restrictions-on-international-travel.html"><span lang="EN-GB">lax international travel rules</span></a></span> might have been the weak link in our Covid defences.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">While all restrictions were escalated quickly to their maximum in January, our UCD CoCo Dashboard also reveals how the coalition emphasised to reopen schools quickly this time, compared to relative late reopening of creches and schools in the first wave (Figure 2). While having enacted the maximum restrictions in other areas of society, the educational progress of children – and mental health of working parents – had been rightly prioritised. However, Ireland continued to score very weakly on travel restrictions, testing policies and contract tracing during the third lockdown. These apparent flaws in health service related indicators may contribute to the stubbornly high case rate across the country, despite shutting down the country with relative blunt containment instruments.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Figure 2: Ireland reopens schools late in first wave, but prioritises return to schools in third lockdown compared to EU28<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></i></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5xKfLuMgEPH5VoSy4Z-lCt3JbR4cizKkiguAPVOrE1aBcW4yYyGx7DozVQDq2qyvcKcGLdlkpxwdnxa1sCgt13cimTYd0m_bPKAEEgh0w9FI333hLeywitt8Fn7gJIwPtJ7NxV2Xft4ZS/s602/Koppe+Figure+2.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="color: black; font-family: helvetica;"><img border="0" data-original-height="248" data-original-width="602" height="282" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5xKfLuMgEPH5VoSy4Z-lCt3JbR4cizKkiguAPVOrE1aBcW4yYyGx7DozVQDq2qyvcKcGLdlkpxwdnxa1sCgt13cimTYd0m_bPKAEEgh0w9FI333hLeywitt8Fn7gJIwPtJ7NxV2Xft4ZS/w684-h282/Koppe+Figure+2.png" width="684" /></span></a></div><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">In the Dark about Enforcement <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Although UCD CoCo reveals that Ireland is among the most stringent rule makers, we cannot assess its enforcement. For instance, Ireland had a very poor record in enforcing the anyway permissive quarantine and <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/covid-19-experts-call-for-travel-advice-to-be-made-into-law-1.4350595"><span lang="EN-GB">travel restrictions</span></a></span>. Despite some high-profile media investigations that led to the resignation of the EU Commissioner Phil Hogan, this was the exception rather than the norm. Such public outcries highlighted the lack of enforcement across the country and everyone driving through check points played along the charade associated with tough rules and weak enforcement. We also do not know yet, if the tighter restrictions were more effective in keeping the population safe or the economy rolling.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Encourage Data-driven Public Debate<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">What we do know is that Ireland had – on paper – enacted one of the most stringent Covid policy responses in Europe. Whether it has paid off, we will only know once the majority of the population has been vaccinated and this is all over. Regardless of whether we cheer to the Irish success regarding managing the pandemic or drink down the poor government record with sorrow in a pub, at least we know then that it is over. However, the public debate on which policies were successful will continue for a bit longer. We hope that the <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://publicpolicy.ie/perspectives/ucd-covid-compared-ucd-coco-displaying-restrictions-across-the-globe/"><span lang="EN-GB">UCD CoCo</span></a></span> can contribute to this policy discussion by making the key data and indices more accessible for everyone.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>Dr Stephan Köppe is Assistant Professor of Social Policy and Robert Cazaciuc is </i><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://www.ucd.ie/publicpolicy/"><i><span lang="EN-GB"><span lang="EN-GB">Master of Public Poli<span lang="EN-GB">cy </span></span></span></i></a></span><i>student at UCD.</i><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Suggested citation: Stephan Köppe and Robert Cazaciuc ‘Ireland most stringent Covid restrictions in EU since January: Way out of lockdown has to keep on prioritising children’s education’ COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory (6 May 2021) <o:p></o:p><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52); text-align: left;">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/05/ireland-most-stringent-covid.html</span></span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-28756516374518096532021-05-04T09:18:00.001+01:002021-05-04T09:18:44.582+01:00 The Ghost of Crisis Past - Social Partnership 2.0 (Pandemic patch)<p style="text-align: justify;"><span><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> Jack Larkin, Pembroke College, University of Oxford.</span></span><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-e671a7ae-7fff-0b3e-e172-b0dfc9049c81"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Social Partnership is on the march again, maybe. Oft-blamed as one of the key contributors to the last economic crisis</span><a href="http://www.aidanregan.com/1/146/resources/publication_2941_1.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (unfairly</span></a><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/martin-signals-aim-to-bolster-social-dialogue-arrangements-1.4499514#:~:text=The%20Government%20is%20to%20seek,how%20Government%20does%20its%20business%E2%80%9D." style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">), there is talk in the Pandemic</span></a><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> of reviving the idea in a new, jazzy form: social dialogue.</span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/government-urged-to-establish-new-social-dialogue-structure-1.4412831?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Fgovernment-urged-to-establish-new-social-dialogue-structure-1.4412831" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Everyone seems to have agreed not to use the actual term ‘social partnership’</span></a><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, and also not to confine the model to grubby wage deals; social dialogue will be more into a holistic approach to how society and government can work together for the common good:</span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/coronavirus-time-for-a-new-social-contract-in-ireland-1.4225255" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> a new social contract</span></a><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue", sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></span></p><p><span id="docs-internal-guid-fb99f29b-7fff-5c67-05da-48a7571dc1ab"></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Calibri,sans-serif; font-size: 11pt; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap; white-space: pre;"> </span><a href="https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/coronavirus/regional-country/country-responses/lang--en/index.htm#IE" style="font-family: helvetica; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For some</span></a><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, the green shoots for this new social partnership (for simplicity I’m going to keep using the term) appeared earlier during the pandemic, for example,</span><a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/act/2/section/28/enacted/en/html#sec28" style="font-family: helvetica; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">s. 28</span></a><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> of the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act 2020, which provides for wage subsidies for employees,</span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/women-made-unemployed-after-maternity-leave-due-to-denial-of-wage-subsidy-unions-1.4256355?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Fwomen-made-unemployed-after-maternity-leave-due-to-denial-of-wage-subsidy-unions-1.4256355" style="font-family: helvetica; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">initially excluded women who were returning from maternity leave. The unions rightly sought to have this changed</span></a><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. The Government admitted the oversight and the</span><a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/act/8/section/2/enacted/en/html" style="font-family: helvetica; text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Oireachtas amended the Act.</span></a></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-3cec6fd4-7fff-8d76-d10a-e5517076e43b"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">More substantially, the</span><a href="https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/22829a-return-to-work-safely-protocol/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Labour Employer Economic Forum has been pointed to as another example of the idea’s success</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, as it contributed to the first ‘return-to-work’ policy following Lockdown 1.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For others (read: myself), it’s difficult to see how such examples avoid the elision of ‘social partnership’ with its more anaemic cousins: ‘public pressure’ and the even punier ‘engagement with civil society’. For example, the children’s shoes issue: children’s clothing in general was ‘</span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/clothes-are-not-essential-minister-damien-english-defends-retail-restrictions-1.4395331?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Fclothes-are-not-essential-minister-damien-english-defends-retail-restrictions-1.4395331" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">non-essential’</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> last October; then it simultaneously became</span><a href="https://extra.ie/2021/03/31/news/irish-news/paschal-donohoe-fine-gael-childrens-shoes" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">‘maybe essential but under review’</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and ‘</span><a href="https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/politics/arid-40255400.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">absolutely essential, awaiting urgent reform’</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Would we say these changes were ‘social partnership’ simply because</span><a href="https://www.ibec.ie/connect-and-learn/media/2021/03/31/move-to-include-childrens-shoes-in-essential-retail-welcome-retail-ireland" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">some social partners</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> were involved?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Moreover, it’s difficult to see how social partnership can be seen to be flowering again in Ireland when one considers the following events, all of which occurred during pandemic. First, the collapse of the Low Pay Commission talks</span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/unions-quit-low-pay-commission-over-proposed-minimum-wage-increase-1.4361878?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Funions-quit-low-pay-commission-over-proposed-minimum-wage-increase-1.4361878" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">last September</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, wherein unions were unable to get a mere 20c increase on the minimum age. Second, the looming threats of industrial action</span><a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/education/2021/0407/1208280-teacher-union-conference/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">by teachers</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Third, the State’s demonstrated lack of trust with what</span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/more-than-100-people-travelling-abroad-have-pandemic-payment-stopped-after-airport-checks-1.4314232?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Fmore-than-100-people-travelling-abroad-have-pandemic-payment-stopped-after-airport-checks-1.4314232" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">workers</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> and</span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/revenue-to-check-businesses-are-not-misusing-covid-wage-subsidy-scheme-1.4291904?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Feconomy%2Frevenue-to-check-businesses-are-not-misusing-covid-wage-subsidy-scheme-1.4291904" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">employers</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> are spending their welfare supports on. Fourth, the more general criticism, made prominently on this blog, that the State and society often seem to be out of sync in their understanding of what is and is not restricted.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">So it’s fair to say that the pandemic has not been Ireland’s moment for a</span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Union" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Union Sacrée</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But this piece isn’t about pummelling the concept of social partnership as it’s sometimes (mis)understood. It’s short piece about what a return of the idea could mean for society and law in Ireland.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But first, some history.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Partnering Down</b></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">When the financial music stopped in 2008,</span><a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07907184.2021.1880392" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">the social partners finished dancing too</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">: IBEC was out; ICTU was out; and for the politicians clearing away the broken glass, there was a sense that the model, bargained as it was outside the Oireachtas, was a bit subversive. As Enda Kenny</span><a href="http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2015/Documents/Speech%20by%20the%20Taoiseach.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">said</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> at the time:</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-left: 36pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The social partnership model practised by previous governments had become a closed shop, where decisions with national consequences were made behind closed doors by a chosen few, accountable to nobody.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">He had a point (ironic as it was from the man</span><a href="https://www.thejournal.ie/economic-management-council-1110569-Oct2013/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">who ran the Economic Management Council</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">). For example,</span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/business/benchmarking-body-s-figures-don-t-add-up-1.1087827?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fbenchmarking-body-s-figures-don-t-add-up-1.1087827" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">the decision to exempt the Public Service Benchmarking Body</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (responsible for much of research justifying the wage increases under social partnership) from the Freedom of Information Act led to budgetary expenditure which was difficult to scrutinise without the relevant data.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">We see now that the social partnership initiatives which survived the crash (or have been set up since) have pleasant names which convey a certain openness: they’re forums, commissions, centres</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">: </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">transparent bodies whose minutes and publications can be read on State websites.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The current momentum following the pandemic seems to be all about intensifying these forums: ramp up the Labour Employer Economic Forum –</span><a href="https://www.thejournal.ie/low-pay-commission-living-wage-minimum-wage-5410418-Apr2021/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">get the Low Pay Commission talking about the living wage again</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> – have a</span><a href="https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/6b64a-tanaiste-signs-code-of-practice-on-right-to-disconnect/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">new code that might sometimes</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> be used at the Workplace Relations Commission.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In the meantime, however, the government is dead against giving any actual substantial legal rights to unions and workers vis a vis collective bargaining and minimum wage entitlements, making</span><a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0207/1195632-minimum-wage/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> efforts to stymie the current efforts on the European scene for a directive for such rights</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Another front in that particular struggle has</span><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/20319525211000360" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">also opened up in the courts</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, where an</span><a href="https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-40229255.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">important decision is awaited on collective bargaining rights.</span></a></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But let’s pause for a moment and summarise what the government position actually is. Their thinking can be followed like so:- ‘we can’t return to the Social Partnership of the past because that lacked legitimacy and accountability – we don’t like the present social partnership-lite because it seems too tepid and shuts out too many voices – however we don’t want to give too much power to the unions legally – so let’s just intensify the existing dialogue structures we have’.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">However, intensifying existing social dialogue structures alone would be a mistake. If policy-makers learn from the discoveries of the pandemic, great progress could be made for both workers’ interests and the rule of law.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: 700; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Opportunities</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Irish Small to Medium Enterprise Association (</span><a href="https://www.irishexaminer.com/business/arid-30411863.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">ISME) didn’t like the old social partnership model</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Part of their beef was with the membership – why were they not allowed in? Why did others get the chance to chat to power? Was it a case of elites only talking to other elites?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Tragically for ISME, they continue to mostly huff outside the social partnership cordon of power</span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/proposed-committee-for-childcare-sector-excludes-majority-of-providers-isme-warns-1.4522038" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(Note the latest activities of LEEF in the childcare sphere)</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Some initiatives have been more broad-minded, such as the</span><a href="http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2020/Documents/NED/Attendance%20List.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">National Economic Dialogue</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, but its scope is limited: NED lasts for 2 days a year and exists primarily to discuss what might go into a pre-budget submission, not the actual budget, with the Chair in 2019 noting that the process did ‘</span><a href="http://budget.gov.ie/Budgets/2020/Documents/NED/NED%202019%20Chair's%20and%20Rapporteurs%20Report.pdf" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">not have identified clear priorities for Budget 2020 and could be viewed as having provided too much sectoral pleading and not enough discussion of the “national interest”.</span></a></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">But it’s not just ISME who remain outsiders. The pandemic has shown that there are a large number of un-unionised, unrepresented workers in Ireland who work in difficult conditions with few rights (</span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/nearly-half-of-inspections-of-meat-plants-found-breaches-of-employment-law-1.4505274?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fireland%2Firish-news%2Fnearly-half-of-inspections-of-meat-plants-found-breaches-of-employment-law-1.4505274" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">think of the early outbreaks in meat factories</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">). Who will speak directly on behalf on these people and convey their grievances?</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Moreover, this point cuts both ways: the pandemic has also shown us enormously powerful non-statutory, ad hoc bodies who are deferred to and sometimes treated almost like another constitutional arm (for example,</span><a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0424/1211889-covid-vaccine-ireland/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">the recent deference to NIAC on the Johnson & Johnson vaccine</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">), which has made others (read again: me) slightly queasy about the constitutional order.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Any re-thinking of a social dialogue model should radically consider who is in and who is out and the kinds of structures for dialogue we put in place. This kind of thinking will have to engage seriously with corporatism and how to emphasise its democratic nature. However, such an approach will have its pay-offs, consider the following example:-</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Much has been made of the recent issue regarding religious worship and the movement restrictions, with some arguing that a rule of law violation has been committed by the government in stating that religious restrictions were banned when they weren’t. Indeed</span><a href="https://www.ihrec.ie/documents/irelands-emergency-powers-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">IHREC’s recent report</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> pointed to a number of other similar violations, where the law and the government’s commands to the public were out of step.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Regardless of who is actually in the right about these issues, a social dialogue model which had engaged with those to whom these commands were spoken </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">ahead of time </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">might have saved costly litigation, clarified legislation before its promulgation, given a voice to all those affected, and ultimately achieved better compliance.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Such an approach may lead to some unpalatable dialogue - some might baulk at the idea of a minister and an archbishop pre-emptively discussing whether mass might be banned in another lockdown (as opposed to</span><a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0419/1210858-donnelly-archbishop-meeting/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">afterwards</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">)– but such are the costs of seriously committing to liberal democracy, wherein many groups are to be given a voice. My point in this regard is that it’s easier to adopt an ex-ante approach of a partnership rather than the inefficient post hoc posture of a unilateral command – when everything is broken, people are angry, and court lists begin to fill up.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This is neither quixotic nor foolish: not foolish because pandemic measures rely on everyone’s constant compliance and so it is wise to make the people both the subjects (and not just the objects) of any measure through partnership and dialogue. It is not quixotic because it has been done elsewhere:</span><a href="https://www.socialeurope.eu/austrian-short-time-work-model-a-labour-market-policy-for-the-many-not-the-few" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">social partnership in Austria quickly devised a comprehensive wage subsidy scheme</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, leading to praise for both its generosity and its maintenance of a relatively low unemployment rate (though there are important differences here, not least that corporatism has been alive and well in Austria since the guilds of the Holy Roman Empire, but I do not have the space right now to say why that’s not a huge problem).</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This ghost of a crisis past may flicker away with the news cycle, but if the government is serious about reviving an idea of social partnership, then they first need to be radical about who they are going to talk to.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Jack Larkin is a graduate of Trinity College, Dublin and the London School of Economics. He is currently a Master’s in History candidate at the University of Oxford.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.3800027272727273; margin-bottom: 8pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white; text-align: start;">Suggested citation: Jack Larkin, ‘ The Ghost of Crisis Past - Social Partnership 2.0 (Pandemic patch)’ COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory’ (4 May 2021) </span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-style: italic; text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/05/the-ghost-of-crisis-past-social.html</span></p></span></span>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-58834246542929117142021-04-29T07:43:00.002+01:002021-04-29T07:43:46.327+01:00Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights upholds compulsory vaccination<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt 36pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Mel Cousins, <a name="_Hlk69993485">School of Social Work and Social Policy</a>, Trinity College Dublin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Introduction<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Given the current focus on COVID-19 vaccination both in Ireland and, indeed, across the globe, it is timely that the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR has given a ruling on the status of compulsory vaccination under the ECHR. Of course, this case involves different diseases and it has never been suggested that Ireland would adopt a policy of compulsory vaccination. Nonetheless, the approach of the Court may be instructive in relation to a number of ‘quasi-compulsory’ issues likely to arise such as vaccination passports.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The Facts<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-209039%22]}"><i>Vavřička v. Czech Republic</i></a></span> (8 April 2021) involved challenges to a requirement that all children should be vaccinated against a range of diseases. Preschool facilities may only accept children who had received the required vaccinations, had been certified as having acquired immunity by other means, or as being unable to undergo vaccination on health grounds. Failure to comply with these requirements is a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to c.€400.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The Ruling<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The Grand Chamber considered the case under both Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and Article 9 (<span lang="EN-GB" style="background-color: white;">right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion). The Court readily accepted that compulsory vaccination represented an interference with the right to respect for private life under Article 8. It quickly found that, in the cases before it, this was in accordance with national law and in pursuance of a legitimate aim, i.e. to protect against diseases which may pose a serious risk to health.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The focus of the Court’s assessment was, therefore, on whether this was ‘necessary in a democratic society’. As the Court explained (at para 273).<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="background-color: white;"><o:p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt 36pt;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">An interference will be considered ‘necessary in a democratic society’ … if it answers a ‘pressing social need’ and, in particular, if the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are ‘relevant and sufficient’ and if it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt 36pt;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The Court noted that there is a general European consensus that vaccination is one of the most successful and cost-effective health interventions and that States should aim to achieve the highest possible level of vaccination. At the same time, it noted a lack of consensus about how to achieve vaccination with a spectrum of policies, ranging from persuasion to a legal duty to vaccinate. The Court also emphasised the importance of social solidarity which aimed ‘to protect the health of all members of society, particularly those who are especially vulnerable with respect to certain diseases and on whose behalf the remainder of the population is asked to assume a minimum risk in the form of vaccination’ (at para 279). The Court recalled that healthcare policy matters come within the margin of appreciation of the national authorities and held that, having regard to the issues outlined, this margin should be a wide one.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">As to whether there was a ‘pressing social need’ the Court noted that States are under a positive obligation under the Convention to take appropriate measures to protect the life and health of their people. It was satisfied that the vaccination duty represents the Czech authorities’ response to the pressing social need to protect individual and public health against the diseases involved and to guard against any downward trend in the rate of vaccination. The Court (at para 288) considered that<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt 36pt;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">where the view is taken that a policy of voluntary vaccination is not sufficient to achieve and maintain herd immunity, … , domestic authorities may reasonably introduce a compulsory vaccination policy in order to achieve an appropriate level of protection against serious diseases.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt 36pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Having considered the evidence, the Court accepted that the choice of the Czech legislature to apply a mandatory approach to vaccination was supported by relevant and sufficient reasons.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Turning to proportionality, the Court noted that while vaccination was mandatory in law there were exemptions and that there was no question of forcible vaccination. It further observed that the Czech courts had developed the possibility of a ‘secular objection of conscience’ and that there were procedural safeguards (e.g. administrative appeals and judicial remedies). It considered that the fines imposed were not excessive and noted that compensation was possible for any injuries to health caused by vaccination.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Finally, while the Court accepted that the exclusion of the children from preschool involved the loss of an important opportunity ‘to develop their personalities and to begin to acquire important social and learning skills in a formative pedagogical environment’, it observed the importance of a high level of vaccination amongst preschool children and that admission to national school was not, in contrast, affected by the law.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The Court, more shortly, dismissed the challenge under Article 9. Noting that none of the applicants had claimed religious objections, it concluded that any critical opinion on vaccination was ‘not such as to constitute a conviction or belief of sufficient cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance to attract the guarantees of Article 9’ (Para 335). Accordingly, it did not need to consider whether there was an interference with freedom of conscience or (if so) whether this might be justified. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Discussion<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Thus the Court upheld compulsory vaccination in this context and helpfully set out the issues it will take into account in its assessment. It carried out a detailed assessment of proportionality (on the issues discussed above) although it was arguably inclined to accept a general consensus on the benefits of vaccination without any searching enquiry.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Of course, Ireland is one of the European countries which does not require compulsory vaccination of children and it has never been suggested that it would do so in a COVID-19 context. Nonetheless, issues are likely to arise in the coming months where, it might be argued, vaccination is being made quasi-compulsory. These include, for example, a possible requirement to have a ‘vaccination passport’ in order to travel (or even to attend certain events) or the suggestion that persons in certain employments might be required to be vaccinated. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The first question (assuming that the rules are set out in law) would be whether the measure pursued a legitimate aim. In <i>Vavřička</i>, the issue was not just the policy of compulsory vaccination but also the fact that this led to denial of access to preschool. Arguably the Court, having accepted the general logic of vaccination, did not subject this specific requirement to a very searching assessment (at paras 305-308). A question may, therefore, arise as to whether it is the overall aim of vaccination which is to be assessed or the specific aim of individual measures, such as vaccination passports.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Second, the Court will look at whether there is a <span lang="EN-GB">pressing social need and if the reasons advanced by the national authorities to justify it are relevant and sufficient. Finally, the Court will have regard to proportionality in relation to issue such as exemptions, procedural guarantees and the impact of any sanctions. A loss of employment, for example, might be considered to raise serious issues of proportionality (not to mention possible Constitutional issues). </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>Mel Cousins is a visiting research fellow at the School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin.</i><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 6pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Suggested citation: Mel Cousins, ‘Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights upholds compulsory vaccination’ COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory’ (29 April 2021) <span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52);">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/grand-chamber-of-european-court-of.html</span></span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-8933683699575099312021-04-27T09:09:00.002+01:002021-04-27T09:09:43.528+01:00Covid-19 and Political Economy: A New Economic Ideology for the European Union?<p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Hilary Hogan, European University Institute.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">In the wake of the Second World War, most of Europe embraced the ideas of British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes argued that market forces were not well disposed towards self-regulation, nor were they inherently efficient or capable of preserving employment. These failings warranted ongoing state intervention in the form of taxation, public expenditure and borrowing. His work was revolutionary: governments would no longer be at the mercy of the boom-and-bust cycle of the free market. Instead, states could spend their way out of economic crises, by ramping up public expenditure to stimulate employment, and retreat during booms to cool the economy and allow the state to repay its borrowings.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">But by the 1980s, Keynesianism had fallen out of fashion, overshadowed by the resurgence in support for economic liberalism – dubbed neoliberalism - championed by Thatcher and Reagan. During the negotiations for the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, which largely remains the foundation for the present-day European Union, other Member States recognised that a European monetary union was inconceivable without German support. Keynesianism had never been popular in Germany, where ordoliberalism had emerged as the dominant school of economic thought. Ordoliberalism is its own form of distinct thought within the neoliberal economic family. Ordoliberalism openly envisages a role for the state that involves the creation of competitive market through its institutions, including the legal system. Neoliberals, on the other hand, tend to argue that the market will reach natural competitive equilibrium if the state refrains from regulating – although it is often argued that this is somewhat of a fiction, and the implementation of neoliberalism requires just as much state intervention.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Ordoliberalism envisages a role for the state in the creation of competitive markets through its institutions, including the legal system. Monetary policy prioritises low inflation instead of employment, and an independent central bank ensures that the goal of achieving price stability is immune from political influence. It rejects Keynesian counter-cyclical economic policies, meaning that public deficits should always be kept at a minimum. While the EU is often described as neoliberal, the more accurate description is </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">ordoliberal, </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">as the Maastricht Treaty codified this distinct vision of German political economy. As the Treaties act as the </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">de facto </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">European constitution, the Maastricht Treaty transformed what had previously been political and economic preferences into purportedly neutral, legally binding principles.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Maastricht Treaty</span><a href="https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2020/10/31/what-next-for-the-eus-fiscal-rules" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">sets strict limits for government deficits and debt ratios</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, and largely constrains Member States from responding to economic downturns with Keynesian-style fiscal stimulus (tax cuts or public expenditure). The Maastricht Treaty excluded the EU or other Member States from assuming liability for another’s debt - seemingly ruling out the possibility of an internal European Union bail-out. The new European Central Bank had one sole objective: maintaining low inflation. No matter how high the rate of unemployment, it would be, in theory, entirely irrelevant to the ECB. Nor was the ECB empowered to act as a “lender of last resort” to Member States, a critical role tasked to central banks who can act to liquidise ailing governments when they can no longer borrow on the international markets. The ECB’s narrow mandate meant it had a strikingly myopic view of Europe’s economic problems that was to prove highly damaging in the wake of the 2008 Financial Crisis.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The end result? Europe established a partial monetary union, and defied every leading economists’ recommendation by choosing to leave out a fiscal union. The Member States had ceded control over monetary policy (interest rates) to an unaccountable ECB, which was fixated solely on the rate of inflation. They had established a single currency, meaning that diverse Member States would no longer be able to internally devalue their national currency to make themselves more competitive. Strict fiscal rules on the rate of public deficit meant that Keynesian economic policies were out of the question for ailing Member States: they could no longer spend their way to economic recovery. Nor could they rely on their European neighbours for assistance, as debt mutualisation or a central fund had been ruled out. Due to the ordoliberal ideology of the Maastricht Treaty, the only tool left for Member States who faced financial difficulty was austerity.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></b></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The Euro Crisis and Austerity</span></b></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The combination of the single currency, the Euro, underpinned by a rigid ordoliberal ideology was to prove catastrophic for the European Union. When millions of Americans gradually began to default on their mortgage debt in early 2007, the global financial system began to unravel. It soon transpired that Europe had more banks than it needed, and its banks had taken even greater risks in an effort to stay profitable. The introduction of the single currency had also encouraged the widespread purchase of Eurozone sovereign debt bonds, seemingly under the mistaken belief by investors that all Eurozone government debt was equally risk-free. By contrast with its proactive American cousin, the Federal Reserve, which immediately took steps to boost confidence in the economy, the European Central Bank showed</span><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/12/opinion/an-impeccable-disaster.html" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">little sign of grasping the magnitude of the crisis it faced</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, or even that it had any role in remedying the situation. Its role in consolidating and worsening the crisis through its unyielding commitment to its underpinning economic ideology cannot be overstated.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">While the ECB provided liquidity to European banks, it initially refused to countenance dramatically lowering interest rates in the way that the Federal Reserve had done and continued to be fixated with preserving low inflation by raising interest rates, which benefitted the German economy, but only made matters infinitely worse for the struggling debtor countries. Greece’s debt crisis could perhaps have been remedied early on by the ECB purchasing Greek debt. But instead, multiples bailout were agreed by the IMF and European leaders for Greek’s creditors, along with strict program of austerity: structural reform, tax increases and a dramatic reduction on public spending, amidst mounting protests from the Greek public. When Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy agreed that any new debt assumed by Member States would have conditions for early debt restructuring, requiring private creditors to bear most of the losses rather than the public taxpayer, the then President of the ECB, Jean Claude Trichet, persuaded Merkel to drop the plan.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">When finally forced into action, the EU clung to the traditional right-wing solutions of ‘fiscal consolidation’ demonstrating the depth of its ordo-liberal commitments. Intense programs of austerity were also implemented in Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal. Austerity directly contradicts Keynesian economic response to recessions by radically reducing public expenditure to produce economic growth. Proponents of austerity (such as the IMF) argue that reducing government deficits inspires confidence, prompting greater private investment and resulting in economic recovery. But, as economist Joseph Stiglitz writes: “how this is happens has never been explained. Out in the real world, the confidence theory has been repeatedly tested and failed.”</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The problems with austerity are</span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">well-documented</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">: in order to create economic growth, there must be consumption. Economic uncertainty discourages investment. Wage cuts, redundancies and cutbacks to public services discourage spending; the natural instinct is for individuals to save. This produces a fall in demand for goods and services, and the economy contracts. The ‘structural reforms’ which accompany austerity in the name of ‘labour flexibility’ make it easier for workers to be dismissed, and incentivises the creation of insecure, low-wage employment. Austerity is not even good at doing what it is supposed to do: it is a highly ineffective means of tackling public debt, and it can take decades of redirected public money towards servicing debt repayments when economic growth through public expenditure, targeted tax on capital or a moderate rise in inflation would address the issue far more swiftly.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Austerity disproportionately harms those who rely most on public services: the lower middle classes, the working class, and the impoverished. Philip Boucher Hayes’s excellent documentary has recently brought</span><a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0314/1203708-impact-of-austerity/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">renewed attention</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> to the devastating human cost of austerity in this country. </span><span style="white-space: pre-wrap;">Austerity in many ways is a beguilingly simple idea. These Member States, the narrative went, had run out of money, and borrowing or spending during financial hardship was counter-intuitive. It is easy, when likening governments to households, to characterise spending during a recession as irresponsible. But there is a world of difference between macro-economic policy and personal financial management. Households do not have the internal capacity to lower their own interest rates, to buy their own debt or take any of the significant steps that a central governing body can do in response to recession. The language of ‘balancing books’ belongs to personal accountancy: states can and do run budget deficits, particularly during times of financial hardship.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Yet it was repeatedly stressed by European officials that there was no alternative to austerity</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">and that it was the sole means of tackling the Member State’s national debt.</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="vertical-align: super;"> </span></span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Not only was that not true (as noted above, there are far better and more effective means of tackling public debt) but its premise was false. It created the impression in the minds of the public that the meltdown of the global system had been caused – or certainly contributed to by – excessive public spending by national governments. Generous welfare programs had not caused the global financial meltdown. The reason that countries such as Ireland and Spain had inflated deficits after 2008 was largely because</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">they had shouldered the cost of bailing out the banking system.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The use of the term ‘sovereign debt crisis’ was a misnomer, it was, instead, a banking crisis that had been “generated by the private sector but [was] being paid for by the public sector” (Mark Blyth, </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Austerity: The History of A Dangerous Idea </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(Oxford University Press, 2013) p. 62). Even Eurozone countries which had no need to adopt austerity policies began to do so, and these “cascading effects caused other member state economies to slow down as well [and] pushed the eurozone into a collective economic downturn” (Ashoka Mody, </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Eurotragedy </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">(Oxford University Press, 2018) p.286). All in all, the European Union took nearly six years longer than the United States to recover from the economic downturn.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></b></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Covid-19 and European Union</span></b></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">During the Euro Crisis, resistance to austerity</span><a href="https://www.ft.com/content/ff50e5a9-7b15-3998-a9f1-c11359dc01b8" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">was characterised a denial of reality</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">; a failure to accept what was the only means of tackling the crisis. But it seems as though there has been a remarkable shift in thinking. Traditional advocates for austerity – such as the IMF – are</span><a href="https://www.ft.com/content/2f4ef5ab-e07b-4666-8367-e8750817a97e" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">now recommending government spending</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> as the best means to tackle the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In March 2020, European Union fiscal lending rules were suspended entirely by the European Council, who invoked the general escape clause in the Stability and Growth Pact, noting that </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“flexibility” was needed through</span><a href="https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2020/03/23/statement-of-eu-ministers-of-finance-on-the-stability-and-growth-pact-in-light-of-the-covid-19-crisis/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">“discretionary stimulus</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">” to cope with the economic fallout from the pandemic</span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. The European Commission has recently suggested that this could last</span><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_884" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">into 2022.</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Ordinarily, budgetary deficits cannot be greater than 3% of GDP or public debt larger than 60% of GDP. The 2011 Fiscal Compact Treaty further mandated Member States to avoid budget deficits by running a surplus or keeping their budgets balanced. Those rules have been abandoned, in favour of mass government spending through income supports for individuals and industries, and investment in public services, particularly health.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The transition is remarkable. The European Union is approaching the Covid-19 pandemic in a radically different way, accepting that spending – not austerity – is the best means of salvaging Europe’s economies from the wreckage of Covid-19. This is a welcome approach, not least because it seeks to buffer the European public from the worst of a crisis which was not of their making. According to Keynesian thinking, cutting tax rates or boosting public expenditure creates a ‘multiplier effect’ as individuals have more money to spend or invest, which stimulates economic recovery. </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The</span><a href="https://www.independent.ie/business/finance-minister-donohoe-warns-taxes-will-rise-after-covid-40160291.html" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">threat of raising income tax rates and curbing public spending</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> to ‘pay for’ Covid would be misguided, not least when the government can benefit from</span><a href="https://www.ft.com/content/2f4ef5ab-e07b-4666-8367-e8750817a97e" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">record levels of cheap borrowing</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Now is the time for the State to undertake major investment in areas such as housing, healthcare and education, and to make major inroads in tackling climate change. These investments will be particularly necessary to bridge divisions that the pandemic has sharpened. Many in the professional classes who can work from home have kept their income and have</span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/irish-household-wealth-hits-record-high-of-831bn-despite-pandemic-1.4474059" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">record levels of savings</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. By contrast, many small and medium sized businesses, the self-employed, those working in sectors such as hospitality, tourism, entertainment and retail have been financially devastated. These sectors are also more likely to employ young people, who were already</span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/david-mcwilliams-the-programme-for-government-will-leave-young-people-behind-1.4282584" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">struggling with a housing crisis and own a tiny fraction of this country’s wealth.</span></a></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Even before the pandemic, economist Thomas Piketty was able to demonstrate in meticulous detail that the world was experiencing drastic</span><a href="https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/12/the-laws-of-capitalism/" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">levels of income inequality</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> akin to a new Gilded Age. This has led to mounting awareness that the wealthy have simply not paid their fair share, aided by low corporate taxes and systems of tax havens. A major welcome development is US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen’s</span><a href="https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/04/08/janet-yellen-calls-for-a-global-minimum-tax-on-companies-could-it-happen" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">plan for a global corporation tax</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> - especially as targeted measures aimed at improving the fortunes of the bottom are far more likely to be spent and reinvested in the economy than tax breaks for the wealthy. Ireland will have to rethink its own approach to corporate taxation: Deputy Joe O’Brien’s suggestion for a once-off</span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/covid-19-minister-seeks-solidarity-tax-on-high-earners-and-firms-highly-profitable-in-pandemic-1.4535421" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">solidarity tax</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> is strong start.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Economist David McWilliams wrote recently that there is a</span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/david-mcwilliams-no-one-seems-to-have-noticed-there-s-a-monetary-revolution-under-way-1.4514591" style="text-decoration: none;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">monetary revolution underway</span></a><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, as the Biden administration appears to be embarking on the kind of Keynesian fiscal stimulus not witnessed since Roosevelt’s New Deal. But there is also a European constitutional revolution underway. How do the European Union’s actions square with its founding document, the Maastricht Treaty? The answer is they do not. If its foundational economic principles are perpetually suspended during a crisis, it is a fairly damning acknowledgment that they are not fit for purpose. Europe has implicitly abandoned ordoliberalism and its reliance on austerity and reached for the Keynesian handbook. We are witnessing a form of </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">de facto </span><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">constitutional change, an abandonment of the principles Europe claimed it could not budge from during the Euro Crisis. This suggests that the European Union is beginning to acknowledge what many have argued: its underpinning economic ideology does not work, at least not without inflicting immense human suffering. </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-f69024f8-7fff-0492-97e7-535db467a5c9"></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Hilary Hogan is a Ph.D. candidate at the European University Institute in Florence. Her research examines the link between economic liberalism and the rise of populism in the wake of the 2008 Financial Crisis.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Suggested citation: Hilary Hogan, ‘Covid-19 & New Economic Ideology for the European Union?’ COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Blog (27 April 2021) </span></span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: helvetica; text-align: start;">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/covid-19-new-economic-ideology-for.html</span></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-6913c0b3-7fff-688e-3c0e-ddc85d91fc27"><div><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div></span>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-87892550904396228102021-04-22T08:07:00.000+01:002021-04-22T08:07:04.675+01:00Balancing the Interests of Landlords and Tenants: The Quiet Unravelling of COVID-19 Protections<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="text-indent: 36pt;">Rachael Walsh, Trinity College Dublin</span><span style="text-indent: 36pt;"> </span></span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Introduction<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;">Preventing evictions in the context of the COVID-19 crisis was originally conceived of as a public health measure, which in March 2020 was deemed by the legislature to merit a blunt </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/act/2/enacted/en/print"><span style="line-height: 24px;">prohibition on all evictions</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;">. This was aimed at preventing additional movement in the community caused by the need to find alternative accommodation and a potential increase in the numbers of people living in dangerous congregated settings such as hostels and family hubs. However, in the aftermath of Ireland’s first lockdown, </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2020/06/covid-19s-silver-lining-housing.html"><span style="line-height: 24px;">legal and political concerns</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"> quickly surfaced about the need to finesse such protections to better protect landlords’ constitutionally guaranteed property rights. Since then, there has been a progressive contraction in tenant protections. A complex legislative scheme has emerged in a piece-meal way, involving multiple enactments and amendments in just over 12 months, aimed at balancing the interests of landlords and tenants in the context of the ongoing public health crisis. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b><span style="line-height: 24px;">Current COVID-19 Protections for Tenants</span></b><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;">Two strands of tenant protection currently exist in Irish law in response to the COVID-19 crisis. The first, analysed in a </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/03/legislative-coupling-in-covid-19-crisis.html"><span style="line-height: 24px;">previous post</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;">, is a general moratorium on evictions that automatically comes into effect pursuant to s. 2 of the </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/act/2020/17/eng/enacted/a1720.pdf"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Residential Tenancies Act 2020</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"> whenever the Minister for Health ‘makes relevant regulations which impose restrictions on travel outside a 5 kilometre radius of a person’s place of residence’. That provision does not prevent rent increases during such an ‘emergency period’. The 2020 Act has been amended by the </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/bills/bill/2021/37/"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Residential Tenancies Act 2021</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"> to exclude evictions that are based on the non-payment of rent or other charges due under the terms of a lease by a tenant. This amendment added to the initial exclusions that applied in respect of anti-social behaviour, behaviour that threatens the physical integrity of rented premises or compromises insurance, and behaviour that involves the use of rented premises for purposes other than those provided for under the terms of the lease without the landlord’s permission. The Residential Tenancies Act 2021 was explained in its </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2021/37/eng/memo/b3721d-memo.pdf"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Explanatory Memorandum</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"> as aiming to further protections for tenants in the context of COVID-19 while also recognising and balancing the constitutional property rights of landlords. The </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2021-03-24a.301"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Minister for Housing</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"> made repeated references to the need to protect property rights in explaining and defending the Bill in the Dáil. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;">Travel within one’s county is permitted as of 12<sup>th</sup> April 2021, which marks the end of the general moratorium on evictions that was in place pursuant to the Residential Tenancies Act 2020. A ten-day grace period will run out on 22nd April 2021, allowing notices of termination to take effect from 23<sup>rd</sup> April onwards in accordance with the terms of the Act. Thereafter, to be protected against eviction on grounds of non-payment of rent, a tenant must avail of the protections under the </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/act/27/enacted/en/html"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Planning and Development, and Residential Tenancies Act 2020</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;">(the PDRTA), which was enacted on 19th December 2020. The core tenant protections that it created were due to expire on 12th April 2021 but were extended by the Residential Tenancies Act 2021 until 12th July 2021. Part 3 of the PDTRA developed the ‘hardship’ protections for tenants that had initially been enacted in August 2020 through the </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/act/7/enacted/en/html"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Residential Tenancies and Valuation Act</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"> (at that stage as a replacement for the general moratorium on evictions that had been in place during the first wave of COVID-19 in Ireland). <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Under Part 3 of the PDTRA, a tenant can self-declare to the Residential Tenancies Board (RTB) that he/she is or was in receipt of the temporary wage subsidy or other COVID-19 related payment and is at risk of having their tenancy terminated due to non-payment of rent. The tenant must then formally seek the assistance of the RTB in obtaining advice in respect of managing their arrears, and must also seek engagement from their landlord to negotiate a payment plan. Where a tenant satisfies the relevant criteria and follows the detailed procedural steps set out in the PDRTA, the earliest date that a notice of termination could take effect is 12th July 2021 and no rent increases could be imposed during that period. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">However, there are significant exclusions under the PDTRA in addition to the active steps required to be taken by tenants to avail of protection. If on 10<sup>th</sup> January 2021, a tenant was in arrears for 5 months or more, or an aggregate of 5 months, the tenant is excluded from protection. Equally if the tenant fails to provide necessary information to the RTB to enable it to provide advice to the tenant, PDTRA protections are disapplied. Furthermore, the protections cease to apply to a tenant where a landlord declares to the RTB that the 5-month limit has been reached in respect of arrears, or there has been a failure to comply with a revised payment plan, or that the landlord would suffer ‘undue hardship’ if the rent was not paid during the relevant emergency period. In this respect, a landlord can self-declare to the RTB if in receipt of COVID-19 related welfare support from the State, or where the rent in question is the sole or main income received by the landlord, or where the property in question is mortgaged and repayments will not be possible if rent is not paid during the emergency period. Presumably when faced with declarations of hardship from <i>both </i>a landlord and a tenant in respect of a given rented property, the RTB has the difficult task of determining whose risk of hardship is greater. The issue of conflicting claims of hardship is not expressly addressed in the PDTRA, but it appears that if the landlord’s hardship claim is accepted by the RTB, that will exclude a tenant from protection under the Act. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Conclusions<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;">The effect of the Residential Tenancies Act 2021 is that most tenants in the private rental sector will soon be unprotected against eviction, since the general moratorium on evictions will no longer apply as of 23<sup>rd</sup> April 2021. Furthermore, even if that general moratorium is restored in the event of a <i>future</i> 5km travel restriction, it will no longer capture tenants who are at risk of eviction due to non-payment of rent. In this context, it is worth noting that </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.rtb.ie/images/uploads/Comms%20and%20Research/RTB_Disputes_Summary_2020_Q3_Quarterly.pdf"><span style="line-height: 24px;">33% of the disputes</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"> that the Residential Tenancies Board dealt with in Q3 of 2020 concerned rent arrears. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;">Tenants who cannot, or may not, be able to pay their rent due to COVID-19 are now required to avail of the protections under the PDRTA. The tenant protection scheme established under the PDRTA is complex and imposes onerous requirements on tenants: first, working out that they satisfy the complex criteria for protection under the Act; second, issuing the appropriate declaration and supporting information to the RTB; third, issuing a formal notice to their landlord and engaging with the landlord; fourth, engaging with arrears support services as directed by the RTB. It is perhaps unsurprising, therefore, that take-up of that protection has been extremely limited, with only </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.kildarestreet.com/debates/?id=2021-03-24a.301"><span style="line-height: 24px;">407 tenants</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"> protected since the initial hardship scheme came into force in August 2020.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;">The aim of avoiding overlap between the general moratorium on evictions and the scheme for protecting tenants in arrears – or, as the </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2021/37/eng/memo/b3721d-memo.pdf"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Explanatory Memorandum</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"> puts it more obliquely, enhancing the ‘interoperability’ of those tenant protection schemes – is not <i>per se </i>objectionable. However, given the complexity of the PDRTA scheme and the time involved for a tenant in meeting the various requirements that it imposes, many vulnerable tenants may find themselves suddenly without protection against eviction due to the recent legislative changes. This raises the prospect of a significant increase in evictions occurring at a time when the public health situation remains precarious and the vaccine rollout has not reached large swathes of the population, in particular younger people who are more likely to be renting. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">That state of affairs, if achieved as suggested by the Minister for Housing to protect the constitutional property rights of landlords, pays insufficient attention to Article 43.2 of the Constitution’s injunction that the State delimit the exercise of property rights to secure ‘the principles of social justice’ and to reconcile property rights with ‘the exigencies of the common good’. In the context of an ongoing global pandemic, the quiet unravelling of tenant protections could have been postponed until the public health situation improved without entrenching disproportionately on the constitutionally protected property rights of landlords. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;">Rachael Walsh is an assistant professor of law at Trinity College Dublin</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;">.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="p1" style="line-height: 17px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;">Suggested citation: Rachael Walsh, ‘Balancing the Interests of Landlords and Tenants: The Quiet Unravelling COVID-19 Protections’ COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Blog (22 April 2021) </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="line-height: 24px;"><o:p></o:p></span><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52); text-align: left;">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/balancing-interests-of-landlords-and.html</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-10786691331450137422021-04-21T08:39:00.000+01:002021-04-21T08:39:31.242+01:00 The evolution of legal prohibitions on religious services<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">Oran Doyle, Trinity College Dublin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">Introduction<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Legal prohibitions on religious services have been much in the news lately. In this unavoidably lengthy post, I will show how these prohibitions have evolved over time in order to identify precisely what changes have been recently introduced. I break the past year down into four broad time periods. </span><span style="font-family: helvetica;">I then explore some public commentary and the legal prohibitions on other types of event, in order to make more sense of rationale for the recent changes and the manner in which they were introduced. This analysis will illustrate broader concerns about the Government’s response to the pandemic.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"><b>The Spring 2020 lockdown</b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">The original regulations (<a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/121/made/en/print">SI 121/2020</a>) applied from 8 April 2020 to 8 June 2020, being amended on several occasions during that period. Regulation 4(1) provided that it was a criminal offence to leave one’s home without a reasonable excuse. Regulation 4(2) provided a list of reasonable excuses that was without prejudice to the generality of ‘reasonable excuse’ in regulation 4(1). Among the listed reasonable excuses in regulation 4(2) were the following:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(o) in the case of a minister of religion or priest (or any equivalent thereof in any religion) -<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(i) lead worship or services remotely through the use of information and communications technology,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(ii) minister to the sick, or<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(iii) conduct funeral services,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">Regulation 5(1) made it a criminal offence for anyone to attend an event unless it was a ‘relevant event’. Relevant event was defined as ‘an event held for the purposes of any matter which falls within any subparagraph of Regulation 4(2)’. In other words, the listed reasonable excuses in regulation 4(2) exhaustively determined the events which it was permissible to attend. Therefore, the only permissible religious events were leading services remotely, ministering to the sick, and conducting funeral services.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">Summer 2020 easing<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">On 8 June 2020, major changes were <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/206/made/en/print">made</a> to the scheme of restrictions, previously analysed <a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2020/06/phase-2-easing-of-irelands-lockdown.html">here</a>. Rather than a general prohibition on leaving your home that also determined what events could be lawfully attended, the new approach prohibited (a) certain types of movement, (b) the holding of certain types of event, and (c) public access into certain types of premises where businesses were conducted or services provided. There were no restrictions on moving for religious purposes.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">Regulation 6(1) prohibited the organisation of events for cultural, entertainment, recreational, sporting, social, community or educational reasons, unless the maximum numbers of people did not exceed 15. Events of other types were not prohibited. <a href="https://revisedacts.lawreform.ie/eli/1947/act/28/section/31A/revised/en/html">Section 31A(16)</a> of the Health Act 1947 defines event as ‘a gathering of persons, whether the gathering is for cultural, entertainment, recreational, sporting, commercial, work, social, community, educational, religious or other reasons…’ It followed, given <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2005/act/23/section/19/enacted/en/html#sec19">section 19</a> of the Interpretation Act 2005, that events for religious reasons were not prohibited by the regulations and could lawfully be held indoors without any restriction on numbers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">A third set of <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/234/made/en/print">regulations</a> was introduced on 30 June, which applied in most counties until September. These regulations removed all movement restrictions but continued the same approach in relation to events. Regulation 5 provided that a person could not organise, or cause to be organised, an event for cultural, entertainment, recreational, sporting, social, community or educational reasons. Again, it was clear that there was no prohibition or numbers-restrictions on religious events.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">During this period, stricter <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/297/made/en/print">regulations</a> applied for a time to Laois, Offaly and Kildare. This involved prohibitions on leaving one’s county without a reasonable excuse. Again listed among the specified reasonable excuses was:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(k) in the case of a minister of religion or priest (or any equivalent thereof in any religion) - <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 72pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(i) lead worship or services remotely through the use of information and communications technology, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 72pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(ii) minister to the sick, or <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 72pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(iii) conduct funeral services,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">But importantly this could not have implied any limitation on the holding of religious events as there was no general prohibition on leaving one’s home, only leaving one’s county.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">As with the countrywide regulations, the regulations for Laois, Kildare and Offaly prohibited the organisation of events for cultural, entertainment, sporting or community reasons, while allowing indoor and outdoor versions of these events subject to much stricter criteria. Again, there was no prohibition on religious events.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"><b>Autumn 2020 tightening</b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">From September to October, restrictions were gradually tightened across the whole country, with more restrictive regimes at times for Dublin and Donegal. These <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/326/made/en/print">regulations</a> again prohibited the holding of ‘relevant events’, unless certain number limits were observed—with lower number limits for certain specified counties. A ‘relevant event’ was defined as ‘an event held … for social, recreational, exercise, cultural, entertainment or community reasons.’ Again, events for religious reasons were clearly not included within the definition of relevant events and therefore not prohibited. Stricter restrictions were applied to particular counties, including at <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/352/made/en/print">some points</a> again a prohibition on leaving one’s county without reasonable excuse, with the same listed excuses for ministers of religion or priests. In mid-October, this ban on movement was <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/442/made/en/print">applied</a> to all counties. But for the same reasons as above, this could not have implied any prohibition on religious events as there was no prohibition on leaving one’s home provided one remained within one’s county.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"><b>Winter 2020-2021 lockdown</b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">On 22 October 2020, the state went into a <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/448/made/en/print">renewed lockdown</a>. This was <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/560/made/en/print">eased</a> during December, with disastrous consequences, and <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/701/made/en/print">returned</a> at the end of December lasting until mid-April 2021, when there was a very slight easing. Apart from the December period, the same prohibition on ‘relevant events’ applied, which did not include events for religious reasons. And there was again a criminal prohibition on leaving one’s home without reasonable excuse. One of the listed reasonable excuses for leaving one’s home was as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">in the case of a minister of religion or priest (or any equivalent thereof in any religion) - <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(i) lead worship or services remotely through the use of information and communications technology, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(ii) minister to the sick, or <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(iii) conduct funeral or wedding services,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">Between mid-October 2020 and mid-April 2021, with the exception of the December period, there were two possible grounds on which it could be argued that religious services were prohibited: first, as a relevant event; second, as an aspect of the ban on leaving one’s home without a reasonable excuse. I have already explained in detail in an earlier <a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/03/religious-services-and-rule-of-law.html">post</a> why the first is untenable and the second unconvincing, particularly in light of the interpretative principle that criminal liability must be clearly imposed. Given the Minister’s very clear decision to permit events for religious purposes, it is difficult to argue that it cannot be a reasonable excuse to leave one’s home to attend such an event. This is reinforced by a comparison between the Spring 2020 lockdown and the Winter 2020-21 lockdown. In the former, the class of prohibited events was directly linked to the specified reasonable excuses for leaving one’s home. In the latter, the decision was taken to break the link between prescribed reasonable excuses and permitted events, undermining any interpretation that you cannot leave your home to attend an event that is otherwise permitted, unless it is listed as a prescribed ‘reasonable excuse’.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">During the December period, matters were more relaxed. The ban on relevant events continued but with some exceptions. The restriction on leaving one’s home without a reasonable excuse was replaced with a restriction on leaving one’s county without a reasonable excuse, which was itself suspended for a period. It was a reasonable excuse for priests and ministers to leave their home to lead worship or services, without the qualification of ‘remotely through the use of information and communications technology’, although this was tightened again as of 25 December 2020. These changes in wording were not made in the context of a prohibition on people leaving their homes but rather in the context of a prohibition on people leaving their counties. They therefore do not shed much light on what should count as reasonable excuses for leaving one’s home.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"><b>Public perceptions</b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">On 9 June 2020, the Observatory published a <a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2020/06/phase-2-easing-of-irelands-lockdown.html">blogpost</a> pointing out that religious services were no longer prohibited. Nevertheless, public debate seemed to <a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/player/2020/0620/21791737-archbishop-describes-limit-of-people-attending-religious-services-as-strange/">proceed</a> on the basis that they were <a href="https://www.thejournal.ie/covid19-mass-5129940-Jun2020/">prohibited</a>. Personally, I found it quite difficult to disentangle whether the people involved (primarily government and NPHET officials, religious representatives and media commentators) either (a) realised that there was no legal prohibition and were involved in a discussion about what the public health advice should be or (b) were operating under a misapprehension about the legal position. Of course, it is possible that some participants realised there was no legal prohibition while others thought there was a legal prohibition. The Observatory raised this issue in its<a href="https://www.tcd.ie/law/2020.21/Observatory%20submission%20to%20Oireachtas%20COVID-19%20Response%20Committee.pdf">submission</a> to the Special Oireachtas Committee on COVID-19 Response, our interpretation at that point being that the removal of legal prohibitions on religious services appeared to be accidental and that NPHET and others had not realised that religious services were no longer legally prohibited.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">As we moved into the Winter 2020-21 lockdown, there were two important Government statements about the position on religious services, both of which I analysed in my earlier post: the Minister’s <a href="https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2020-10-22/25/">statement</a> to the Dáil that there was no penal prohibition on attending religious services and the Department of Health’s <a href="https://www.thejournal.ie/priests-cant-be-arrested-mass-ireland-coronavirus-5254820-Nov2020/">statement</a> to thejournal.ie that there was no penalty attached to religious events because they were not included in the definition of ‘relevant event’.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"><b>Other classes of prohibited events</b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">To complete the picture, it is important to note that the regulations have prohibited or restricted other types of events: household events, sporting events, training events, weddings / wedding receptions, funerals.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">The Regulations have been quite confused in their terminology around ‘weddings’ and ‘wedding receptions’, making it unclear whether they are to be viewed as a composite category, or whether different restrictions apply to weddings as distinct from wedding receptions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">Funerals have been restricted to limited numbers. It might be thought that this explicit allowance of funerals with limited numbers implies that other religious services are prohibited entirely. But an equally plausible interpretation is that, given cultural norms around funerals, a criminally enforceable restriction was thought necessary whereas no criminal measure was thought necessary for religious services.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"><b>The most recent changes</b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">On Saturday 10 April, the Minister for Health made <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2021/si/168/made/en/print">SI 168/2021</a>, which came into force on Monday 12 April. This removed the prohibition on leaving one’s home without a reasonable excuse, replacing it with a prohibition on leaving one’s county or a 20km radius from one’s home without a reasonable excuse. This deleted the only arguable—although far from convincing—basis on which it could be contended that religious services were prohibited. The prohibition on relevant events continued, although now with an exception for members of two households meeting outdoors. Without doubt, this did not cover religious events.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">On Monday 12 April, the Minister made <a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2021/si/171/made/en/print">SI 171/2021</a> which inserted Regulation 10A. This needs to be set out in full: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">10A. (1) A person shall not attend a specified event in a relevant geographical location (regardless of whether or not, in the case of an applicable person, the event is held or to be held in his or her relevant travel area) other than in accordance with paragraph (2). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(2) A person may attend a specified event in a relevant geographical location where the person attends the event in order to – <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(a) work, comply with a contract of employment or contract for services, or otherwise engage in work or employment, including work related to – <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(i) the provision of services to, or the performance of the functions of, an office holder appointed under any enactment or under the Constitution, or a member of either House of the Oireachtas, the European Parliament or a local authority, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(ii) the provision of services essential to the functioning of diplomatic missions and consular posts in the State, and <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(iii) farming or agricultural activities, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(b) participate in education, including education at a primary school, a secondary school, a university, a higher education institution or other education and training facility, crèche or other childcare facilities, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(c) go to an essential retail outlet for the purpose of obtaining items (including food, beverages, fuel, medicinal products, medical devices or appliances, other medical or health supplies or products, essential items for the health and welfare of animals, or supplies for the essential upkeep and functioning of the person’s place of residence), or accessing services provided in the outlet, for the applicable person or any other person residing in the person’s place of residence, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(d) access an essential service, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(e) fulfil a legal obligation (including attending court, satisfying bail conditions, or participating in ongoing legal proceedings), attend a court office where required, initiate emergency legal proceedings or execute essential legal documents, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(f) in the case of a minister of religion or priest (or any equivalent thereof in any religion) – <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(i) lead worship or services remotely through the use of information and communications technology, or <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(ii) minister to the sick, or <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(g) attend to vital family matters (including providing care to vulnerable persons). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(3) This Regulation shall not apply to an event that is organised in accordance with Regulation 6(2), 6(3) or 10(1). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(4) In this Regulation, “specified event” means an event other than - <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(a) a wedding reception, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(b) a sporting event, <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(c) a training event, or <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(d) a funeral. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">(5) Paragraph (1) is a penal provision for the purposes of section 31A of the Act of 1947.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">Disentangling what events this provision applies to is far from straightforward. We must first go back to the definition of ‘event’ in the primary statute:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin-left: 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">a gathering of persons, whether the gathering is for cultural, entertainment, recreational, sporting, commercial, work, social, community, educational, religious or other reasons…<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">From this, we must subtract dwelling events (covered by regulations 6(1) and 6(2)), events for <span lang="EN-US">social, recreational, exercise, cultural, entertainment or community reasons (the ‘relevant events’ covered by regulation 10(1)), and wedding receptions, sporting events, training events and funerals).<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">What is left is commercial, work, educational, religious and other events. However, Regulation 10A(2) allows one to attend a specified event in one’s county or 20km limit in order to work or participate in education. So this leaves commercial, religious and other events. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">But there are already significant restrictions on commercial activities, in that the owners, occupiers and managers of premises are prohibited, subject to criminal sanction, from permitting members of the public to access those premises unless they are an essential retail outlet or provide an essential service, defined in the Schedule to the Regulations. The only thing left is religious and other events, but it is entirely clear what ‘other events’ might be. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">In short, it is difficult to see that Regulation 10A accomplishes anything other than impose a criminal prohibition on religious services. Almost the same end could have been achieved by amending the definition of ‘relevant event’ to include ‘religious reasons’ and deal with them through Regulation 10, but this would have made the change clear in two words, compared to the 200 words it has taken me here.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">I say ‘almost the same end’, because prohibiting religious events through regulation 10A rather than regulation 10 has resulted in the important difference that religious events are prohibited outdoors, while relevant events are now permitted outdoors so long as they only involve people from no more than two different households. This has the result that if a priest were to meet a parishioner for outdoor confession, they would both be committing a criminal offence; whereas, if two people were to meet for a chat or to exercise, they would not be committing a criminal offence. The differential criminalization of facially similar religious and non-religious activities probably <a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/03/religious-freedom-and-pandemic.html">makes</a> regulation 10A more vulnerable to legal challenge. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">Regulation 10A appears designed with the sole purpose of criminalizing religious services, while concealing that sole purpose through a bizarrely and unnecessarily convoluted scheme of legislative cross-references.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"><b><span lang="EN-US">Why the new law now?</span></b><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">It seems to me that there are two possible explanations for the introduction of Regulation 10A. The first is that the Government believed (mistakenly, in my view) that the prohibition on leaving one’s home without reasonable excuse implied a prohibition on attending in-person religious services. The Government was sufficiently confident in this position to communicate it in a <a href="https://www.irishcatholic.com/government-now-says-public-mass-is-an-offence-despite-earlier-denials/">letter</a> to Mr Declan Ganley at the end of March and yet accidentally removed the criminal prohibition a few days before the position articulated in that letter would be presented to the High Court. Realising its mistake, the Government then hurriedly introduced Regulation 10A to re-impose a criminal prohibition on religious services. This is implausible. It is also difficult to square with the Government’s earlier statements that no penalty attached to religious events.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"><span lang="EN-US">While we must be cautious about attributing motivations, the more likely explanation is that the Government has known all along that religious services are not criminally prohibited. The Ganley litigation caused an accountability moment where the Government either had to create a legal basis for maintaining in court that religious services were criminally prohibited, or accept that religious services had not been criminally prohibited. The Government chose the former option. The new-found clarity is welcome from a rule of law perspective and allows an informed debate on whether the law is a proportionate and coherent response to the pandemic. But the obfuscation up to this point and the continued obfuscation about the reason for introducing the new restrictions is a damning indictment of the Government’s willingness to lead citizens through the pandemic in a way that respects citizens’ autonomy and capacity for reasoned choice. It suggests instead a preference for vaguely articulating a desired standard of behaviour and then tricking citizens into compliance through calculated ambiguity about the dividing line between legal obligations and public health advice.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">Oran Doyle is a professor in law at Trinity College Dublin and director of the COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;">Suggested citation: Oran Doyle, ‘The evolution of legal prohibitions on religious services’ COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory (21 April 2021) <o:p></o:p><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52);">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-evolution-of-legal-prohibitions-on.html</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; font-size: small;"> </span></p><style class="WebKit-mso-list-quirks-style">
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
mso-themecolor:hyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
p.MsoListParagraph, li.MsoListParagraph, div.MsoListParagraph
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, li.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast, div.MsoListParagraphCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:34;
mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:36.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1141656024;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:1672923954 403243013 134807555 134807557 134807553 134807555 134807557 134807553 134807555 134807557;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:2036998762;
mso-list-type:hybrid;
mso-list-template-ids:-820712260 403243013 134807555 134807557 134807553 134807555 134807557 134807553 134807555 134807557;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:none;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
-->
</style>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-51391968350006425252021-04-20T09:02:00.000+01:002021-04-20T09:02:51.609+01:00Clear in Principle, Opaque in Practice: Data sharing between public bodies during COVID-19<p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> <span style="font-size: 12pt; text-align: justify; white-space: pre-wrap;">Róisín Costello, Dublin City University</span></span></p><span id="docs-internal-guid-88f3042f-7fff-a37a-5542-06d8ca7775b4"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The ongoing public health crisis generated by COVID-19 has drawn particular attention to the issue of data sharing between public bodies, as both Government departments as well as public bodies like the HSE seek to co-ordinate data collection and to map vectors for disease transmission and service need. The Data Protection Commissioner’s request to the Department of Social Protection concerning its access to travel information of</span><a href="https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40023047.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">individuals in receipt of social welfare</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, as well as the</span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/state-s-right-to-collect-data-on-children-with-autism-far-from-clear-1.4522324" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">creation of dossiers</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> on autistic children have raised concerns over just how data is shared between public bodies - and (as in the case of the daa) between public and non-State bodies.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Data Protection Commission (DPC) has previously emphasised the need for transparency in public sector use of data and the need to ensure individuals are informed about how their personal information is used and for what purpose, who can access the information, and how the sharing of their data will impact them. These points of emphasis echo the decision of the CJEU in</span><a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-201/14" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Bara</span></a><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> to the effect that public sector use of personal data should be undertaken in a manner that reinforces the data protection rights of individuals. Yet the operation of data sharing between public bodies in Ireland is often only superficially clear and practically opaque.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The existence of a public health emergency has broadened the legal basis for the collection and processing of personal data under the GDPR, in particular in respect of health related data under Article 9. In the current context, Articles 9(2)(h) and (i) permit ‘special category data’ as defined under Article 9 to be processed in order to provide occupational or preventative medical services (h) or in order to serve the public interest in the area of public health in particular in the protection against serious cross-border threats to health.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">There would seem, therefore, to be a range of variously specific legal basis on which public bodies can rely in the collection and processing of personal data during COVID-19 where the public interest and public health are concerned. However, the processing of such data, and its sharing must comply with the data protection principles and informational requirements outlined by Articles 12, 13 and 14 GDPR.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Yet beyond these basic informational requirements premised on a notice and consent model, there is little information publicly available which explains in detail what data is shared – and with who. The Data Sharing and Governance Act 2019 was introduced in an attempt to remedy this lack of transparency and to provide a unified legislative schema for data sharing between public bodies. The Act provides for the introduction of rules, guidelines and governance standards for data sharing.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">In particular, the Act provides for the creation and publication of data sharing agreements in an effort to clarify what data is being shared and between which state bodies. The Act would therefore provide for greater transparency, as well as providing for the creation of broader and more specific data governance architectures. However, the provisions under s.15-22 which govern the creation of Data Sharing Agreements as well as under s.63-66 dealing with governance of data including special category data (which includes health data), have not been commenced as of writing.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The result is, that while non special category data can be shared for one of the broadly drawn, functional reasons outlined in s.13, the public bodies involved are not obliged to publish details as to the agreements in respect of such sharing beyond the more minimal requirements under the GDPR and the 2018 Act which are directed at the individuals whose data is involved, rather than the public at large.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">This means that the extent to which data is being shared among public bodies, and which public bodies are sharing such data, is difficult to gauge for those not actively and individually involved in the process. While the broad principles of the operation of data sharing may be discernible, the practical operation and more granular detail of sharing is less clear.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Róisín Á Costello is an Assistant Professor at Dublin City University School of Law & Government.</span></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-620657f5-7fff-7322-c6a7-a21f1042b689"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Suggested citation: Roisin Costello, ‘Clear in Principle, Opaque in Practice: Data sharing between public bodies during COVID-19’ (20 April 2021) https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/clear-in-principle-opaque-in-practice.html.</span></span></p><div><span style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div></span>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-66522284585022516672021-04-16T09:01:00.000+01:002021-04-16T09:01:35.075+01:00 Structural Discrimination and Inequities In COVID-19 Infections and Deaths<p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Ruqaiijah Yearby, St Louis University<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Seema Mohapatra, Indiana University<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-US">[This blog is based on our article entitled, </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3763532"><i>Systemic Racism, The Government’s Pandemic Response, and Racial Inequities in COVID-19</i></a><span class="MsoHyperlink" style="text-decoration: underline;">,</span><i> </i>forthcoming in 2021 in the <span style="font-variant-alternates: normal; font-variant-caps: small-caps; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-ligatures: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-variant-position: normal;">Emory Law Journal.]</span></span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b>Introduction</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-US">During the COVID-19 pandemic, low-income communities, low wage workers, and racial and ethnic minorities have been impacted disproportionately by COVID-19. In fact, there is some overlap between class and race in inequalities in employment and health care, that are associated with inequities in COVID-19 infections and deaths. For example, many low-wage workers, who are predominantly racial and ethnic minorities, are employed in essential jobs that lack paid sick leave and health insurance. This lack of benefits causes them to go to work even when they are sick and prevents them from receiving appropriate medical treatment. As a result, these workers have disproportionately been infected and died from COVID-19. Unequal access to </span><span lang="EN-US">employment protections and health care are a result of structural discrimination, which refers to the ways in which laws are used to advantage those in power, while disadvantaging powerless low-income communities and communities of color. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background-color: white;"><b>Meat and Poultry Processing Workers: Poor and Unprotected by the Law</b></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white;">In </span><span lang="EN-US">the United States, between <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/117/50/31706.long">6 to 8%</a> of all the COVID-19 cases and 3 to 4% of all COVID-19 deaths are tied to meat and poultry processing plants. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white;">As of March 31, 2021, 58,312 meatpacking workers had been infected with COVID-19 and 286 had died from COVID-19. More than half of workers in the US who work in meat processing are people of color. </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://cepr.net/meatpacking-workers-are-a-diverse-group-who-need-better-protections/"><span style="background-color: white;">Fifty-one-and-a-half percent</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white;"> of those who are considered frontline meatpacking workers are immigrants, compared with 17.0 percent of all workers in the US. In contrast, 19.1 percent of frontline meatpacking workers are white, compared to 63.5 percent of all workers. Furthermore, </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/117/50/31706"><span style="background-color: white;">45%</span></a></span><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white;"> of frontline meatpacking workers are low-income. </span><span lang="EN-US">Meat and poultry processing workers have been deemed essential workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, they often lack paid sick leave, while</span><span lang="EN-US"> <a href="https://worklawcovid19book.netlify.app/meatpacking.html">meat and poultry trade associations and corporations</a> have made record profits</span><span lang="EN-US">. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-US">In the US, the federal government enacted several economic relief bills that provided paid sick leave, including the </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/748">Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act)</a></span><span lang="EN-US">. However, the </span><span lang="EN-US">CARES Act <a href="https://thecounter.org/covid-19-testing-jbs-greeley-colorado-meatpacking/">left out</a> meat and poultry processing workers because it only applied to businesses with less than 500 workers, and most meat and poultry producers employ more than 500 workers. In fact, <a href="https://investigatemidwest.org/2020/10/20/meatpacking-workers-say-attendance-policy-forces-them-to-work-with-potential-covid-19-symptoms/">JBS employs</a> 3,000 workers at one plant, but has not provided the workers with paid sick leave or covered payments for COVID-19 testing. Additionally, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/suppl/2020/11/19/2010115117.DCSupplemental/pnas.2010115117.sapp.pdf">because many meat and poultry workers</a> are undocumented immigrants, the CARES Act <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa036">does not cover</a> them. Thus, the laws disadvantage the workers, while </span><span lang="EN-US">advantaging</span><span lang="EN-US"> powerful companies who do not have to pay works for sick leave. Many of these workers also cannot afford to take time off from work because of punitive attendance policies.</span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoBodyTextIndent2" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-US">Before the COVID-19 pandemic, meat and poultry processing companies’ standard attendance policies were </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://investigatemidwest.org/2020/10/20/meatpacking-workers-say-attendance-policy-forces-them-to-work-with-potential-covid-19-symptoms/">punitive</a></span><span lang="EN-US">. Companies issued points for workers that missed work; and workers that accumulated too many points were fired. These policies have persisted throughout the pandemic as JBS and Tyson actively </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://investigatemidwest.org/2020/10/20/meatpacking-workers-say-attendance-policy-forces-them-to-work-with-potential-covid-19-symptoms/">penalized</a></span><span lang="EN-US">workers for taking time off, even for illness. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-US">Specifically, Tyson and JBS meat and poultry processing workers are required to go to work even if they are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19</span><span lang="EN-US"> or are <a href="https://investigatemidwest.org/2020/10/20/meatpacking-workers-say-attendance-policy-forces-them-to-work-with-potential-covid-19-symptoms/">awaiting</a> test results. This was confirmed by <a href="https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/investigations/whistleblower-says-covid-19-screening-process-at-jbs-plant-places-employees-in-danger">JBS Spokesperson</a>Nikki Richardson, who noted that “points were not assessed against team members for absences due to <i>documented</i> illness.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-US">Excused absences for COVID-19 are only given if a worker has <a href="https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/investigations/whistleblower-says-covid-19-screening-process-at-jbs-plant-places-employees-in-danger">physician documentation</a> of a positive COVID-19 test, otherwise the worker is accessed points. This <a href="https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-greeley-colorado-denver-f46d59db7b8d45898e975510cdd0ae0a">attendance policy</a> is associated with increased rates of COVID-19 infections. Due to the fear of being assessed points, many workers cannot access testing, so they go to work sick. </span><span lang="EN-US">In part due to these attendance policies, </span><span lang="EN-US">meat and poultry processing companies were able to continue production and increase profits, while workers continued to be infected and die. </span><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Tyson announced a net income of <a href="https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2103353545279/tyson-foods-shares-rise-after-earnings-beat-2021-dividend-announced">$692 million</a> in 2020 up from $369 million in 2019, and expects a revenue of $42 billion in 2020 as a result of increased production. To date, over <a href="https://thefern.org/2020/04/mapping-covid-19-in-meat-and-food-processing-plants">12,523</a> Tyson workers have been infected with COVID-19. Tyson is being <a href="https://htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/files/amended-complaint-tyson-1605748137.pdf">sued</a> in Iowa for a COVID-19 outbreak for requiring workers, including those transferred from other facilities with COVID-19 outbreaks, to work long hours in cramped condition, and ignoring letters from county officials asking Tyson to close the facility “to ensure the safety and well-being of Tyson’s valuable employees and our community.” Yet, Tyson is not alone. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Meat processor JBS reported <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/brazils-jbs-turns-581-2-015514838.html">$581.2 million</a> in net profits in the third quarter of 2020 beating analyst’s forecasts. At the end of 2020, JBS reported a boost in net revenue by <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/jbs-results-idAFL1N2LM3EZ">32%</a> for 2020 as compared to net revenue in 2019. A majority of the profit, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/jbs-results-idAFL1N2LM3EZ">87%</a>, was made in the fourth quarter of 2020 and came from meat exports from the US to China. JBS was fined $15,615 due to<a href="https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-greeley-colorado-denver-f46d59db7b8d45898e975510cdd0ae0a"> six worker deaths</a> and 290 worker COVID-19 infections in its Greeley, Colorado plant tied to an outbreak that began in April 2020 and was not resolved until <a href="https://www.cpr.org/2020/11/25/meatpacking-giant-jbs-battles-new-coronavirus-outbreaks-at-greeley-plant-and-corporate-offices/">October 2020</a>, compared to the <a href="https://tcf.org/content/report/halting-workplace-covid-19-transmission-urgent-proposal-protect-american-workers/">$21.4 million fine</a> levied against BP after an explosion killed fifteen workers. JBS has <a href="https://www.law360.com/articles/1283845/pa-meat-plant-says-osha-should-handle-virus-death-claims">challenged</a> the fine, even as they enforced attendance policies that penalized workers for staying at home when they were sick at the Greeley plant. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Specifically, the attendance policy at the Greeley plant allowed for <a href="https://investigatemidwest.org/2020/10/20/meatpacking-workers-say-attendance-policy-forces-them-to-work-with-potential-covid-19-symptoms/">6 points</a> for absences before firing, which was less than the 7.5 points allowed before the pandemic. Workers could only recoup points by getting physician documentation of a positive COVID-19 test and calling an English-only attendance hotline. However, many workers do not speak English or have a physician to write the note.<i> </i>Thus, many workers continued to work while they are sick in large part because they could not obtain physician documentation of a COVID-19 infection, increasing the spread of the disease throughout the plant. A new outbreak of COVID-19 infections at the JBS Greeley, Colorado plant began in <a href="https://www.cpr.org/2020/11/25/meatpacking-giant-jbs-battles-new-coronavirus-outbreaks-at-greeley-plant-and-corporate-offices/">November 2020</a> with 20 new infections. Currently, the law does not prohibit attendance policies that benefit companies and harm workers. This has been exacerbated by lack of equal access to testing, treatment, and vaccines for low-income communities and communities of color.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoBodyTextIndent2" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify; text-indent: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-US" style="line-height: 24px;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b>Low-Income Communities and Communities of Conor: At Risk of Infection, But Lacking Access to Testing, Treatment, and Vaccines</b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa036">Research studies</a> show that US health care institutions have closed hospitals in low-income communities and communities of color to relocate in more affluent communities, which has disproportionately harmed <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/15/912866179/some-urban-hospitals-face-closure-or-cutbacks-as-the-pandemic-adds-to-fiscal-woe">low-income communities</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/13/chicago-mercy-hospital-closure-covid-19">communities of color</a>. Decisions to close hospitals in <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/09/15/912866179/some-urban-hospitals-face-closure-or-cutbacks-as-the-pandemic-adds-to-fiscal-woe">low-income communities</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/13/chicago-mercy-hospital-closure-covid-19">communities of color</a> often failed to consider the need for the equal distribution of health care facilities among all communities, leaving these vulnerable communities without access to health care and provider services. The governments’ decision to use hospitals as COVID-19 testing and treatment sites, while closing clinics and other community based health care facilities was seemingly class and race “neutral.” Nevertheless, the closed health care facilities were disproportionately located in predominately low-income communities and communities of color, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/7/1/lsaa036/5849058">limiting</a> these communities’ equal access to coronavirus testing and treatment during the pandemic. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-US" style="border: 1pt none windowtext; padding: 0cm;">Although preventable, similar inequities have occurred with COVID-19 vaccinations, with Black and Latino individuals being vaccinated at </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/how-are-states-addressing-racial-equity-in-covid-19-vaccine-efforts/"><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; padding: 0cm;">much lower</span></a><span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; padding: 0cm;"> rates than white people. </span>In the St. Louis region, where the first person to die from COVID-19 was a <a href="http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/nurse-judy-wilson-griffin-is-first-covid-19-death-in-st-louis-region/article_1d422bea-6b06-11ea-83e1-17bbd703c8fb.html">Black nurse</a>, data shows that <a href="https://www.kmov.com/news/white-population-makes-up-vast-majority-of-those-vaccinated-in-st-louis-area-causing-alarm/article_8fdc9f8c-6d7b-11eb-9838-1f05d6020493.html">71%</a> of those vaccinated were white people, while only 8% Black people were vaccinated. This is also true in Chicago, where Black people make up <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/05/chicago-blacks-latinos-vaccine-distribution">30%</a> of the population, 60% of all the COVID-19 case, but only 19% of those that have been vaccinated. <span style="border: 1pt none windowtext; padding: 0cm;">Such a result was preventable had there been a government response that proactively worked to prevent these inequities.<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="border: 1pt none windowtext; padding: 0cm;"><o:p><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white;">Yet, </span><span lang="EN-US">some states, like Texas, discouraged efforts by some counties to focus on vulnerable zip codes. Texas Governor Abbott threatened pulling Dallas’ vaccine allocation when county officials indicated they were planning to target areas of the county with high <a href="https://www.theroot.com/dallas-wanted-to-prioritize-vaccines-for-hard-hit-black-1846109022">minority populations</a>. As a result, county officials reversed course from that plan, leaving these communities without equal access to vaccines. <a href="https://politi.co/3qHC6JU">President Biden</a> set up a federally sponsored vaccine site in those <a href="https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article249943673.html.">vulnerable areas</a> in Dallas as a response to address these inequities. However, as of March 2021, Texas is still trailing behind other states in terms of both vaccination rates and equity.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b>What Can Be Done</b></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The disparate conditions discussed above are examples that demonstrate how laws and policies are hurting low-income communities and communities of color. These examples of structural discrimination will continue to contribute to inequities in infection and death from COVID-19, unless laws and policies are changed. There are numerous ways law can provide support to address the needs of low-income communities and communities of color. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-US"><b>Provide Paid Sick Leave and Disallow Punitive Attendance Policies</b></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-US">Essential workers need paid sick leave so they do not go to work while showing symptoms of COVID-19 to earn much needed income. Additionally, federal, state, and local governments must ensure that workers are not penalized for staying home while sick, which just encourages sick workers to go to work and potentially expose others. If the federal government deems certain workers as essential during this pandemic, those workers need to know that they have paid sick leave if they fall ill due to the coronavirus. Some states have </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200319.757883/full/">expanded</a></span><span lang="EN-US"> requirements for paid sick leave, due to the pandemic. Cities, such as </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/oakland-city-leaders-ok-paid-sick-leave-for-essential-workers/2289529">Oakland</a></span><span lang="EN-US">, California, are</span><span lang="EN-US"></span><span lang="EN-US">requiring that employers provide paid sick leave to essential workers during the pandemic. However, comprehensive paid sick leave should be required and supported at a federal level. Furthermore, the government should prohibited punitive attendance policies </span><span lang="EN-US">that require sick workers to come to work is a recognized hazard that is likely to cause death or serious harm.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US" style="letter-spacing: 0.15pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-US"><b>Provide Hazard Pay for Essential Workers</b></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-US">Low-wage essential workers need to be provided adequate hazard pay if they are going to be deemed essential workers by the federal government. Legal requirements can help ensure this support. </span><span lang="EN-US">Meat and poultry processing companies, as well as those that employ essential workers, should be required to provide workers with <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jlb/article/7/1/lsaa036/5849058">hazard pay</a>, which should increase as the company’s net profit increases. Many US localities, such as <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattles-sudden-hazard-pay-move-shows-how-absent-government-has-been-for-workers-all-along/">Seattle, WA</a>, <a href="https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/state-and-local-updates/pages/hazard-pay-for-grocery-workers-is-trending-in-california.aspx">Long Beach, CA</a>, and <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Oakland-San-Jose-consider-hazard-pay-for-15919583.php">Oakland, CA</a> have enacted hazard pay mandates for grocery workers. While these laws have been challenged because grocery stores argue that their profit margins cannot support these payments, that is not the case for meat and poultry companies and many other <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/business/50-biggest-companies-coronavirus-layoffs/">companies</a> that employ essential workers.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b>Provide Free Health Care for Low-Income Communities and Communities of Color</b></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Although the CARES Act required private insurance companies, Medicare, and Medicaid to provide free diagnostic testing for the virus that causes COVID-19 and visits related to such testing without cost sharing, deductible payments, or prior authorization, this did not go far enough. Testing has been scarce in many parts of the country, and many sites were requiring a physician’s order to get a test. Many essential workers do not have employer-sponsored health care coverage, work in states that did not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and cannot afford health care coverage. Additionally, many undocumented immigrants, who are essential workers, lack access to Medicaid or ACA exchanges and thus are uninsured. The CARES Act permitted states to create an option to cover COVID-19–related testing for those who are uninsured individuals with a federal match, but it did not require this support. If workers are being asked to provide essential services, the federal government needs to ensure that employers provide free and frequent COVID-19 testing. Furthermore, the federal government must provide funding for employers to cover all health care costs related to any suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection for the worker and their family members, regardless of immigration status. This type of protection would help ensure workers seek care and protect their families.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background-color: white;"><b>Provide Equitable Access to Vaccines for Low-Income Communities and Communities of Color</b></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white;">There are some bright spots in some of the governmental testing and vaccine responses, which should be adopted in other states to address structural discrimination. Some governments have already begun to ensure that predominately Black and Latino communities have access to testing, such as North Carolina where they arranged for testing facilities available to Latino farmworkers. </span><span lang="EN-US">Some areas, like <a href="https://mayor.dc.gov/release/dc-health-make-additional-vaccination-appointments-available-residents-wards-1-4-5-7-and-8">DC</a>, are targeting certain zip codes with more low-income and underserved people.</span><span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Residents of these areas have earlier access to vaccination appointments than non-residents. <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/health/white-people-covid-vaccines-minorities.html">New York and California</a> tried similar approaches, but in some cases, people from those zip codes were not the ones who were able to get vaccinated. It is a delicate balance between ensuring access to vulnerable zip codes and asking for proof of residency and other tracking measures, which may dissuade both undocumented individuals and those who have had been justice-involved. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-US" style="background-color: white;">Other states like </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/the-covid-19-vaccine-priority-line-continues-to-change-as-states-make-further-updates/"><span style="background-color: white;">Montana and Utah</span></a><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"> are prioritizing Native Americans and other racial ethnic groups who may be at an elevated risk of COVID-19 complications in Phase 1B and Phase 1C respectively. </span>Additionally, many states are setting up hotlines to help people sign up for vaccines who may have trouble navigating online sign ups. Others are increasing vaccination clinics in <a href="https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/how-are-states-addressing-racial-equity-in-covid-19-vaccine-efforts/">underserved areas</a>. For example, Colorado is aiming to establish vaccine clinics in areas with a high minority population. These are good efforts, but the federal government’s initial lack of attention and response to vaccinations harmed low-income communities and communities of color the most, so it must now act intentionally to address these inequities.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-US"><b>Looking Forward</b></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-US">Here, we suggest targeted legal and policy measures that should be immediately implemented to address structural discrimination and protect low-income communities and communities of color. These are vital to addressing inequities in COVID-19 infections and deaths. We note, however, that this is not a comprehensive list. To achieve true </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2672396">health justice</a></span><span lang="EN-US"> for all, interventions to address the </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://academic.oup.com/phe/article-abstract/2/1/70/1554560">root causes</a></span><span lang="EN-US"> of </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1090198120922942">inequity</a></span><span lang="EN-US">, including all community conditions among them environmental and educational factors, are necessary.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Ruqaiijah Yearby is a full professor and member of the Center for Health Law Studies at Saint Louis University School of Law. <o:p></o:p></span></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i><span lang="EN-US">Seema Mohapatra is a tenured associate professor of law and dean’s fellow at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney of Law. </span></i><span lang="EN-US"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-US"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-US">Suggested citation: Ruqaiijah Yearby and Seema Mohapatra, ‘Structural Discrimination and Inequities In COVID-19 Infections and Deaths’ COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Blog (15 April 2021) <o:p></o:p></span><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52); text-align: left;">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/structural-discrimination-and.html</span></span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-19622922264370805232021-04-15T09:00:00.020+01:002021-04-15T09:09:48.526+01:00Is Mandatory Hotel Quarantine Compatible with EU Law?<h4 style="text-align: justify;"><br /><div><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">[Editor's note: today and yesterday we have featured two blogposts that address the legal issues around mandatory hotel quarantine from different perspectives. Today Professor Tobias Lock of NUI Maynooth addresses the EU law issues. Those interested in the constitutional issues can consult Professor Conor O'Mahony of University College Cork’s </span><a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/questions-about-quarantine-exemptions.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">post</span></a><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> from yesterday].</span></span></div></h4><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><span id="docs-internal-guid-b76b5e50-7fff-0b14-b8ae-d81576d37161" style="font-family: helvetica;"><p style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Tobias Lock, Maynooth University</span></p></span></blockquote><span id="docs-internal-guid-b76b5e50-7fff-0b14-b8ae-d81576d37161" style="font-family: helvetica;"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The</span><a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2021/act/1/enacted/en/html" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> Health (Amendment) Act 2021</span></a><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> – signed into law on 7 March – provides for mandatory hotel quarantine for two types of travellers: those who have been in ‘in a designated state at any time within the period of 14 days prior to’ arriving in Ireland; and those who have not been to a designated state, but cannot produce a negative PCR test result upon arrival in Ireland. Travellers – no matter what nationality – are required to quarantine in a hotel room for 14 days. This period can be shortened if the traveller receives a negative test result on a test taken on the 10th day; but it can also be extended if there is a positive test result. The term ‘quarantine’ is not defined in the Act, but the Government</span><a href="https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/3b8e1-mandatory-hotel-quarantine-your-questions-answered/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">understands</span></a><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> it to mean that the traveller must stay in their hotel room on their own at all times, save for pre-booked short ‘fresh air breaks’.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The Act gives the Minister for Health powers ‘to designate in writing any state … where there is known to be sustained human transmission of Covid-19 … or from where there is a high risk of importation of infection or contamination with Covid-19’.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This blog post argues that mandatory hotel quarantine is justifiable under EU free movement law, but that the very narrow exceptions to it in the legislation must be interpreted broadly for mandatory hotel quarantine to be a proportionate restriction of EU law rights.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Who can rely on EU free movement law?</b></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">According to Article 21 (1) TFEU, EU citizens have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. The</span><a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32004L0038" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Citizens’ Rights Directive</span></a><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> (CRD) provides further details: Article 5 CRD stipulates a right of entry; and Article 6 a right to reside for up to three months without any conditions or formalities.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">According to Article 3 CRD, these rights entitle EU citizens ‘who move to or reside in a Member State other than that of which they are a national’ as well as their family members (e.g. spouse or children) who accompany them. It does not matter whether they enter that other Member State from within the EU or outside.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Irish citizens are not within the scope of the Directive when entering the state as EU citizenship law does not cover purely internal situations, i.e. where there was no movement across an EU border. However, the famous</span><a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A61990CJ0370" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Surinder Singh</span></a><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> case law of the Court of Justice of the EU extends EU citizenship rights to a member state’s own nationals where that national has previously moved to another EU member state and is now returning. While Singh itself concerns the status of the returning citizen’s spouse, its reasoning shows that returning citizens enjoy all rights associated with EU citizenship as otherwise a ‘national of a Member State might be deterred from leaving his country of origin in order to pursue an activity … as envisaged by the Treaty in the territory of another Member State if, on returning to the Member State of which he is a national …, the conditions of his entry and residence were not at least equivalent to those which he would enjoy under the Treaty or secondary law in the territory of another Member State’.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Hence an Irish national returning from another EU member state where they might have worked or studied or been on holiday can rely on EU free movement law against the Irish state.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">By contrast other EU nationals can do so even when entering Ireland from a third country, so that the for the question whether mandatory hotel quarantine is compatible with EU law it is irrelevant where the EU citizen is entering the state from. According to</span><a href="https://www.thejournal.ie/hotel-quarantine-ireland-austria-designated-list-5401683-Apr2021/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">media reports</span></a><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">, the initial</span><a href="https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/b4020-travelling-to-ireland-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/#designated-states-mandatory-hotel-quarantine" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">list of ‘designated states’</span></a><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> would have seen an additional 16 EU member states on that list, but this was pared down to only one (Austria), allegedly due to</span><a href="https://www.thejournal.ie/attorney-general-writes-to-health-minister-hotel-quarantine-5398012-Mar2021/" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">concerns</span></a><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> voiced by the Attorney General that this could be contrary to EU free movement law. Yet given that EU free movement law applies even for arrivals from outside the EU – so long as they are non-Irish EU citizens – this advice, if it was indeed given, was based on a category error: it is the status of the traveller as an EU citizen that is decisive, not the country where they have travelled from.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Restriction of free movement rights</b></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">There is little doubt that mandatory hotel quarantine constitutes a restriction of EU citizens’ free movement rights: it denies their right to move freely within Ireland during the period of mandatory quarantine and furthermore, it has a deterrent effect on anyone considering exercising their free movement rights to come here in the first place, e.g. holidaymakers or other visitors, so that the measure also has a restrictive effect on the rights to enter the state and to reside there for up to three months (or longer provided additional criteria are met).</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">According to Article 27 CRD, EU citizens’ free movement rights can be restricted, however, on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. According to Article 29 CRD only diseases ‘with epidemic potential’ can be used to restrict free movement, which is the case with Covid-19. Additionally, every measure restricting free movement law must comply with the general EU law principle of proportionality.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Furthermore, mandatory hotel quarantine not only constitutes a restriction of the right to free movement, but also a restriction of the right to liberty guaranteed by Article 6 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (CFR). According to Article 51 (1) CFR, the Charter applies when a member state ‘is implementing Union law’, which occurs – as is the case here – where a member state</span><a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=151521&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=449011" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">restricts free movement rights</span></a><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">. Most Charter rights can be restricted under the conditions formulated by Article 52 (1) CFR, which are that the limitation must be provided for by law, respect the essence of the right concerned, and be proportionate.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b> </b></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Justification of mandatory hotel quarantine</b></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">As a matter of EU law therefore any mandatory hotel quarantine measures affecting those exercising the EU rights must be meet the proportionality test. The measure must pursue a legitimate aim; it must be suitable, i.e. actually capable of achieving this aim; it must be necessary, i.e. it must be the least restrictive measure to effectively achieve the aim; and it must strike a proportionate balance between the competing interests involved.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Mandatory hotel quarantine pursues the legitimate aim of protecting human life and public health. It is also a measure suitable to achieve this aim: by forcing people arriving in the state to reduce their physical contact with other persons to zero for two weeks, there is a very high likelihood that they will not pass on the virus if they carry it.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">It is questionable, however, whether mandatory hotel quarantining is both necessary and proportionate.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Necessity</b></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Mandatory hotel quarantine would only be necessary if there are no alternatives that would be equally effective in preventing the spread of Covid-19. Three potential alternatives come to mind: production of a negative PCR test result upon arrival; full vaccination against Covid-19; self-quarantine at home.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">A negative PCR test result obtained before coming to Ireland does not guarantee that the traveller has not infected themselves after the test or indeed that the test is not a false negative. Hence it is not is as effective at preventing the spread of Covid-19 as hotel quarantine.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The same is true for full vaccination against Covid-19, but for different reasons: scientists are not yet certain whether vaccination prevents infection and transmission of Covid-19. In cases of scientific uncertainty, EU law allows member states to operate on the basis of the precautionary principle, i.e. if there are reasonable grounds for concern about negative effects of an activity – such as travel even if vaccinated – then member states have discretion to restrict that activity in the interest of public health (see e.g. the</span><a href="https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=47642&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=7207963" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Pfizer</span></a><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> decision, in which the General Court upheld an EU ban on antibiotics in animal feed despite scientific uncertainty as to the effects on human health). Hence mandatory hotel quarantine even for those vaccinated is likely to be considered ‘necessary’.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The situation is less clear with regard to the alternative of self-quarantine. If a traveller is able to quarantine at home without having any contact with another person for 14 days, then quarantining at home could be considered a less restrictive but equally effective measure. The key concern on part of the state would be compliance: whereas the state can enforce hotel quarantine relatively easily, enforcement of quarantine at home is harder – and in case of a person quarantining in a home shared with others – nigh impossible. Hence mandatory hotel quarantine could arguably be considered the more effective alternative. However, as will be argued below, it may well be disproportionate in the strict sense.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b> </b></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Proportionality - balancing</b></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Finally, mandatory hotel quarantine must be proportionate stricto sensu, i.e. when balancing the competing interests involved, the state’s interest in protecting public health must prevail. The following factors are broadly in the mix: on the one hand, Covid-19 is highly contagious and presents a high risk to public health and human life. Mandatory hotel quarantine is also not the most severe measure the state could have adopted: a complete travel ban would constitute a stronger restriction of free movement rights, so that mandatory hotel quarantine could be seen as a way to facilitate free movement despite the pandemic.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">On the other hand, mandatory hotel quarantine consists in a severe restriction of the right liberty protected by Article 6 CFR: travellers must not leave their hotel room except for short breaks for 14 days. Leaving mandatory quarantine constitutes a criminal offence. Furthermore, it involves a considerable cost of ca. 1800 euro for a single traveller.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The regulations formulate certain exemptions, but these are mostly confined to persons performing certain jobs, such as airline pilots or diplomats. Most people can only escape mandatory quarantine by requesting a release from quarantine ‘on urgent humanitarian grounds’,</span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-travellers-from-israel-released-from-mandatory-hotel-quarantine-1.4534430" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">reportedly</span></a><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> applied in the case of a fully vaccinated traveller who had travelled to Ireland to be with his dying father.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Additionally, travellers who are unable to meet the quarantine cost, must still do so, but may apply for an exemption, the granting of which is in the discretion of the Minister (see Regulations 11-14 of</span><a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2021/si/125/made/en/print?q=38G" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; text-decoration-line: underline; text-decoration-skip-ink: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">S.I. No. 125/2021</span></a><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">).</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">These exemptions are clearly designed to ensure compliance with proportionality. But it is doubtful that they go far enough at least in the following cases.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">First, where a traveller can show that they are able to self-quarantine, it is hard to see how in light of the severe restrictions to personal liberty mandatory hotel quarantine can be required. The only argument in favour would be easier enforcement. It would, however, seem to be possible to enforce self-quarantine at home by way of regular checks, etc. The fact that enforcement of self-isolation requirements failed last summer cannot be a valid excuse for imposing far stricter measures. Only if the state can show that it enforcement is not possible, might this be the case. Hence EU law may force the state to grant an exemption under the condition that the traveller self-isolates at home. While the legislation only allows these for ‘humanitarian reasons’, the duty to interpret domestic legislation as far as possible in such a way that it is compliant with EU law (indirect effect), means that a person able to self-isolate should be able to avail of this exemption.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Secondly, EU law restricts the discretion of the state where the determination of ‘designated countries’ and exemptions from hotel quarantine or its costs are concerned. As for the former, EU law requires that the selection of countries is not arbitrary. It must therefore happen according to coherent criteria. The Health (Amendment) Act 2021 is fairly vague in this regard and more objective criteria – e.g. express reliance on the incidence of the disease in the country of origin – would make measures more EU law-proof.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Thirdly, where the situation of the individual traveller is concerned, the state’s exercise of discretion has to take account of EU law requirements, i.e. in every single case the state will need to determine the proportionality of the measure as a matter of EU law. This is a highly fact-specific exercise, so it is difficult to make general pronouncements on who may or may not have to be exempted from mandatory quarantine or at least from having to pay for it. For instance, a student returning home from their Erasmus year abroad might have a good case under EU law that they should not have to bear the costs of quarantine. The government seems to now recognise this when it announced that it would cover students’ quarantine costs. If mandatory hotel quarantine is still in place in the autumn, then the same would have to apply to incoming (Erasmus) students. Additionally, others returning from the EU (e.g. after completing an internship) who do not have the means of paying for their quarantine will have a good case under EU law to be exempt from having to pay.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><b>Conclusion</b></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">In conclusion, this blog post showed that mandatory hotel quarantine is largely compliant with EU law requirements. However, given the far-reaching restrictions to personal liberty entailed, the exceptions are formulated too narrowly and will provoke challenges. Such challenges can be avoided if the state exercises the discretion given to it with good measure, at least in those cases where EU law applies: i.e. where EU citizens are entering the state or where Irish citizens are returning from another EU member state.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-style: italic; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Tobias Lock is Professor and Jean Monnet Chair in EU Law and Fundamental Rights at Maynooth University. Professor Lock’s work is supported by the Erasmus+ Programme of the European Union.</span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-size: 12pt; font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"> </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt; text-align: justify;"><span face=""Helvetica Neue", sans-serif" style="font-variant-east-asian: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Suggested citation: Tobias Lock, ‘Is Mandatory Hotel Quarantine Compatible with EU Law? (14 April 2021) </span><span face="Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; text-align: left; white-space: pre-wrap;">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/is-mandatory-hotel-quarantine.html</span></p></span>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-57358329774373446142021-04-14T08:57:00.001+01:002021-04-16T04:13:10.745+01:00Questions about Quarantine: Exemptions and Proportionality<p><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Conor O'Mahony, University College Cork</span></span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">[Editor's note: today and tomorrow we are publishing two blogposts that address the legal issues around mandatory hotel quarantine from different perspectives. Today Professor Conor O'Mahony of University College Cork addresses the constitutional issues. Tomorrow Professor Tobias Lock of NUI Maynooth <a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/is-mandatory-hotel-quarantine.html" target="_blank">addresses</a> the EU law issues.]</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Background<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The constitutionality of mandatory hotel quarantine has been a point of contention for some weeks. In February, the <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/debate/dail/2021-02-03/3/"><span lang="EN-GB">Taoiseach claimed that it would be unconstitutional</span></a></span> to introduce such a scheme. In response to those claims, I <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://constitutionproject.ie/?p=792"><span lang="EN-GB">wrote a blog</span></a></span> arguing that although mandatory hotel quarantine restricts a range of constitutional rights (including, eg, personal liberty and freedom of movement), it pursues a legitimate aim and would likely be constitutional in principle, particularly “if it included some narrowly drawn exceptions to cater for cases where the impact was most extreme”. Similar points were made by <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/mandatory-quarantine-allowable-under-the-constitution-1.4476110"><span lang="EN-GB">David Kenny in the Irish Times</span></a></span>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span>There are clearly strong reasons supporting quarantine as a public health measure. COVID19 was originally brought to Ireland by travel; the <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/majority-of-irish-covid-19-cases-come-from-variant-that-originated-in-spain-study-1.4394152"><span lang="EN-GB"><span lang="EN-GB">second wave was caused by travel <span lang="EN-GB">from Spai<span lang="EN-GB">n</span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span> after the first wave had been suppressed; the third wave saw new variants introduced from the UK that worsened the situation; and <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/covid-19-lowest-number-of-daily-cases-since-mid-december-glynn-1.4534328"><span lang="EN-GB">recent outbreaks can be traced to foreign travel</span></a></span>, including even more concerning new variants.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span>The Government dropped its claims that mandatory hotel quarantine would be unconstitutional and the Oireachtas enacted the <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2021/act/1/enacted/en/html"><span lang="EN-GB">Health (Amendment) Act 2021</span></a></span> in March. The Act empowers the Minister for Health to make regulations designating States as being subject to the requirement to quarantine; at the time of writing, <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.dfa.ie/travel/travel-advice/coronavirus/general-covid-19-travel-advisory/"><span lang="EN-GB"><span lang="EN-GB">71<span lang="EN-GB"> countries<span lang="EN-GB">/<span lang="EN-GB">territories</span></span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span> are so designated. The Act also defines a range of “exempted travellers”, and empowers the Minister to make regulations adding to that list.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Within weeks of the commencement of mandatory hotel quarantine, multiple cases have generated courts proceedings challenging the legality of the detention in quarantine and raising the question of whether the scheme contains sufficient flexibility to avoid the harshest impacts. <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/two-travellers-from-israel-released-from-mandatory-hotel-quarantine-1.4534430"><span lang="EN-GB">Two people have been released from quarantine</span></a></span> and their <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0412/1209289-coronavirus-quarantine-challenge/"><span lang="EN-GB">challenges to its constitutionality struck out</span></a></span> as a result; but other cases are due to return before the courts and seem likely to generate direct challenges to the legislation itself. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span>Broadly speaking, the issues that have arisen include <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/woman-who-returned-from-dubai-lodges-urgent-case-against-mandatory-quarantine-1.4535606"><span lang="EN-GB"><span lang="EN-GB">requiring people to quarantine even where they have been fully vaccinated against COVID19<span lang="EN-GB"> <span lang="EN-GB">and/or have tested negative</span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span> since their arrival; requiring people to quarantine <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0411/1209125-court-quarantine/"><span lang="EN-GB">notwithstanding pressing reasons for travel</span></a></span> (such as the impending death of, or funeral for, a close relative); and <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.independent.ie/news/two-women-who-refused-to-enter-quarantine-after-dubai-boob-job-trip-have-had-case-adjourned-40293226.html"><span lang="EN-GB"><span lang="EN-GB">requiring people <span lang="EN-GB">of limited means <span lang="EN-GB">to pay for their stay in hotel quarantin<span lang="EN-GB">e</span></span></span></span></span></a></span>. In all three categories, the argument turns on the breadth of the exceptions and the proportionality of the approach taken, and the question of whether the law goes further than necessary to achieve the legitimate aim of preventing transmission of COVID19.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Vaccinations and Negative PCR Tests<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Requiring a person to quarantine even though they have been fully vaccinated and/or tested negative since their arrival appears at first glance to be draconian: it subjects a person to 14 days of detention when it could be suggested that they present little or no risk of transmitting COVID19 to anyone else. However, beneath the surface, it is less clear-cut. While there is clear evidence that vaccination significantly reduces the risk that a person will become seriously ill from COVID19, the evidence that vaccines prevent a person from transmitting the virus to others, <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.sciencenews.org/article/coronavirus-covid-vaccine-moderna-pfizer-transmission-disease"><span lang="EN-GB">while emerging</span></a></span>, is weaker and <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-are-probably-less-effective-at-preventing-transmission-than-symptoms-heres-why-156611"><span lang="EN-GB">more contested</span></a></span>.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span>Verifying that a person has been fully vaccinated in another country is not straightforward; in the absence of an international recognition system, such an exception may be open to abuse. PCR tests have a <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://hselibrary.ie/what-is-the-false-negative-rate-for-swab-tests-for-covid-19-and-are-there-more-reliable-ways-of-testing-are-rectal-swab-tests-effective-in-detecting-covid-19-for-patients-presenting-with-gastrointes-2/#:~:text=test%20accuracy%20challenging.-,A%20systematic%20review%20of%20the%20accuracy%20of%20COVID%2D19%20tests,were%20positive%20on%20repeat%20testing."><span lang="EN-GB"><span lang="EN-GB">si<span lang="EN-GB">gnificant<span lang="EN-GB"> rate of<span lang="EN-GB"> false negative<span lang="EN-GB">s</span></span></span></span></span></span></a></span></span></span></span>, and a person released from quarantine after a negative test may in fact be infected and may transmit the virus to others. Thus, a challenge to the law on this ground, while arguable, would be met with a range of scientific and policy defences by the Government, to which a court would afford a strong degree of deference.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Humanitarian Reasons<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB">A requirement to quarantine for 14 days might prevent a person from seeing their dying family member for the last time, or from attending their funeral. The impact here might not be limited to people hoping to see their dying elderly parents (a possibility denied to many due to COVID restrictions). The Department of Health has confirmed that </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/fully-vaccinated-irish-woman-unable-to-fly-home-for-brother-s-funeral-1.4534199">attending a funeral does not qualify for an exemption</a></span><span lang="EN-GB"> from the requirement to quarantine. There is a possibility of appealing on humanitarian grounds, but this does not cover funerals. <o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB">This category of cases is different to vaccination cases in that the person travelling cannot claim to present a lower risk than anyone else of transmitting COVID19. On the other hand, the numbers involved will be relatively small, and PCR testing pre- and post-arrival could reduce (if not eliminate) the risk of transmission. In this light, the impact on that person and on their family does seem especially harsh. However, it is important to emphasise that the courts have stressed in cases like <i>Murphy v IRTC</i> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://www.cearta.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Murphy-v-IRTC.pdf">[1999] 1 IR 12</a></span><span lang="EN-GB"> and </span><i>MD (A Minor) v Ireland</i> <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2012/S10.html"><span lang="EN-GB">[2012] 1 IR 697</span></a></span> that it is not the role of the courts to decide that the Oireachtas could or should have made a different policy choice. A law will only be found to <span lang="EN-GB">be disproportionate or discriminatory if it is found to be beyond the competence and discretion of the Oireachtas; and those judgments are just two of many examples of courts affording the Oireachtas a very wide latitude.</span><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Cost of Quarantine<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Running a system of quarantine is expensive, and the State could argue that it is entitled to seek to defray that expense by shifting the cost to those who will use the system. It could also argue that imposing a charge is part of a legitimate policy of seeking to deter people from all but the most essential of travel during the pandemic. The scheme does include a possibility of <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/mandatory-quarantine-hotel-bill-may-be-deferred-in-hardship-cases-1.4528548"><span lang="EN-GB">applying to defer payment</span></a></span> on grounds of hardship. However, at a cost of €1,875 per passenger, there is a big difference between deferring payment and being exempted from the cost (or the requirement to quarantine) altogether.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Moreover, some travel clearly is essential, and not everyone who has an essential reason for travel will be able to pay the cost of quarantine either now or at a deferred date. The announcement that the <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0412/1209485-erasmus-hotel-quarantine/"><span lang="EN-GB">Government will pay the costs of quarantine for students</span></a></span> returning from studying abroad on Erasmus placements recognises this fact. Others of limited financial means may need to travel considerable distances for pressing family reasons and be unable to afford quarantine after paying for the costs of travel; but at the time of writing, no additional provision has been made for such cases.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">A case with the right fact pattern involving essential travel and impecuniosity might attempt a constitutional challenge to quarantine charges on a basis not dissimilar to part of the judgment in <i>Redmond v Minister for the Environment</i> <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2001/128.html"><span lang="EN-GB">[2001] 4 IR 61</span></a></span>. In <i>Redmond</i>, a requirement to place a deposit before running for election was found to violate the equality guarantee of Article 40.1 for indirectly discriminating against people of limited financial means. Herbert J stated at 80 that “<span lang="EN-GB">a law which has the effect, even if totally unintended, of discriminating between human persons on the basis of money is an attack upon the dignity of those persons as human beings who do not have money.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Conclusion<o:p></o:p></span></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">It seems likely that a direct constitutional challenge to the system of mandatory hotel quarantine will find its way to the High Court sooner rather than later. When it does, it will combine technical considerations regarding proportionality and judicial deference and human considerations concerning harsh impacts on individuals and families. <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/women-who-refused-quarantine-face-very-steep-hill-in-legal-challenge-1.4529574"><span lang="EN-GB">Many lawyers agree</span></a></span> that any challenge faces a steep hill to climb. An applicant who can make arguments based on a combination of the above circumstances (ie vaccination, negative test, humanitarian considerations, and possible inability to pay) seems best placed to discharge the burden of rebutting the presumption of constitutionality enjoyed by the relevant legislation. Moreover, it should be remembered that even a successful challenge would not necessarily invalidate the entire system; it may simply require an adjustment to the exemptions.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://research.ucc.ie/profiles/B012/conor.omahony@ucc.ie"><i><span lang="EN-GB">Conor O’Mahony</span></i></a></span><i> is Professor of Law and Deputy Dean of the School of Law at University College Cork, where he teaches constitutional law, child law and children’s rights.</i><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: left;"><span style="background-color: white;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Suggested citation: Conor O’Mahony, ‘Questions about Quarantine: Exemptions and Proportionality’ COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory (14 April 2021) <span style="caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52); text-align: left;">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/questions-about-quarantine-exemptions.html</span></span></span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-39368329229045600702021-04-13T08:04:00.000+01:002021-04-13T08:04:33.179+01:00 The Pandemic: Road-testing Commitments to Human Rights in Global Supply Chains<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; text-align: left; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"><br />Rachel Widdis, School of Law, Trinity College Dublin</span></p></blockquote><p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">COVID has raised awareness of the fragility of global supply chains. Images of planes landing laden with PPE on national television are fresh in our minds. The pandemic has also spurred on the discussion of human rights standards in global supply chains and the behaviours of buying companies. Acknowledging there are complex intersecting impacts, the purpose here is to highlight COVID amplified impacts, dissonances and developments. In this, the pandemic has exposed the positions taken when the chips are down, and road tested corporate commitments to respect human rights including labour and health and safety in supply chains. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">In Spring 2020 as the pandemic dawned, orders in the garment sector supply chain were slashed (<a href="https://www.reutersevents.com/sustainability/millions-garment-workers-face-destitution-fashion-brands-cancel-orders">millions-garment-workers-face-destitution-fashion-brands-cancel-orders</a>). Orders already made up or in process were cancelled, including under <i>force majeure</i> clauses. Even for products already completed and shipped, significant price discounts were demanded. Factories in countries of supply buckled under both mandatory closures and a drop in demand for product. The Clean Clothes Campaign has a live daily blog reporting instances where workers laid off did not receive their wages or compensation under applicable local laws, including in Bangladesh, India, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Ethiopia and Vietnam (<a href="https://cleanclothes.org/news/2021/live-blog-on-how-the-coronavirus-influences-workers-in-supply-chains">how-the-coronavirus-influences-workers-in-supply-chains</a><span class="MsoHyperlink" style="text-decoration: underline;">)</span><span class="MsoHyperlink" style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">. </span></span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">T</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">here has been a disproportionate impact on migrant and temporary workers, and women workers. Research on access to nutrition during COVID-19 by the Workers’ Rights Consortium found ‘lost income translated into an inability to access adequate food for themselves and their families’ as well as an overwhelming reliance on borrowing to buy food. Of the respondent garment workers, 70% were female (</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"><a href="https://www.workersrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Hunger-in-the-Apparel-Supply-Chain.pdf">Hunger-in-the-Apparel-Supply-Chain.pdf</a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">). Risks of a spiral into severe labour or other forms of exploitation combine with, for example, measures to tackle modern slavery being inhibited by travel and other restrictions related to the pandemic (</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"><a href="https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/beacons-of-excellence/rights-lab/resources/academic-publications/2020/trautrims-et-al-managing-modern-slavery-risks-in-supply-chains-during-covid-19.pdf">modern-slavery-risks-in-supply-chains-during-covid-19</a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">). </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">J</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">ob losses impacting ability to cover basic needs, and </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">return/ stay at work under threat of non-payment of wages</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"> are also widely reported in other sectors, for example, in the electronics supply chain. These are occurring beyond tier 1, further down the supply chain (</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"><a href="https://knowthechain.org/ict-companies-need-to-address-forced-labor-risks-further-down-their-supply-chains/">ICT forced labour risks</a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">).</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">The activity of buying companies is also impacted, although many may benefit from a suite of state supports in their home states. Reports indicate programmes financed by the EU are making support payments to furloughed or laid off garments workers (<a href="https://smartmyanmar.org/en/news/european-union-doubles-funding-for-garment-workers-in-crisis">european-union-doubles-funding-for-garment-workers-in-crisis</a>) concurrently with global brands cancelling or refusing to pay in the same countries. <span class="MsoHyperlink" style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">Isolated brighter spots are not discounted, with certain companies stepping in with relief programmes (</span></span><a href="https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/unilever-to-protect-workforce-from-pay-drop-help-most-vulnerable-suppliers-as-part-of-covid-19-relief-programme/">unilever-to-protect-most-vulnerable-suppliers-as-part-of-covid-19-relief-programme/</a><span class="MsoHyperlink" style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="text-decoration: none;">). </span></span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">Further issues with health and safety relating to COVID are documented by the ILO, including factories failing to provide PPE to workers and staying open during lockdown without instituting social distancing, as well as crowded transport of workers to and from factories and workers locked down in cramped dormitories exposing them to infection (</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"><a href="https://www.ilo.org/asia/publications/issue-briefs/WCMS_758626/lang--en/index.htm">ILO Asia</a></span><span class="MsoHyperlink" style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">)</span></span><span class="MsoHyperlink" style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px; text-decoration: none;">.</span></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"> In cruel irony, reportedly some of these factories are producing PPE and rubber gloves (</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"><a href="https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/malaysia-blackrock-calls-for-removal-of-top-glove-board-of-directors-over-inadequate-oversight-of-worker-health-safety/">blackrock-top-glove-inadequate-oversight-of-worker-health-safety/</a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">Rolling the clock back pre-pandemic, risks to and impacts on the most vulnerable in global supply chains have been long well documented; within the past decade 1,138 people died in a factory collapse (<a href="https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/04/24/remember-rana-plaza">Rana Plaza</a>) supplying global garment brands in the EU, and 258 people in a fire at a jeans factory principally supplying German headquartered KIK </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">(</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"><a href="http://www.ecchr.eu/fileadmin/Fallbeschreibungen/CaseReport_KiK_Pakistan_August2019.pdf">KiK_Pakistan</a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">). Corporations are responding to awareness of the human rights and environmental impacts of their operations in their own activities and throughout their value chains, within a context well populated with multistakeholder initiatives, international initiatives such as the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, SDGs, supplier codes of conduct, model contract clauses to protect workers in international supply chains (</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"><a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/publications/committee_newsletters/bcl/2021/202103/subcmte_reports/">Principled Purchasing Project</a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">), and allied movements in ‘ESG’ and ‘Sustainability’. For present purposes, the first issue is that these are mainly voluntary in nature. As such, business is expected to ‘comply with all applicable laws and respect internationally recognized human rights, wherever they operate’ (</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"><a href="https://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/guidingprinciplesbusinesshr_en.pdf">UNGP 23</a></span><span class="MsoHyperlink" style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px; text-decoration: none;">), but is not obliged to do so. Secondly,</span></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"> while large numbers of corporations issued related policies, and engaged corporations took action, most did not (</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"><a href="https://www.corporatebenchmark.org/2020-results">Corporate Benchmark 2020</a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"> ). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">The pandemic has road tested both commitments concerning supply chains in corporate policy, and to such initiatives. It has amplified the known vulnerability of the people within global value chains, and again underpins the drive towards mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence. In 2020, the EU Commissioner for Justice committed to introduce a legislative initiative including corporate human rights due diligence. In March 2021, the European Parliament adopted a report on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability (<a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2021-0018_EN.html">JURI</a>). It called on the EU Commission to present legislation ensuring companies address and are held accountable for human rights, environmental and governance risks and impacts throughout their global value chains, including sanctions for non-compliance and civil remedies. The Commission initiative, expected in June, is eagerly anticipated. The impact of COVID on the most vulnerable in global supply chains should feed into obligations, in a new enforceable standard. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">Dr Rachel Widdis teaches Business and Human Rights in the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm 0cm 8pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">Suggestion citation: Rachel Widdis, ‘The Pandemic: Road-testing Commitments to Human Rights in Global Supply Chains’<b> </b>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Blog<b> </b>(13 April 2021) </span><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/the-pandemic-road-testing-commitments.html</span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-4396804610546135162021-04-12T08:48:00.001+01:002021-04-12T08:48:55.541+01:00April 2021 Easing of COVID-19 Restrictions: Law and Guidance<p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Oran Doyle, Trinity College Dublin<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Introduction<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The Government yesterday published the Regulations (<a href="https://www.gov.ie/en/collection/1f150-view-statutory-instruments-related-to-the-covid-19-pandemic/">SI 168/2021</a>) that take effect today, 12 April 2021, easing the COVID-19 restrictions somewhat. The Observatory will publish an updated consolidation of the Regulations soon. These Regulations exist alongside the official Government guidance, also <a href="https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/2dc71-level-5/">updated</a> yesterday. Consistent with the Government’s general approach since the start of the pandemic, the guidance does not distinguish between what is legally required and what is public health advice. For the most part, the guidance adopts the sort of language that would lead a reader to believe that the Government is communicating legal obligations: for instance ‘no visitors are permitted in private homes or gardens’. However, in several important respects what is contained in the guidance differs from what is legally prohibited. In this blogpost, I will outline the principal legal changes that have been made. I will then identify the respects in which the guidance departs from the law.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b>Travel within county and/or 20km of residence now permitted</b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">In the previous Regulations, it was a criminal offence to leave your home without a reasonable excuse. This is no longer the case. Rather, regulation 4(1) makes it a criminal offence to travel outside your ‘relevant travel area’. Regulation 3 defines ‘relevant travel area’ as the county in which your place of residence is located and other places that lie within a 20kn radius of your place of residence. ‘County’ has the same meaning as the Local Government Areas listed in the Local Government Act 2001 as amended, but the four Dublin LGAs, the two Galway LGAs, and the two Cork LGAs are each respectively a county for ascertaining your travel area.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The previous Regulations provided a list of specified reasonable excuses for which a person could leave her home, without prejudice to the generality of the general ‘reasonable excuse’ category. Under the new Regulations, nearly all of these are now reasonable excuses to leave your relevant travel area. You can leave your home for any reason you wish. The one reasonable excuse that has not been carried over is the 5km exercise provision. As you can now leave your home and travel more than 5km for any reason, it would make no sense to limit exercise to within 5km of your home. Meeting others outside is therefore now regulated under the restrictions on events, rather than through a restriction on leaving your home.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Organisation of outdoor events<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Regulation 10 allows people to organise events in their own relevant travel area, provided the event takes place entirely outdoors and the person takes reasonable steps to ensure that only people from her own household and one other household attend. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b>Indoor events for fully vaccinated people</b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Under regulations 6(3) and 9(1) fully vaccinated people from no more than two households can organise and attend events in one another’s homes. Regulation 3 provides a lengthy definition of ‘vaccinated person’ with reference to the precise vaccine used, the interval between the two doses (where appropriate), and period after the final vaccination (7, 14, or 15 days depending on the vaccine). Crucially, the vaccine must be administered as part of the HSE programme. People vaccinated outside the State do not fall within the definition and therefore do not benefit from this allowance. This will be an important point to watch if greater freedoms are brought in for fully vaccinated people as the easing of covid restrictions continues. The Government will probably need to develop some scheme for recognition of vaccinations that occur in other countries.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b>Sporting and training events</b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Regulations 12(3) and 13(3) introduce new provisions that allow Sports Ireland to provide certificates to allow people attend sporting or training events, where they have the potential to represent Ireland in sporting events at internationally competitive levels. Regulation 13(2) allows intercounty GAA to attend training events. These provisions do not come into effect until 19 April 2021.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Buying children’s shoes<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Paragraph 18 of Schedule 1 Part 1 adds outlets that sell shoes for children to the list of essential retail outlets—if they provide shoe fitting services to children and if they operate on the basis of advance appointments. The import of this change is that (a) shops selling children shoes can now open, (b) you can make appointments with such a shop in your own area, and (c) you may leave your travel area to access such an outlet if it is not reasonably practicable to do so within your travel area. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b>Construction activities permitted</b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Increased levels of construction activity are now permitted: construction and development of residential housing, including adaptation and remediation work, and support services; construction projects necessary for the Irish Prison Service; the construction or development of essential educational facilities, which will provide additional capacity for students, or involve essential maintenance or refurbishment works in support of the continued provision of education.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b>Divergences between guidance and law</b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Outdoor meetings<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The Government guidance states that you can meet one other household outside but not in your garden or theirs. There is no law prohibiting you from meeting another household in your garden or theirs. The law only requires that the event be ‘outdoors’. There is no definition of ‘outdoors’ in the Regulations. It is untenable to suggest that a garden is not outdoors.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>Construction</i><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The Government guidance says that from 12 April 2021 all residential construction can resume, as well as early learning and childcare projects. This is incorrect in two different ways. First, there is no specific allowance for early learning and childcare projects. The language used is ‘essential education facilities at primary and post-primary level’, which would appear to preclude ‘pre-primary’ level. Second, there are other additions, as noted above, including for projects necessary for the Irish Prison Service.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>Meetings of vaccinated people</i><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The Government guidance states:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">If 2 weeks have passed since you got your second dose of the vaccine, you can meet with other fully vaccinated people from 1 other household indoors without wearing masks or staying 2 metres apart. If you have received the second dose, you have to wait 2 weeks until you can meet other fully vaccinated people indoors.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">This is incorrect insofar as it does not include the specification that you must have received your vaccination as part of the HSE programme. If you have returned to the State having been vaccinated abroad, you do not benefit from this exception.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">This is an improvement on the situation last week, noted by David Kenny and me in a <a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/covid-rules-and-the-rule-of-law-1.4532291">letter</a> to the <i>Irish Times,</i>whereby the Government told fully vaccinated people that they could meet indoors but no legal exception had been introduced to that effect. Nevertheless, if vaccinated people did meet indoors last week, they remain liable to prosecution notwithstanding the subsequent change in the law.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>Religious services</i><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The Government guidance says:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Services will be held online. This will be reviewed by 4 May.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Places of worship remain open for private prayer.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">It is not clear whether this is intended as a restriction on what can happen or a prediction of what will happen. I have previously <a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/03/religious-services-and-rule-of-law.html">addressed</a> on this blog whether it could be argued that the Regulations restricted religious services (other than funerals). There were two such bases: the restriction on ‘relevant events’; the restriction on leaving one’s home without a reasonable excuse. The latter restriction no longer applies in the new Regulations: priests and worshippers may leave their home for any reason; they just cannot leave their travel area. The only possible ground of restriction, therefore, remains the restriction on ‘relevant events’. The definition of ‘relevant event’ remains the same as in the previous Regulations, i.e. it does not include events for religious purposes. It is therefore even clearer than before that the holding of religious services is not restricted, other than funerals for which the number attending is limited to 10.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>Working outside the home</i><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The Government guidance states:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Work from home unless essential for work, which is an essential health, social care or other essential service and cannot be done from home.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">There is, however, no longer any legal requirement that you must work from home. Regulation 14 does impose an obligation on the premises controller, occupier, manager or other person for the time being in charge of a premises not to allow members of the public or workers access to a premises at which a business or service is carried out, unless it is an essential service or retail outlet. But there may be gaps between this obligation on the controllers of premises and the earlier general obligation on people not to work outside the home.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b>Conclusion</b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The latest Regulations ease the COVID-19 restrictions in limited but important ways. The Government continues to blur the distinction between law and public health advice in a way that is likely to mislead citizens as to the extent of their legal obligations. In most respects, the law is less strict than what the Government presents. In relation to meetings between vaccinated people and some construction work, the law is more strict than what the Government presents. For the reasons that have been advanced repeatedly on this blog and in the Report of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, this offends the rule of law and corrodes public trust.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Suggested citation: Oran Doyle, ‘April 2021 Easing of COVID-19 Restrictions: Law and Guidance’ COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory (12 April 2021) <span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52); text-align: left;">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/april-2021-easing-of-covid-19.html</span></span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-67420667778829846842021-04-08T08:59:00.000+01:002021-04-08T08:59:22.665+01:00 Education Rights and COVID-19 School Closures<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Alan DP Brady, Trinity College Dublin School of Law School and Law Library </span><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">James Rooney, Trinity College Dublin School of Law School and Law Library</span><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">On 6 January 2021, the Government decided that all schools – including special schools – were to be <a href="about://"><span style="color: blue;">closed</span></a>in response to the third wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. Over the succeeding school term, schools were gradually reopened, with special schools the first to open. It is anticipated that fully reopened primary and secondary education will be available after the Easter break.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">The closure of all schools – and particularly the closure of special schools – has been legally and politically controversial. Conor Casey has recently drawn attention in his <a href="about://"><span style="color: blue;">blog post</span></a> to the unusual means by which this shut-down was ordered – namely that no primary or secondary legislation has been promulgated giving effect to these school closures. In this blog post, we draw attention to the impact of school closures on the educational rights of children under the Constitution of Ireland and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). </span><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Education Rights under the Constitution of Ireland</span></b><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Article 42.4 of the Constitution states that ‘the state shall provide for free primary education.’ In <i>Crowley v Ireland </i>[1980] IR 102, the Supreme Court held that, while Art.42.4 does not guarantee a primary education for all children, it does guarantee that the State will provide the <i>infrastructure</i> for third parties to provide free primary education. Where a child is not provided with <i>any</i> primary educational infrastructure from the State then, this will constitute a breach of the Art.42.4 right. This has arisen in the past in regards children with special educational needs. In <i>O’Donoghue v Minister for Education </i>[1996] 2 IR 20, the High Court declared that ‘the infant applicant is entitled to free primary education in accordance with Article 42.4 of the Constitution <i>and the State is under an obligation to provide for such education</i>.’ This judgment, affirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court [1996] 2 IR 20, is a recognition of a positive obligation on the State to provide education to children, including children with special needs.</span><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">In <i>O’Carolan v Minister for Education and Science</i> [2005] IEHC 296, a child’s parents challenged the quality of his special needs education. The High Court rejected their challenge, holding that, excepting the extreme situation where no educational provision is made an ‘adequate’ educational provision by the state will satisfy its obligations under Art.42.4. Similarly, in <i>Ó C v Minister for Education and Science </i>[2007] IEHC 170, the High Court held that, provided the Minister has not acted ‘in some irrational way by making provision in a way that simply cannot be appropriate to meet the needs of children with [special] needs,’ the approach adopted by the Minister will be deemed constitutionally compliant.</span><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">The State is under a duty to provide <i>some</i> primary education, where education is understood to be ‘such advice, instruction, and teaching as will enable him or her to make the best possible use of his or her inherent and potential capacities, physical, mental, and moral; however limited those capacities may be.’<i> </i>[1996] 2 IR 20, at 65) If some provision is made, provided that the provision is not irrational, it will likely pass the test in <i>Ó C</i>. </span><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">It is apparent however there are categories of children for whom no educational provision was made following school closures in January. First, and most obviously, children with special needs for whom online learning is not practicable, did not receive any educational provision at all. This appears to fall short of the State’s obligations under Art.42.4. Secondly, online education for mainstream primary students as assumes that the IT facilities and adult supervision are available for the child to make use of the online educational provision. This may not be possible for many children. For example, there may not be enough electronic devices in the home for the child and any adults working from home to each have access to IT. Where the caregiver(s) is/are an essential worker(s) the necessary level of adult supervision for a child to engage with online learning may be absent. These factors suggest that there are also mainstream primary pupils who were not receiving educational provision during the school closures.</span><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Educational Rights under the ECHR </span></b><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Art.2 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR guarantees that the right to education ‘shall not be denied’. The ECHR appears to primarily place a passive duty on the State not to hinder access to education, rather than a positive obligation to subsidise a particular type of education. However, the ECHR right also includes secondary and higher education. In <i>Catan v Moldova and Russia </i>(2013) 57 EHRR 4 (Grand Chamber), the European Court of Human rights (ECtHR) accepted that the right to education is not absolute and may be subject to limitations, but there must be no injury to the substance of the right, they must pursue a legitimate aim and there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim to be achieved.</span><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">In <i>Memlika v Greece </i>(2013) 57 EHRR 4 (Grand Chamber), the ECtHR found a violation of the right to education for two primary school aged children who missed three months of school due to a mis-diagnosis of leprosy. The Court expressly assessed the intrusion on proportionality grounds and found that it was disproportionate. The ECtHR has found that the right to education can be violated in combination with the Art.14 right to non-discrimination in the context of a child with special educational needs. (<i>GL v Italy </i>[2020] ECHR 618). The Court noted that the discrimination on the basis of disability was all the more serious as it had taken place in the context of primary education, which formed the foundation of child education and social integration, giving children their first experience of living together in a community.</span><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Conclusion</span></b><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">The ECHR prohibits the disproportionate limitation of access to primary, secondary and third level education. As the Constitutional case law has primarily focused on positive obligations, it is not clear whether the Constitutional right carries a similar prohibition, but it is certainly possible, More importantly, taken in combination the positive and negative obligations from the two human rights instruments indicate that: (a) the Irish State is obliged to provide the practical infrastructure for the provision of primary education by independent entities; and (b) the Irish State may not disproportionately prevent children from accessing that education. During the early part of 2021 large numbers of children were excluded from receiving any educational provision in circumstances where the public health experts indicate that schools themselves are safe. This raises serious questions about the proportionality of ordering the total closure of all schools. As the work of this blog has repeatedly affirmed, rights need protection particularly during emergencies. Whilst it is cautiously hoped that we are currently in the last lockdown of this pandemic, in the case of a fourth wave it is hoped that greater consideration will be given to the educational rights of children than was the case in this third lockdown.</span><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Alan DP Brady and James Rooney are practising barristers and Adjunct Assistant Professors of Law, Trinity College Dublin.</span></i><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Suggested citation: Alan DP Brady and James Rooney, ‘Education Rights and COVID-19 School Closures’ COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory (8 April 2021) <span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/education-rights-and-covid-19-school.html</span></span><span style="font-family: -webkit-standard, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><style class="WebKit-mso-list-quirks-style">
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0cm;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoListBullet, li.MsoListBullet, div.MsoListBullet
{mso-style-priority:99;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:18.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
tab-stops:list 18.0pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoListBulletCxSpFirst, li.MsoListBulletCxSpFirst, div.MsoListBulletCxSpFirst
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:18.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
tab-stops:list 18.0pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle, li.MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle, div.MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:18.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
tab-stops:list 18.0pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
p.MsoListBulletCxSpLast, li.MsoListBulletCxSpLast, div.MsoListBulletCxSpLast
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-top:0cm;
margin-right:0cm;
margin-bottom:0cm;
margin-left:18.0pt;
mso-add-space:auto;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;
tab-stops:list 18.0pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
mso-themecolor:hyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:595.0pt 842.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:-119;
mso-list-type:simple;
mso-list-template-ids:-747237354;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-style-link:"List Bullet";
mso-level-text:;
mso-level-tab-stop:18.0pt;
mso-level-number-position:left;
margin-left:18.0pt;
text-indent:-18.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
-->
</style>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-40606637248246670862021-04-06T13:24:00.003+01:002021-04-06T13:24:46.881+01:00 Cessation of Passport Services Raises Fundamental Rule of Law Concerns <p><span style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Donna Lyons, Trinity College Dublin </span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Restrictions on International Travel <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Regulation 4A(1) of the Health Act 1947 (Section 31A - Temporary Restrictions) (Covid-19) (No. 10) Regulations 2020 provides that ‘an applicable person shall not leave his or her place of residence to go to an airport or port for the purposes of leaving the State without reasonable excuse’ (this is a penal provision, as confirmed in Regulation 4A(3)). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Regulation 4A(2) provides that ‘such reasonable excuse includes’ a person leaving one’s residence in order to engage in work; provide services to or perform the functions of an office holder or provide services essential to the functioning of diplomatic missions and consular posts; attend education; accompany a person with whom one is residing or a vulnerable person to attend education; attend a medical or dental appointment or accompany a person with whom one is residing or a vulnerable person to such an appointment; seek essential medical, health or dental assistance; attend to vital family matters, including providing care to vulnerable persons; attend a funeral; fulfil a legal obligation, and leave the State where one is not ordinarily resident here. Many of these activities mirror those outlined in Regulation 4(2) for the purposes of domestic travel, but the list of activities constituting a reasonable excuse for travel abroad is shorter and more stringent. Understandably, the government has felt it imperative to limit international travel for the purposes of protecting public health. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Previous Observatory blog posts have focussed upon international travel in the pandemic (<span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/03/restrictions-on-international-travel.html"><span lang="EN-GB">Oran Doyle</span></a></span> has recently written about where things lie in relation to international travel restrictions and <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/02/higher-fines-for-travelling-abroad.html"><span lang="EN-GB">Conor White</span></a></span> has analysed the fines which are in place for travelling abroad unlawfully). In this post, I examine the issue of renewal or replacement of passports for the purposes of international travel. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Additional Restrictions in the Case of Expired or Lost Passports <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The Regulations do not themselves refer to the question of renewal or replacement of passports (a consolidation of the Regulations is available on the Observatory website <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.tcd.ie/law/tricon/covidobservatory/resources/index.php"><span lang="EN-GB">here</span></a></span>). According to the <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.dfa.ie/passports/"><span lang="EN-GB">website</span></a></span> of the Department of Foreign affairs, however, the passport service ‘has paused operations in line with the move to Level 5 of the Government’s National Framework on Living with COVID-19 from 24 December 2020.’ The passport service is still accepting online applications, but these will only be processed when the passport service resumes operations at Level 4. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">An ‘Emergency Passport Service’ is in place, which may allow for the processing of passport applications. According to the passport service’s <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.dfa.ie/passports/"><span lang="EN-GB">website</span></a></span>, an emergency ‘is defined as death or grave illness of an immediate family member, with a need for urgent travel within the next few days or for emergency medical treatment of the applicant.’ The <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.dfa.ie/passports/"><span lang="EN-GB">website</span></a></span> also notes that any supporting documentation which has been submitted will be held securely and that if individuals need documents returned to them, they should contact the Webchat service. It has been <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/paused-passport-services-leaves-parents-without-documents-for-months-1.4502562"><span lang="EN-GB">pointed out</span></a></span> in this context that parents who were required to submit their own passports as part of applications for children, have been ‘waiting months’ for the return of their supporting documentation. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">A ‘limited <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.dfa.ie/passports/contact/"><span lang="EN-GB">Webchat</span></a></span> service’ is available in the absence of phone lines, e-mail, or in-person contact. The Webchat service personnel do not have access to information in relation to specific passport applications. Webchat ‘agents’ are <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.dfa.ie/passports/contact/"><span lang="EN-GB">available</span></a></span> between 9:30am and 4pm Mondays through Fridays. It is required that individuals make contact with the Webchat service regarding renewal or replacement of passports for the purposes of emergency travel. In the case of such a request, the Webchat agents recommend that individuals submit the passport application online and subsequently make contact via e-mail with the following address: ‘travelemergency@dfa.ie’ (Fig. 1 below). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b style="font-family: helvetica;"></b></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><b style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /></b></div><b style="font-family: helvetica;"><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR1XzGFiCHZsoMt8oIOJAhTbZBgMnHQMjHfaz5laYIxO7YdRG9eRwIiRnIuy-ax2EZiFpe8Jgcunr9he38doaB8sRGcoGpyFv08SHxPcMsaaR3g47_dVaqIcj0brPMF5FOBgj67AuKt4iW/s902/Lyons+Blog+2021+picture+1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="508" data-original-width="902" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhR1XzGFiCHZsoMt8oIOJAhTbZBgMnHQMjHfaz5laYIxO7YdRG9eRwIiRnIuy-ax2EZiFpe8Jgcunr9he38doaB8sRGcoGpyFv08SHxPcMsaaR3g47_dVaqIcj0brPMF5FOBgj67AuKt4iW/w640-h360/Lyons+Blog+2021+picture+1.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /></b><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="font-size: x-small; line-height: 20px;">Fig. 1</span></b><span style="font-family: helvetica; line-height: 20px;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">: Transcript of Correspondence Between Author and Passport Service Webchat Agent</span> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The Webchat agents note that the aforementioned e-mail account is monitored at all times, but in practice an automatic reply is issued from the emergency e-mail account outside of business hours (Fig. 2 below). The automatic reply e-mail provides a phone number which is manned at all times. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1Slu0f909VZvH2uKnQxPqOZv98ME26zv0ucLDagef7Zbtc20Ep3I9bey9ZkCLGldnTX2oFiYtJO9VRZ5Yd4LzUbZk0ta95zR4uwDsGl__P7S3rm2G3OxPSAowbvBXzcz18g-Fngwmbc2U/s902/Lyons+blog+2021+picture+2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="508" data-original-width="902" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1Slu0f909VZvH2uKnQxPqOZv98ME26zv0ucLDagef7Zbtc20Ep3I9bey9ZkCLGldnTX2oFiYtJO9VRZ5Yd4LzUbZk0ta95zR4uwDsGl__P7S3rm2G3OxPSAowbvBXzcz18g-Fngwmbc2U/w640-h360/Lyons+blog+2021+picture+2.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="line-height: 20px;">Fig. 2</span></b><span style="font-family: helvetica; line-height: 20px;">: Automatic Reply from ‘travelemergency@dfa.ie’ outside of Business Hours </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Neither the emergency e-mail address, nor the emergency phone number are provided on the passport service’s website, such that in practice individuals facing an emergency like the grave illness or death of a family member, or the need for emergency medical treatment, will only obtain access to the relevant contact details during business hours via the Webchat agents. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The narrow grounds of death or grave illness of an immediate family member, with a need for urgent travel within the next few days, or for emergency medical treatment of the applicant, are clearly more stringent than those in place for permissible travel abroad for individuals holding valid passports. If there are other grounds which fulfil the criteria for expediting, they are not outlined on the passport service’s website.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/consumer/passport-service-suspends-almost-all-operations-due-to-covid-19-1.4489923"><span lang="EN-GB">Irish Times</span></a></span>, on 20 February 2021, quoted the passport service to the effect that the following services were available: a same-day service for emergencies, a weekly urgent service for Irish citizens resident overseas requiring a passport for local immigration purposes, and in general, adult renewals for work purposes on a weekly basis where a letter from the employer was provided. Expediting passport issuance for immigration or work is nowhere mentioned on the passport service’s website. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The same article quoted the passport office as stating that while routine online passport applications did not involve face-to-face interaction with applicants, staff did need to attend the passport office to process the applications as staff do not have access to the private, personal data of applicants when working remotely. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The problems arising from this state of affairs are analysed below. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The Data Protection Defence: Fact or Fiction? <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">It is unclear why passport applications as a general rule must be halted on the basis that staff need to attend the passport office to process the applications. If it is the case that staff in the passport office do not have access to the private, personal data of applicants when working remotely, it would be useful to have an explanation by government officials as to (a) what the specific problem is with staff attending offices in-person to perform this essential service when other essential service-providers have been encouraged to return to the workplace, and (b) how the passport service differs from the likes of the NDLS, RSA, and Revenue in the context of access to personal data on a remote basis. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">According to the <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.ndls.ie/news.html"><span style="background-color: white;">NDLS</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="background-color: white;"> website, ‘[u]nder Covid-19 Level 5 Government restrictions effective from 06 January 2021 you can attend an appointment at an NDLS centre if you are an essential worker involved in the provision of essential services or essential retail outlets.’ Full licences which expired during lockdown have been automatically renewed by 13 months, but the online processing of all other licence applications is in effect, as is the processing of learner permits. The </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Learner-Drivers/The-Driving-Test/current-driving-test-application-restrictions/"><span style="background-color: white;">RSA</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="background-color: white;"> is operating in-person for the purposes of holding driving tests for essential workers.</span><span lang="EN-GB"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.revenue.ie/en/corporate/communications/covid19/index.aspx"><span lang="EN-GB">Revenue</span></a></span> is still operational (‘<span lang="EN-GB" style="background-color: white;">[w]e continue to carry out our vital role as a tax and customs administration to the greatest extent possible having regard for the safety and well-being of both our staff and taxpayers’). Indeed, there has been no delay by Revenue in processing tax liable on </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.revenue.ie/en/life-events-and-personal-circumstances/pup-tax-liability/how-pup-received-in-2021-is-taxed.aspx"><span style="background-color: white;">social welfare</span></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="background-color: white;">entitlements in the form of the Pandemic Unemployment Payment (PUP). </span><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">In another article on 20 February 2021, an <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/jennifer-o-connell-ireland-s-third-wave-struggle-is-still-targeting-the-wrong-things-1.4489711"><span lang="EN-GB">Irish Times</span></a></span> journalist commented on the ‘data protection’ justification offered by the passport office as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">‘[T]his seems more than a bit disingenuous, when Revenue staff are working away remotely with equally private and personal data, and driver’s licences are still being issued. Britain may have introduced mandatory hotel quarantine to discourage travel, but it hasn’t stopped issuing passports.’ <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">In the <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.gov.uk/apply-renew-passport"><span lang="EN-GB">UK</span></a></span>, the online processing of passports is in full effect, taking approximately three weeks for each passport to be renewed or replaced. A passport may be processed in a shorter timeframe where it is <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.gov.uk/get-a-passport-urgently"><span lang="EN-GB">urgently</span></a></span>needed. Therefore, it is possible to obtain a passport urgently in order to travel for compassionate reasons (including urgent medical treatment for the applicant or someone in the applicant’s care, or where a family member or friend is seriously ill or has died), to prove your identity, or to travel urgently for work (including for an airline or haulage company, offshore, for government or local government, in healthcare, for social services with a need to travel with children, and for the armed forces or police). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Even if the ‘data protection’ ground were defensible, it is indefensible that the general phone lines and e-mail contact services have been closed down. Moreover, even in a genuine emergency, applicants are restricted to contacting the passport office during 9:30am and 4pm, Mondays through Fridays, since the actual emergency contact information (e-mail address and phone number) are only accessible via the Webchat service and emergency e-mail account respectively. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that a deliberate strategy has been put into place to make it difficult to communicate with the office, even in the case of a genuine emergency, and ‘data protection’ simply cannot be a defence to this in its entirety. Making the emergency e-mail address and telephone number available on the website, for example, would not interfere with the personal data of any applicants. Moreover, if the passport office has told the Irish Times that passports will be issued for work or immigration purposes, why have those grounds not been advertised on the website alongside grave illness, death, or medical emergency? <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Minister of State, Colm Brophy, <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/paused-passport-services-leaves-parents-without-documents-for-months-1.4502562"><span lang="EN-GB">stated</span></a></span> in March that ‘[w]hen there is an essential reason to travel each case will be considered.’ If the grounds for processing are broader than those outlined on the website, one might imagine that staff in the passport office have guidelines regarding which applications to expedite and which to decline. If that is the case, the public have certainly not been made aware of these. On the other hand, if there are no guidelines and staff are permitted to decide on a case-by-case basis, one would have to ask what authority in law those staff have for making such fundamental decisions regarding people’s basic constitutional rights? On public accountability in the pandemic, readers may wish to see <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2020/06/public-accountability-in-pandemic-covid.html"><span lang="EN-GB">David Kenny</span></a></span><span class="MsoHyperlink" style="text-decoration: underline;">’s</span> blog post for the Observatory on the specific issue of NPHET’s <i>de facto </i>decision-making power during the pandemic. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Rule of Law Problems <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The question of cessation of passport services in this way raises serious rule of law concerns. Rule of law is a principle which is emphasised as paramount in both domestic law and international human rights law. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, for example, has <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Events/EmergencyMeasures_COVID19.pdf"><span lang="EN-GB">emphasised</span></a></span> that while the Covid-19 pandemic may require extraordinary measures, ‘[e]ven in a public emergency, these steps need to be based on the rule of law.’<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">In a <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.ihrec.ie/documents/irelands-emergency-powers-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/"><span lang="EN-GB">Report</span></a></span> launched in February 2021, authored by four members of the Covid-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory (including this author) for the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, issue is taken with the Irish government’s emergency response to the pandemic on the basis that certain actions taken offend the rule of law. The Report explains, on page 13, as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The rule of law is a core value in a liberal democracy. In essence, it requires first that those who are subject to the law can know what the law is so that they can guide their behaviour accordingly; and second, that state officials exercise their powers in accordance with the law. Laws should be published before they come into force; they should be clear and non-contradictory.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The vagueness of the concept of ‘reasonable excuse’ is criticised from a rule of law perspective at pages 75-76 of the Report (and a previous blog post by <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2020/06/leaving-home-reasonable-excuses.html"><span lang="EN-GB">Oran Doyle</span></a></span> also deals with this). Indirect enforcement of the law as a threat to the rule of law is discussed at pages 96-98 of the Report. In this context, the Report makes particular reference to the controversy which arose in July 2020 regarding the denial by the Department of Social Protection (DSP) of the PUP and other welfare benefits to those travelling abroad for holidays during the pandemic. At the time, social welfare inspectors from DSP were questioning people in Dublin airport and information was being fed back to DSP which allowed for the sanctioning of PUP recipients. The Report suggests that ‘[t]his episode was a questionable use of powers under the <i>Social Welfare Acts </i>in order to apply legal sanctions to people for breaching public health guidance’ (page 98). <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2020/07/pandemic-unemployment-payment-holidays.html"><span lang="EN-GB">Mel Cousins</span></a></span> wrote a blog for the Observatory on the PUP scandal in July 2020 (and a second one which is available <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2020/07/pandemic-unemployment-payment-pup.html"><span lang="EN-GB">here</span></a></span>). <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Oran Doyle has theorised (in a <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://soundcloud.com/tcd-covid-observatory/special-oran-doyle-on-the-observatory-ihrec-report"><span lang="EN-GB">podcast</span></a></span> for the Observatory) that during the pandemic, each State becomes more like itself. Anyone who has engaged with the DSP in pre-Covid times will know that its <i>modus operandi </i>is a constant blurring of the distinctions between law and guidance, ongoing lack of clarity regarding entitlements, and a perpetual threat of sanction (and indeed actual sanction) for reasons that are ambiguous, constantly changing, and frequently contradictory. If the Irish State treated some of the most vulnerable members of its population in this way before the pandemic, it has certainly become more like itself during the pandemic. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">In the context of passports, the State is yet again contravening basic rule of law principles by indirectly enforcing a stricter set of criteria for international travel than are laid down in the official Regulations. Rather than honouring the already stringent list of reasonable excuses for international travel in the Regulations, the State is now indirectly enforcing a much narrower set of criteria (death, grave illness, medical emergency, and possibly immigration and work, though it is far from clear whether the latter two belong on this list) to a sub-set of potential travellers, the desired outcome being to drive the overall number of travellers down as far as possible. While the objective of restricting international travel for the purposes of protecting public health is itself a worthy one, indirect enforcement of vague policies which contravene the law is unacceptable. This practice is discriminatory, contrary to the letter of the Regulations, and breaches the most fundamental rule of law principles set out in both national and international human rights law. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><i>Dr. Donna Lyons is a member of the Covid-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory and a coordinator for its Human Rights and Civil Liberties Working Group. Donna also acts as Trinity College Dublin representative to the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs Committee on Human Rights. </i><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Suggested citation: Donna Lyons, ‘Cessation of Passport Services Raises Fundamental Rule of Law Concerns’ COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory (6 April 2021) <span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52); text-align: left;">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/cessation-of-passport-services-raises.html</span></span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-29700513493629673612021-04-01T11:12:00.001+01:002021-04-01T11:12:15.867+01:00Remote justice and Covid-19<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Finn Keyes, Barrister-at-Law</span></span></p></blockquote><p> </p><p><b style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Introduction</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The onset of the pandemic has prompted a dramatic migration of civil court proceedings to online platforms, such as Pexip and TrialView. This has proven largely uncontroversial for procedural applications, but there has been more reluctance to proceed remotely with matters involving witness evidence. This reluctance arises primarily from concerns regarding constitutional fair procedures, particularly the right to cross-examine witnesses. There are concerns that virtual cross-examination is not a comparably effective mechanism to its corporeal counterpart. However, a recent High Court decision ( <i>IBRC v Browne</i> [2021] IEHC 83 ) has suggested that the balance of justice very much lies in favour of proceeding remotely with the increasing backlog of cases, such concerns notwithstanding. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Background<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">In light of the Covid-19 pandemic, the courts are now empowered by section 11 of the Civil Law and Criminal Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2020 to direct all civil matters to proceed remotely. This is subject to the qualification in section 11(4) that a court shall not make such a direction where it “would be unfair to any of the parties or otherwise be contrary to the interests of justice”. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The High Court (O’Moore J) considered section 11 and associated procedural rules in <i>IBRC v Browne.</i> The case has a very long and chequered history, having originated in October 2010 before being postponed until the conclusion of related criminal prosecutions. The trial was eventually listed for April 2020 for hearing, but did not go ahead due to the onset of the pandemic. O’Moore J made an order for a remote hearing of the six-week trial starting on 27 January 2021. Despite having previously agreed to the taking of testimony from some witnesses remotely, counsel for Mr Browne objected to the hearing of the full trial by way of the remote platform TrialView. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Counsel for Mr Browne argued that section 11 should be read, in light of constitutional fair procedures, in such a way as to restrict its application to cases not involving witness evidence. The arguments made by counsel reflect traditional objections as to the ability of counsel to effectively confront witnesses in video-link evidence (often raised in the context of vulnerable witnesses giving evidence via video-link under the Criminal Evidence Act 1992), but also arguments as to the relative inability of counsel to confer with his or her legal team in the course of a remote trial. (As an aside, this passage of the judgment contains what may be the first judicial acknowledgement of the now common practice of a trial legal team exchanging notes by way of specially created WhatsApp groups, which the Court noted is the “modern version of the note handed to counsel while they were on their feet”).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Decision of the Court<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The Court dismissed the application of Mr Browne, and directed that the trial proceed remotely. O’Moore J listed a number of reasons for doing so, which may guide courts in the future. The more significant of these are set down here:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><u>The remote hearing creates the same scenario for both parties:</u> The judge held that as the remote hearing created the same scenario both parties, no particular unfairness could be said to accrue to either party. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><u>The judge was satisfied that the TrialView platform “is one which enables me to assess the evidence”:</u>O’Moore J stated that in his own experience, and that of his judicial colleagues, TrialView was “perfectly adequate” to permit a judge to assess the testimony of witnesses.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><u>Premature to rule on fairness:</u> The Court noted that, if at any stage unfairness arose during the course of the trial, an application could be made to the Court for the remainder to be heard corporeally. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm 0cm 0cm 36pt; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><u>Uncertainty as to when in-person hearing will be possible:</u><b> </b>O’Moore J further noted that he was bearing in mind in exercising his discretion in this regard the extraordinary delay in the proceedings, and the uncertainty as to when corporeal hearing will become possible again. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Analysis<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">While the direction of a remote hearing may well have been appropriate on the facts of the case, there are some elements of the Court’s analysis that might prove problematic if applied more broadly. In particular, O’Moore J appears to conclude that, as he is adequately enabled to assess the witness through the online platform, no unfairness arises. This conclusion is perhaps reflective of the more activist/inquisitorial role of a judge sitting in the Commercial Court (where the case was heard), which departs somewhat from the traditional adversarial model. However, the focus on whether the judge is in the best place to assess the evidence perhaps does not give adequate consideration as to whether counsel feels himself or herself to be inhibited in cross-examination. In an adversarial system, the more important question is whether counsel is adequately able to challenge the evidence of the witness. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">A further difficulty, which is acknowledged but not fully addressed by the Court, is the constitutional requirement that justice be done in public. It is an often overlooked aspect of remote hearings that one needs a special code to access the virtual courtroom. These codes are made available to barristers and solicitors but are not made available to members of the public. This is obviously very different from the ordinary course whereby individuals can walk into any courtroom in the country and observe proceedings, subject to certain limited exceptions. However, the Court concluded that “[w]hile it is the case that members of the public cannot attend, the trial is nonetheless being conducted in the open and the interests of the public can be met by the reporting of the hearing by members of the press.” While the exclusion of the press would certainly further imperil the constitutionality of the hearing, the mere presence of the press does not necessarily render the proceedings “in public” within the meaning of the Constitution. In fact, many <i>in camera</i> hearings expressly allow for the attendance of “bona fide representatives of the press” (eg. <span lang="EN-GB"><a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2001/act/24/section/94/enacted/en/html"><span lang="EN-GB">Section 94 of the Children Act 2001</span></a></span>).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">The courts have also often referred to the right of members of the public to attend out of idle curiosity as equally protected. As Walsh J said in <i>Re R Ltd </i>[1989] IR 126, 134 “[t]he actual presence of the public is never necessary, but the administration of justice in public does require that the doors of the courts must be open so that members of the general public may come and see for themselves that justice is done.” While the courts do have an inherent power to order proceedings to take place otherwise than in public (<i>Gilchrist v Sunday Newspapers</i> [2017] 2 IR 284), it is submitted that a court should acknowledge that this is the effect of its order. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Of course, the courts cannot grind to a halt because of the pandemic; the adaption to the online format is a commendable example of the courts responding to the realities of the ongoing crisis (a flexibility that may be contrasted with the refusal of the Oireachtas to adopt any remote proceedings). But nor should the courts persist in the attitude that nothing has changed: it is unconvincing to deny that online proceedings are as ‘public’ as those in person.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Finn Keyes is a Barrister-at-Law. He holds degrees from Trinity College, Dublin, University College, London and the Honorable Society of Kings Inns.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Suggested citation: Finn Keyes, ‘Remote justice and Covid-19’ COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Blog (1 April 2021) <o:p></o:p><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52);">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/04/remote-justice-and-covid-19.html</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-23799953907581403922021-03-25T06:29:00.000+00:002021-03-25T06:29:08.268+00:00No Jab, No Job? Vaccine Requirements and Anti-Discrimination Law <blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; text-align: justify;">Mark Bell, Trinity College Dublin</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">As the roll-out of vaccines becomes more widespread, there is a growing debate on whether, and to what extent, employers may impose requirements on their employees to be vaccinated against Covid-19. In the media, this has been given the shorthand of </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56113366"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">‘no jab, no job’</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> policies, and there have been some </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/business-55654229"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">reports</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> of employers expressing their intent to adopt such measures, especially in the </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.carehomeprofessional.com/care-uk-introduces-no-jab-no-job-policy/"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">care home sector</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">. In response, </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://theconversation.com/no-jab-no-job-why-your-employer-cant-sack-you-for-not-taking-the-covid-vaccine-in-uk-154403"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">commentary</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> has identified a range of </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.internationalemploymentlawyer.com/news/vaccinating-europe-balancing-employer-and-worker-rights"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">legal issues</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> that may constrain employers from introducing such measures. These include fundamental rights, such as privacy and rights to make personal choices relating to medical treatment. One issue that arises frequently in such discussions is whether a duty to vaccinate breaches anti-discrimination law. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Protected Grounds<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">A starting point for exploring this issue is to identify which of the protected characteristics found within anti-discrimination law may be engaged by a vaccine obligation. In Ireland, the </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/RevisedActs/WithAnnotations/HTML/EN_ACT_1998_0021.htm"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Employment Equality Acts</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> (EEA) 1998-2015 prohibit discrimination on nine grounds: gender, civil status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race, Traveller community. Being treated differently because of a personal objection to any or certain vaccines is not a protected ground; it is only where the reason for not getting vaccinated is connected to one of the protected grounds that the Act is engaged. Notably, section 6(2)(e) defines the religion ground as ‘religious belief’, or not having such a belief. A deep-seated objection to vaccines, which is not rooted in any religious belief, will not fall within the category of beliefs protected by the EEA. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Indirect Discrimination<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">If a workplace vaccination policy applies to all employees, or all employees performing a particular type of work, then it is unlikely to constitute direct discrimination. It should be noted that section 6(2A) EEA prohibits less favourable treatment ‘related to’ pregnancy. Currently, there are restrictions on when Covid vaccines may be taken during </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www2.hse.ie/screening-and-vaccinations/covid-19-vaccine/covid-19-vaccine-and-pregnancy.html"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">pregnancy</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">; the HSE recommends that vaccination occurs after 14 weeks of pregnancy and before the end of 33 weeks. If an employee is temporarily unable to comply with a vaccine requirement for a reason related to pregnancy, then it would very likely constitute unlawful discrimination if she was treated less favourably as a result. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Although direct discrimination is unlikely to arise, there are circumstances where a vaccine obligation is potentially in breach of the prohibition of indirect discrimination. This exists where an apparently neutral provision puts persons with a particular characteristic (eg religious belief) at a particular disadvantage, unless the provision is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary (s.22 and s.31 EEA).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Obviously, at the present time, vaccines are not generally available to the working age population and they are being primarily distributed by age categories. There will be a transitional period when, for example, persons over 55 have access to the vaccine, but those in younger age cohorts generally do not. Clearly, at that point in time, to advertise a job as only open to those who have already been vaccinated would place persons under the age of 55 at a particular disadvantage. That situation is, however, temporary, so it is more important to focus on what happens when we have reached the point where any employee could have the vaccine if they chose to do so. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">The first scenario to consider is those employees who have not received the vaccine due to medical advice. Currently, persons who have had a </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www2.hse.ie/screening-and-vaccinations/covid-19-vaccine/getting-covid-19-vaccine.html"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">severe allergic reaction</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> to any of the ingredients in the vaccine are advised not to get a Covid vaccine. It is possible that a person falling into this category will satisfy the definition of disability within s.2(1) EEA, so a vaccine obligation could be indirectly discriminatory on grounds of disability unless the employer can justify this requirement. In addition, there is a duty on employers to provide reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities (s. 16 EEA). An employer would have to explore whether appropriate measures could be taken in this situation to allow the person to continue in employment, such as <a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/01/baby-youre-boss-at-home-giving.html">working from home</a>. In relation to disability discrimination, it is important also to note that the definition of disability extends to persons with psychosocial impairments, such as anxiety disorders or phobias. There may be situations where a person’s reason for not getting vaccinated is related to a psychosocial impairment, which may trigger the application of the disability provisions of the EEA. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; text-indent: 36pt;">Another scenario that may arise relates to employees who decline to get vaccinated due to their </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="text-indent: 36pt;"><a href="https://theconversation.com/can-an-employee-object-to-mandatory-covid-19-vaccines-on-religious-grounds-153058"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">religious beliefs</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; text-indent: 36pt;">. Many faith communities are supportive of the vaccination programme, so it appears that it will be less common for individuals to refuse vaccination on religious grounds (at least in Ireland). Nevertheless, it is reasonable to anticipate that there may be individuals who explain their objection to vaccination on the basis of religious belief. For example, in the USA, some have expressed religious objections to the </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="text-indent: 36pt;"><a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n666.full"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Johnson and Johnson</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; text-indent: 36pt;"> vaccine. With respect to establishing indirect discrimination, individuals whose religious practices are less common may find it difficult to demonstrate that that a group of persons, sharing their characteristic, is placed at a particular disadvantage. If particular disadvantage to persons sharing a particular religious belief can be established, then it remains open to the employer to seek to justify the requirement. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Justifying a duty to vaccinate<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">This brief discussion indicates that anti-discrimination law is not necessarily or automatically incompatible with an employer imposing a duty on existing or future employees to take a Covid vaccine. Yet it is conceivable that circumstances arise where an objection on the part of an individual engages anti-discrimination law. Even then, there is flexibility within the law on indirect discrimination for an employer to demonstrate that their policy is objectively justified. This will require the employer to identify the aim that the policy is pursuing and to demonstrate that a mandatory vaccination requirement is both appropriate and necessary as a means of pursuing that aim. Necessity is typically read by courts as implying proportionality. Consequently, an employer could be required to show that the requirement was necessary for the specific role that the employee is performing and that no less restrictive measure would be sufficient. With this in mind, employers contemplating such policies would be well-advised to consider carefully their rationale and whether they need to be extended to all employees or only certain roles. Thorough analysis of such measures will also need to address the wider range of legal issues that have not been discussed in this blogpost, including employees’ rights under the </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2019/0423/1045277-could-the-state-introduce-compulsory-vaccination-laws/"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Constitution</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> or the </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/do-compulsory-vaccinations-against-covid-19-violate-human-rights/"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">European Convention on Human Rights</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Mark Bell is Regius Professor of Laws, School of Law, Trinity College Dublin. </span></i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Suggested citation: Mark Bell, ‘No Jab, No Job? Vaccine Requirements and Anti-Discrimination Law’ (25 March 2021) <o:p></o:p></span><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; text-align: left;">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/03/no-jab-no-job-vaccine-requirements-and.html</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-9609631769415625272021-03-23T07:48:00.000+00:002021-03-23T07:48:48.792+00:00The Intellectual Property Framework of the COVID-19 Vaccine Race<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; text-align: justify;">Ana Santos Rutschman, Saint Louis University</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">The COVID-19 pandemic drew renewed attention to the importance of vaccines for pandemic preparedness. While undeniably ground-breaking on multiple levels, the quick development and authorization of new vaccines also constitutes a reminder that the global vaccine innovation ecosystem is often dependent on expedited collaborations between players with complementary, yet distinct, agendas. In my work </span><span lang="EN-GB"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3656929">studying</a> </span></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">vaccine races, I have been focusing on the role of intellectual property – especially patents – in research and development (R&D) of new vaccines needed to help prevent or curb the spread of emerging pathogens.<span style="background-color: yellow; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">The first question with legal and policy salience relates to rights over emerging technologies – which in the case of vaccines are also technologies likely to be welfare-enhancing. In the context of the COVID-19 vaccine race, we have observed the commercialization of a new type of vaccines (</span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">mRNA vaccines</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">, like the ones made by </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.pfizer.com/news/hot-topics/the_facts_about_pfizer_and_biontech_s_covid_19_vaccine"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Pfizer/BioNTech</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> and </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.modernatx.com/pipeline/therapeutic-areas/mrna-therapeutic-areas-infectious-diseases"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Moderna</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">) alongside the development of vaccines based on approaches that have been in use for decades (like the vaccines made by </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/sinopharm-covid-19-vaccine.html"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Sinopharm</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> and </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.novavax.com/covid-19-coronavirus-vaccine-candidate-updates"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Novavax</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">). Irrespective of the type of vaccine technology, there is almost certainly one or more layers of intellectual property rights giving patent holders significant control over the commercialization of these vaccines – and, indirectly, over the allocation of goods that for a significant part of the pandemic are likely to be scarce.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">The intellectual property landscape in itself is bound to be opaque for the duration of the pandemic. Several patent offices across the world publish patent applications 18 months after the filing (or earliest priority date). During COVID-19, some patent offices shared information rather quickly – for instance, the Chinese patent office published the </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccine-cansino/china-grants-countrys-first-covid-19-vaccine-patent-to-cansino-state-media-idUSKCN25D09V"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">first known application</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> for a COVID-19 vaccine-related patent in June 2020, and </span><span lang="EN-GB"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-vaccine-cansino/china-grants-countrys-first-covid-19-vaccine-patent-to-cansino-state-media-idUSKCN25D09V">granted</a> </span></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">the patent the following August. But this is not the norm, and it causes players in this field to operate against a backdrop of legal uncertainty – not to mention the fact that it opens the door to potential litigation for years to come.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Vaccines developed through reliance on new technology raise additional intellectual property “flags.” In the case of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, this </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">new technology</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> is not only very likely to be of use for the future development of vaccines targeting other pathogens, but also for other types of biomedical products, such as </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.statnews.com/2021/01/07/with-success-in-vaccines-scientists-try-to-turn-mrna-against-autoimmune-diseases/"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">treatments for autoimmune diseases</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">. In this sense, mRNA techniques are widely expected to function as platform technologies, which enable diverse uses by follow-on researchers. Intellectual property decisions being made now are thus likely to affect research on – and ultimately the production and commercialization of – health goods well beyond the realm of vaccines.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">This veil of uncertainty is important because it adds to other problems posed by the commodification of health goods like vaccines. Protecting the development of vaccine technology through intellectual property rights is one of the ultimate embodiments of this commodification ethos: it drives companies to invest in vaccine R&D according to calculations that are largely driven by risk- and revenue-related considerations, rather than public health preparedness imperatives. And while the public sector plays a considerable role in both funding and performing vaccine research, we have historically always needed private-sector players to conduct late-stage and manufacture vaccines. Balancing the need to keep these commercially driven players interested in vaccine R&D with extra-commercial considerations is tricky – but necessary.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">I do not mean to suggest that there should be no patents over these vaccines, or components thereof. First, given the present articulation of international laws (TRIPS </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04c_e.htm"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">article 27</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">) with </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/members/profile/IE"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">domestic</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> or regional legal regimes, carving out a patent-free space for vaccines – even if it were just for pandemic vaccines – violates international intellectual property and country-level laws. Changing the current legal regime would require a long and politically fraught quasi-global negotiating process – which is not to say that the international community should not reassess whether patents are really doing their utilitarian, innovation-enhancing job in this area; but we certainty should be able to move towards a more balanced legal and innovation regime through more timely interventions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">The COVID-19 pandemic has proved a fertile ground for considering what some of these interventions might be. First, Costa Rica and a few other countries </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.keionline.org/wp-content/uploads/President-MoH-Costa-Rica-Dr-Tedros-WHO24March2020.pdf"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">prompted</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> the World Health Organization to create a patent pool for the cross-licensure of patent-protected health technologies. In response, the </span><span lang="EN-GB"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/events/detail/2021/02/16/default-calendar/who-covid-19-technology-access-pool-(c-tap)-civil-society-consultation">COVID-19 Technology Pool</a> </span></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">was launched in May 2020. Second, a </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-020-0682-1"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">group</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> of law professors and lawyers launched the </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://opencovidpledge.org/"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Open COVID Pledge</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">, a structure that allows patent owners to adopt binding licenses promising not to enforce their patents during the pandemic – thereby lessening both the fenced-in nature of patented technologies and the uncertainty as to the legal status of a particular technology. These developments highlight how it is possible to infuse proprietary frameworks – our patent-centric health innovation system – with less commercially driven motivations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">The drawbacks of both patent pools and pledges relate to the fact that they depend almost entirely on voluntary gestures of the patent holders. Additionally, most of the medical technologies made available under pool and pledge models during the COVID-19 pandemic were not related to vaccines. This once again points to how poorly vaccines fare under the current dynamics of vaccine R&D. We </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3040974"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">do not invest nearly enough</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> in vaccine R&D targeting emerging pathogens before an outbreak occurs – but should one occur, we tend to subject vaccine development to the rules that apply to the development of other types of goods, even if these goods obey very different economic models or are of lesser importance from a public health perspective.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">It is possible to build on the success of mechanisms that mitigate the siloed nature of intellectual property in areas other than vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic – and hopefully to import some measure of that success to the field of vaccines. In the post-outbreak, as we reassess preparedness mechanisms, the </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3546368"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">intellectual property of vaccines</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> should at a minimum be one of the topics of discussion. And perhaps policymakers should consider the formation of vaccine-specific patent pools before another large outbreak occurs. Likewise, they may wish to put proposals on the table to nudge companies to pledge or pre-license some of their vaccine technology – perhaps more established forms of technology – in advance of an outbreak, rather than engaging in these efforts during pandemics and epidemics. I </span><span lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3040974"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">proposed</span></a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> a similar vaccine-specific model in the aftermath of the Ebola and Zika outbreaks a few years ago. In the meantime, the COVID-19 vaccine race is poised to have a long intellectual property arm – one that should be discussed more often outside academia and activism arenas, as it has a substantial impact on the availability, types and costs of health goods we will need to prepare for, and respond to, future pandemics and epidemics.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Ana Santos Rutschman is an assisnt professor at the Center for Health Law Studies, Saint Louis University School of Law & Institute for Vaccine Science and Policy, Saint Louis University.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Suggested citation: Ana Santos Rutschman, ‘The Intellectual Property Framework of the COVID-19 Vaccine Race’ COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory (23 March 2021) </span><span face="Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52); text-align: left;">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-intellectual-property-framework-of.html</span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-62516456508152998222021-03-19T10:12:00.000+00:002021-03-19T10:12:56.607+00:00 Religious Freedom and Pandemic Restrictions<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Eoin Daly, NUI Galway</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">There has been some confusion lately about the application of pandemic restrictions to religious worship. </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/03/religious-services-and-rule-of-law.html">Oran Doyle has argued</a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> that while police have apparently threatened ‘at least one priest’ with prosecution, religious services are in fact not prohibited by the current regulations. This, as he has outlined, contrasts with the position that applied in the spring during the first ‘lockdown’. Meanwhile, the Catholic hierarchy have recently urged a ‘</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/taoiseach-surprised-by-catholic-bishops-plea-on-covid-rules-1.4505654">restoration of public worship’</a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">. While Oran Doyle has outlined the Rule of Law implications around the confusion of advisory guidelines with law, my purpose in this post is to consider, at a more abstract level, what the constitutional position is in Ireland regarding legal restrictions (hypothetical or otherwise) on religious worship.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">While this question would turn to a large extent on general principles of proportionality, my focus here is on the relative peculiarity of religious freedom as a constitutional right, both in Irish case law and more generally.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">American lessons<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">In short, most plausible ‘tests’ for violation of religious freedom quickly run into conceptual difficulty and contradiction. This is most vividly illustrated by the history of religious-freedom jurisprudence in the United States. Until the 1990s, the standard test for applying the first-amendment ‘free exercise’ clause focused on the</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span><i style="font-family: Helvetica;">effect </i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">state actions had on religious freedom in practice – and particularly the centrality or importance of the religious practices or beliefs they affected. This raised intractable problems involving courts assessing, or somehow weighting the importance of the practices or beliefs affected by general legislative restrictions that were usually not targeted at religion as such. Take, hypothetically, the example of a general prohibition on face coverings, that, let us imagine, was not enacted with religion in mind, and predated any political controversy about religious face coverings. Supposing we were to decide that a violation of religious freedom was based on the effects of a measure, rather than its object or aim. But how is that effect appraised? It is obviously unsustainable to grant an automatic expectation of exemption, for religiously-motivated conduct, from every general prohibition of a specified type of conduct. On the other hand, however, using the</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span><i style="font-family: Helvetica;">effect </i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">of a measure, as a threshold or test for violation, raises the difficult prospect of courts making religiously controversial judgments about the relative weight or importance of various religious practices.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Partly in response to such conceptual difficulties, the US Supreme Court effected an about-turn in its first-amendment religious freedom jurisprudence in the 1990s. In the landmark case of </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep494/usrep494872/usrep494872.pdf">Employment Division v Smith (1990</a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">), it held that no violation of ‘free exercise’ arises from legislative measures that are religiously ‘neutral’ and of ‘general applicability’ – regardless of their effects on religious practice. While this got around some of the conceptual difficulties of the test it had displaced, it caused controversy because of the seemingly precarious position in which it apparently placed minority religious practices in particular. Since it left the question of religious exemptions at the discretion of political authorities, it left open the prospect that minority religious practices, in particular, might be inadvertently or carelessly restricted by generally applicable legislative prohibitions. In any event, <i>Smith </i>shifted the focus of religious-freedom jurisprudence to a broad question of religious neutrality, with the Court often taking a broad approach in practice to considering whether impugned restrictions were ‘neutral’ in the broad sense.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Ireland: constitutional ambiguity<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Irish constitutional jurisprudence has not escaped these conceptual difficulties, although they have not been confronted as explicitly or as vividly as in the United States. While we have relatively little case law relating to religious freedom,</span> <span style="font-family: Helvetica;">I have suggested in a </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26447997.pdf">previous article</a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> that our jurisprudence oscillates between two competing ‘grammars’ of religious freedom. On the one hand, there is no unifying constitutional ‘principle’ to make sense of the religious-freedom provisions. Indeed, the text of the Constitution itself is flexible enough to accommodate quite diverse conceptualisations of the public status of religion. It can be read, on the one hand, as embracing religion – or perhaps a preferred version of it – as an integral aspect of the common good, to be protected and promoted by the State as such (the ‘communitarian’ reading). Alternatively, the Constitution can be read, in a more ‘liberal’ sense, as placing religion in the “private” sphere, as being largely a question of individual choice. A good deal of revisionist scholarship in recent years and decades has emphasised the relatively liberal and pluralist tenor of the constitutional provisions on religion, compared with the public perception of a Catholic or even theocratic Constitution. Still, however, one could hardly say that it straightforwardly embraces a liberal model of state neutrality towards religion. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">This conceptual confusion is most clearly expressed in the case law concerning religious education, where despite earlier judicial affirmations as to the centrality of Christianity and of religious identity in the constitutional order, the Supreme Court in more recent decades has reconceptualised state support for religious education as being justified merely in terms of facilitating parental ‘choice’, defined in religiously neutral terms. And in the wider discourse on religious schooling, religion has often been depicted as something of a parent-consumer ‘choice’ rather than as a constitutive identity warranting specific constitutional recognition. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Yet, as late as 2009, MacMenamin J in <i><a href="http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2009/H573.html">McNally v Ireland</a> </i>[</span><span lang="PT-BR" style="font-family: Helvetica;">2009] IEHC 573 </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">described the Constitution as having “a monotheistic Christian ethos”, in upholding legislative regulation of the sale of ‘authentic’ Mass cards. He observed that whereas “in United States jurisprudence there is a wall of separation … under the Constitution of Ireland there is a constitutional ‘domain’ of religious recognition”. This reading positions the Irish Constitution close to the </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">spirit of Justice Scalia’s dissent against a judgment prohibiting public-school prayer where he criticised the Court’s (then) liberal majority for understanding religious practice as “some purely personal avocation”<span class="MsoFootnoteReference" style="vertical-align: super;"> </span>(<i>Lee v Weisman</i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> 505 US 577, 645 (1992)).</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Case law<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">This ambiguity of principle is reflected in the difficult question of whether religious freedom warrants exemption from generally applicable legislative restrictions that affect, but are not targeted at religious practice as such. In</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span><i style="font-family: Helvetica;">Quinn’s Supermarket v Attorney General </i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">[1972] IR 1, the Supreme Court held, based on a strict reading of the prohibition on religious “discrimination”, that religious exemptions from legislative prohibitions were unconstitutional as a form of discrimination, whether they are benign or otherwise. However, it also ruled that where religious exemptions are</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span><i style="font-family: Helvetica;">necessary </i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">to religious freedom, they are not only constitutionally permissible but constitutionally required, at least to the extent that such exemption is in fact necessary to accommodate the religious practice in question.</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">The implication of <i>Quinn’s Supermarket </i>was, in theory, to eliminate any political discretion regarding religious exemptions. They are either constitutionally prohibited, or constitutionally required, depending on their necessity. One of the problems thrown up by this approach was the question of defining such necessity, both in terms of appraising the impact of legislative restrictions on religious practice, and the question of weighing this impact against countervailing public policy considerations.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Further uncertainty was added by a second landmark case on religious freedom, <i>Murphy v IRTC </i>[1999] 1 IR 12, which concerned the prohibition of a Christian evangelical radio advertisement on private commercial radio.<i> </i>Interestingly, the impugned legislative measure – a prohibition on TV and radio advertisements aimed at ‘religious … ends’ – was not a generally applicable prohibition but one targeted at religious activity specifically. However, what seemed most decisive in the Supreme Court’s upholding of the measure was what it perceived as its marginal impact on religious practice. Although ‘profession’ of religious beliefs is specifically protected by Article 44.2, the Court was swayed by the fact that the applicant would have access to other avenues for expressing his beliefs. The implicit underlying assumption – arguably a problematic one – is that evangelising on the airwaves is not essential to religious practice, and so receives little or no constitutional protection. The justifications which the Court accepted as outweighing the religious claim – in particular, the rather intangible concern for ‘divisiveness’ – seemed quite vague and abstract.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Application to pandemic restrictions<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">In terms of pandemic restrictions on religious practice – hypothetical or otherwise – there are a few tentative conclusions we can glean from the limited case law. In contrast with the U.S. case law, Irish courts have few reservations about appraising the significance of legislative restrictions for religious practice; in fact, this seems more decisive than the neutrality or general applicability of the restrictions themselves. It seems safe to say that a prohibition having the effect of preventing congregation for the purpose of religious service or worship would be accepted as affecting religious practice in a deep and significant way. What this suggests, I think, is that the constitutional question would likely be addressed with reference to generic principles of proportionality, but with a relatively intense or strict standard of review. It seems safe to say that a Court would not accept the relatively intangible justifications proffered in</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span><i style="font-family: Helvetica;">Murphy </i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">as satisfying a proportionality standard in relation to a closure of places of worship. Needless to say, more compelling and concrete justifications are available in this unique situation.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Finally, the recent case law of the United States Supreme Court is of relatively little use in guiding the equivalent question in Ireland. The Court </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1044_pok0.pdf">narrowly upheld</a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> restrictions on religious worship early in the pandemic last spring, but narrowly ruled in the opposite direction </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf">in the autumn</a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> and </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a136_bq7c.pdf">again, in February</a></span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">, following the successful confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett. However, these cases were decided based primarily on the argument as to whether the relevant restrictions on religious worship were ‘discriminatory’, in the broad sense, when compared with restrictions even on differently positioned secular businesses such as shops, liquor stores, etc. For the reasons I have outlined, the constitutional question in Ireland would likely be decided based on quite different parameters. While a concurrent challenge based on religious ‘discrimination’ in Article 44.2 is possible, it seems unlikely to succeed given the circumstances. Rather, the argument is more likely to be one for particular treatment of ‘exemption’ for religious worship.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Eoin Daly is a lecturer in NUI Galway and author of </span></i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Religion, Law and the Irish State <i>(Clarus, 2012)</i><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Suggested citation: Eoin Daly, ‘Religious Freedom and Pandemic Restrictions’ COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Blog (19 March 2021) <o:p></o:p></span><span face="Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52); text-align: left;">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/03/religious-freedom-and-pandemic.html</span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-82107783511769412452021-03-18T07:54:00.004+00:002021-03-30T14:43:58.289+01:00Conspicuous by its Absence: Explaining Ireland’s Minimal State Aid Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic <blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Christopher McMahon, Trinity College Dublin </span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span>It was recently reported that among EU Member States </span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-ranks-last-in-eu-for-pandemic-state-aid-to-companies-1.4505678"><span>Ireland has spent the least</span></a><span> on pandemic-related State aid in the past year in proportion to its GDP. Ireland has spent €0.93 billion in State aid to businesses which amounts to 0.26% of GDP. The contrast with the countries at the other end of the European Commission’s State Aid Scoreboard is stark. France, which spent the most in absolute terms, granted €155.36 billion in aid amounting to 6.4% of GDP. Spain, which spent the most as a proportion of its GDP, granted €90.85 billion or 7.3% of GDP. Further, while there have been only </span><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/what_is_new/covid_19.html"><span>8 Commission decisions</span></a><span> on different measures implemented by Ireland relating to the pandemic, 38 such decisions have been taken for Denmark, 31 for Italy and 22 for France. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span>While Ireland is not a complete outlier, with </span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/ireland-ranks-last-in-eu-for-pandemic-state-aid-to-companies-1.4505678"><span>8 other Member States</span></a><span> granting less than 1% of GDP, the headline figures give the impression that Ireland is either very fiscally conservative compared to its neighbours or very unwilling to use aid to deal with the pandemic, or both. This invites consideration of the reasons why Ireland sits at the bottom of this table despite the well-publicised and unprecedented income supports that have already been put in place in this jurisdiction.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b><span>The EU State aid regime </span></b><span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;">First, it is worth taking a moment to consider what State aid is and how it is regulated in the EU. Articles 107-109 TFEU are designed to prevent Member States from handing out public money to private businesses. Article 107 TFEU sets out a general prohibition on State aid. State aid is defined loosely in the European Treaties and has been interpreted by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union to mean any measure that meets four conditions. The first is that it must be granted by the State or through State resources. Second, it must confer an advantage on an undertaking. Third, it must be selective in that it is targeted towards a relatively narrow group of undertakings rather than being a general measure applying to all undertakings in a comparable legal and factual situation. Fourth, it must have the potential to distort competition in the internal market and affect trade between Member States. All new aid must be notified to the Commission before it is implemented so that it can be reviewed for its compatibility with the internal market. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b><span>Pandemic response of the European Commission</span></b><span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span>While Article 107(3) sets out general grounds on which the aid can be held to be compatible, the Commission has a lot of discretion in this area and frequently adopts guidelines on different types of aid. One such set of guidelines is the </span><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/what_is_new/TF_informal_consolidated_version_as_amended_28_january_2021_en.pdf"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Temporary Framework</span></a><span style="line-height: 24px;"> which was adopted in March 2020 to allow Member States to grant more aid to respond to the pandemic. This has been amended on five occasions since then and it has been extended to aid measures granted no later than 31 December 2021. These rules are relatively permissive and allow aid for temporary income supports for businesses, the purchase of equipment to reduce infection risk and research into COVID-19. These rules, combined with the extremely low cost of borrowing for EU Member States throughout the pandemic, would appear to make the prospect of granting aid considerably more attractive. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; line-height: 24px;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b><span>Ireland’s State aid response to the pandemic </span></b><span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">However, </span><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/what_is_new/covid_19.html"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Ireland has not implemented</span></a><span style="line-height: 24px;"> very much aid. At the start of the pandemic, the Irish government notified a scheme of repayable advances to companies to adapt to COVID-19 restrictions. This was followed by various schemes of direct grants to restart businesses in the summer of 2020. Grants were also provided for research into COVID-19 and for investment into upscaling production of medicines and medical equipment to treat the disease. Indeed, the </span><a href="https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/pharma-sector-plays-down-prospect-of-covid-19-vaccine-production-in-the-state-1.4506835"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Irish government offered</span></a><span style="line-height: 24px;"> aid to pharmaceutical companies with manufacturing plants in Ireland to produce vaccines in Ireland but this was refused on the basis production facilities in Ireland were at capacity producing other medications. From August 2020 onwards, the aid measures were more targeted and were granted to businesses in the hospitality, entertainment and tourism sectors. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; line-height: 24px;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b><span>Broad measures are not State aid</span></b><span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; line-height: 24px;">Before jumping to conclusions about the reluctance of the Irish government to spend money to support the ailing economy, it is important to note that not every State intervention will count as aid. It will be recalled that the State aid rules only apply to aid measures that are granted to undertakings rather than to citizens. This means that social welfare payments to citizens in the form of the Pandemic Unemployment Payment do not come within these rules. Further, it will be recalled that the prohibition on aid only applies to measures that are targeted towards specific groups of undertakings rather than general economic policy measures. This means that very general schemes, such as the Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme and the Employment Wage Subsidy Scheme that replaced it, will not come within the general prohibition because they are offered to undertakings in general, subject to criteria relating to the impact of COVID-19 on their businesses. As the restrictions on economic and social activity arising from the pandemic begin to subside, these support measures may become more targeted to specific industries and more aid notifications may be required. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; line-height: 24px;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><b><span>Irish economy and aversion to aid</span></b><span><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">However, one must look further to find reasons why Ireland differs from other Member States in this respect. One reason might be that calculating aid as a proportion of GDP is problematic for Ireland. There are </span><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304393220300933"><span style="line-height: 24px;">concerns about the accuracy</span></a><span style="line-height: 24px;"> of this measure for Ireland and its tendency to overestimate the size of the domestic economy due to the large presence of multinational companies in the State. This means that the proportion of the income the Irish government really has available to it may be underestimated by this measure. Another might be that the Irish economy has not been the worst affected by the pandemic, with its reliance on knowledge economy workers as well as pharmaceutical and technology manufacturing industries. Indeed, Ireland was the only EU country to enjoy a </span><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/economy-finance/ip144_en_1.pdf"><span style="line-height: 24px;">positive GDP growth rate</span></a><span style="line-height: 24px;"> in 2020. This may mean that less extensive supports are needed compared with other countries.<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; line-height: 24px;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Despite these mitigating factors, it seems as though Ireland has at least something of an aversion towards State aid. Notwithstanding the continuing dispute over what an allegedly very large grant of aid to Apple through the tax system arising from a </span><a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dec/2017/1283/oj"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Commission decision</span></a><span style="line-height: 24px;"> in 2016 which has since been </span><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=228621&doclang=en"><span style="line-height: 24px;">overturned</span></a><span style="line-height: 24px;"> and remains the subject of a further appeal, the reluctance of the government to resort to such measures in the pandemic is not inconsistent with policy over the last number of years. Excluding aid related to the financial crisis, Ireland has consistently been among the Member States granting the lowest amounts of State aid in the past few years, with the amount of aid in absolute terms granted by the State </span><a href="https://www.algoodbody.com/images/uploads/services/EU-Competition/State_Aid_in_Ireland_2019.pdf"><span style="line-height: 24px;">declining</span></a><span style="line-height: 24px;"> by almost two thirds between 2010 and 2017. This may simply be a policy choice on the part of the Irish government and the model of capitalism it has chosen to adopt. It has been suggested that strict application of the State aid rules has different effects on </span><a href="https://academic.oup.com/ser/article/8/2/211/1632176"><span style="line-height: 24px;">different models of capitalism</span></a><span style="line-height: 24px;">, posing particular problems for more coordinated economies such as that of Germany. Ireland organises its economy quite differently. Outside the banking sector, Ireland does not have the same level of public ownership of industry that is seen in other Member States. A clear example of this can be seen in the decisions of other Member States to grant aid to national airlines and the Irish airline Ryanair’s unsuccessful attempt to challenge the approval of such aid from </span><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=237881&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5395883"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Sweden</span></a><span style="line-height: 24px;"> and </span><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=237882&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=5396115"><span style="line-height: 24px;">France</span></a><span style="line-height: 24px;"> as unlawful. That being said, Ireland has paid </span><a href="https://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/scoreboard/index_en.html"><span style="line-height: 24px;">lower levels of aid</span></a><span style="line-height: 24px;"> as a proportion of GDP than the UK since 2014, which might also be regarded as diverging from continental norms. It may be that Ireland has a particular aversion to the administration costs and review mechanisms that often come with notifying aid and is more willing to design measures so that they avoid the prohibition altogether. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; line-height: 24px;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span style="line-height: 24px;">As a final point, it is interesting that despite this apparent preference for avoiding the State aid rules and the notification process altogether, the Irish government has not frequently cited the State aid rules as a reason for refusing to embark on a particular policy. This contrasts with its apparent willingness to cite the Constitution as obstacles to implementing a range of different policies, a practice which has been criticised in an earlier post on this blog by </span><a href="http://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2020/06/covid-19s-silver-lining-housing.html"><span style="line-height: 24px;">Rachael Walsh</span></a><span style="line-height: 24px;"> and elsewhere by </span><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3486953"><span style="line-height: 24px;">David Kenny and Conor Casey</span></a><span style="line-height: 24px;">. Given the potential of the State aid rules to touch on a very wide range of policies, they could easily become an alternative legal scapegoat. This may be particularly likely as more targeted supports replace the general schemes from the pandemic and the government’s need for support from the EU institutions in dealing with Brexit becomes less acute. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;">Christopher McMahon is a PhD candidate at Trinity College Dublin. He holds degrees from Trinity College Dublin and the University of Oxford and was called to the Bar of Ireland in 2020.<o:p></o:p></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><i><span style="font-family: helvetica;"> </span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: helvetica;"><span>Suggested citation: Christopher McMahon, ‘Conspicuous by its Absence: Explaining Ireland’s Minimal State Aid Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic’ (6 April 2021) <o:p></o:p></span><span face="Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52); text-align: left;">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/03/conspicuous-by-its-absence-explaining.html </span></span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-7482255115325888272021-03-17T07:35:00.001+00:002021-03-18T05:44:25.935+00:00 Facemasks in Prison During a Pandemic – How to Balance Safety, Security and Rights?<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">Sophie van der Valk, Trinity College Dublin<span style="font-size: small;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">Mary Rogan, Trinity College Dublin</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">One of the global responses to Covid-19 has been the call for the wearing of face masks. In Ireland, this has resulted in a requirement for </span><a href="https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/coronavirus/face-coverings-masks-and-covid-19/when-to-wear.html"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">public indoor spaces and public transport</span></a><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"> with a </span><a href="https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/79445/bb49040f-d831-4d42-aa80-1d07e37c0bef.pdf#page=null"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">fine of €80</span></a><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"> for non-compliance. It is additionally recommended in <a href="https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1127/1180832-coronavirus-blog/">busy outdoor spaces and during visits with vulnerable people</a>. The use of facemasks in the context of prisons raises complex questions. Prisons have been considered high risk environments for the spread of infectious diseases such as Covid-19. To date there have been <a href="https://www.independent.ie/news/eight-prisoners-currently-have-covid-19-in-irish-prison-system-39997011.html">51 cases</a> among the prison population in Ireland. While these numbers are relatively low, prison populations in other countries have been severely affected by Covid-19 outbreaks, most notably the US where </span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/18/us-prisoners-coronavirus-stats-data"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">1 in 5 prisoners or at least 275,000 prisoners</span></a><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"> have tested positive for Covid-19. This is a rate four times highly than in the general population and highlights the specific risks in an overcrowded environment of the rapid spread of Covid-19. The risks of severe disease are also high in prisons, with people in prison disproportionately likely to <a href="https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-20-people-prison-should-be-prioritised-any-covid-19-vaccine#">experience underlying and high-risk conditions</a>. As such, people in prison may wish to wear masks in an effort to protect their health. On the other hand, prison authorities and prison staff may consider the wearing of masks a security risk, as they may prevent the identification of prisoners. In this blog, we consider some of the issues arising out of the wearing of facemasks in prisons by examining the approach in the Netherlands, comparing it with Ireland and assessing the role of international human rights law. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">At the start of the pandemic in March 2020, prisoners in the Netherlands were banned from wearing face masks while in prison. This is in contrast to the position for those in the community, where masks are required </span><a href="https://www.government.nl/topics/coronavirus-covid-19/tackling-new-coronavirus-in-the-netherlands/basic-rules-for-everyone"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">inside any public space and on public transport</span></a><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">, with non-compliance subject to a fine of €95.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">According to the Dutch prison service, the wearing of face masks impacts on prison officers’ ability to recognise prisoners and the reading of facial expressions. This point has also been debated by other prison services such as <a href="https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-prisoners-ordered-wear-face-22563799">Scotland</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jan/05/prisoners-lives-risk-officers-not-wearing-face-masks-ppe">England and Wales</a>, where the introduction of face masks in prisons for prison staff followed by prisoners took place at a later date than in the wider community. Relationships play a key role in prison environments and officers rely on being able to talk to prisoners and gauge their mood, a key part of ‘<a href="https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/UNODC_Handbook_on_Dynamic_Security_and_Prison_Intelligence.pdf">dynamic security’</a> which relies on relationships to maintain order rather than force. The prison service also expressed concern about the need to identify prisoners who may be involved in incidents on CCTV footage. In </span><a href="https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/01/prisoners-take-legal-action-after-being-banned-from-wearing-face-masks/"><span style="background-color: white; font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">Heerhugwaard</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"> prison</span></a><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">, a group of prisoners challenged this position and appealed to the courts for the ban to be lifted. This ban has since been reversed by the former Minister for Legal Protection, <a href="https://www.dvhn.nl/binnenland/Gedetineerden-moeten-toch-mondkapje-op-van-minister-Dekker-26397221.html">Sander Dekker</a>, due to an increase in Covid-19 cases among the prisoner population and prisoners can now wear facemasks where a distance of 1.5 metres cannot be maintained. The Netherlands has had <a href="https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/01/prisoners-take-legal-action-after-being-banned-from-wearing-face-masks/">25 cases</a> of Covid-19 in prisons. In </span><a href="https://www.europris.org/irish-prison-service/#:~:text=We%20have%20introduced%20the%20wearing,staff%20is%20currently%20also%20obligatory."><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">Ireland</span></a><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">, prisoners are required to wear facemasks when they leave their cells and when in contact with prison staff. The initial position of the prison authorities in the Netherlands is hard to square with international human rights law on healthcare in prisons and has been criticised by </span><a href="https://netherlandsnewslive.com/prisoners-take-legal-action-after-being-banned-from-wearing-face-masks/55443/"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">former prison Governor</span></a><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">, <span style="background-color: white;">Madeleine van Toorenburg,</span> for placing the ability to read expressions above the health of prisoners.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">The Irish approach would appear to be a more balanced and proportionate way to manage the competing considerations in prisons. Facemasks have become a form of healthcare in the current situation, at least of a preventive nature. International human rights principles on prison rights outline that prisoners are entitled to healthcare equivalent to that available in the community. Article 24(1) of the <a href="https://undocs.org/A/RES/70/175">UN Mandela Rules</a> state that ‘[t]he provision of healthcare is a state responsibility. Prisoners should enjoy the same standards of care that are available in the community, and should have access to necessary healthcare services free of charge without discrimination on the grounds of their legal status’. <a href="https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectId=09000016809ee581">The European Prison Rules</a>, revised in 2020, state: ‘<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">Prison authorities shall safeguard the health of all prisoners in their care’ and</span> ‘[p]<span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">risoners shall have access to the health services available in the country without discrimination on the grounds of their legal situatio</span><span style="background-color: white;">n’.</span> The <a href="https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/339830/WHO-EURO-2021-1405-41155-57257-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y">WHO</a> states that: ‘[t]he provision of health care for people in prisons and other places of detention is a state responsibility’ and additionally note that ‘experience shows that prisons, jails and similar settings where people are gathered in proximity may act as a source of infection, amplification and spread of infectious diseases within and beyond prisons.’ <a href="https://rm.coe.int/16806ce943">The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture</a> has also indicated that ‘[a] prison health care service should be able to provide medical treatment and nursing care, as well as appropriate diets, physiotherapy, rehabilitation or any other necessary special facility, in conditions comparable to those enjoyed by patients in the outside community.’ Domestically, this has been interpreted to mean that those in prison are entitled to the care which someone outside of prison in receipt of a medical card would receive,<a href="http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2007/si/252/made/en/print#article33"> Rule 33 Prison Rules 2007.</a> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"><br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">It is also clear from these </span><a href="https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/339830/WHO-EURO-2021-1405-41155-57257-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;">standards</span></a><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"> that decisions of healthcare staff about people in prison should not be overridden on operational grounds. Framing facemasks as forms of preventive healthcare, and knowing what we do know about their importance in confined spaces they must be so considered, preventing the wearing of facemasks would be in breach of these principles. Prisoners are unable to take the steps the rest of us can to secure their own health, and have no control over whom they share space with. As such, denying them access to facemasks cannot be considered justified even on security grounds. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica; line-height: 24px;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="color: black;"><a href="https://www.tcd.ie/law/programmes/postgraduate/sophie-van-der-valk.php"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Sophie van der Valk</span></i></a><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> is a PhD candidate on the PRILA project at TCD School of Law examining Prisoners’ Perceptions of Accountability in Prisons.<o:p></o:p></span></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="color: black;"><a href="https://www.tcd.ie/research/profiles/?profile=roganma"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Mary Rogan</span></i></a><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> is an Associate Professor in Law at the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin and PI on the European Research Council-funded </span></i><a href="https://www.tcd.ie/law/research/PRILA/"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">PRILA project examining prison oversight</span></i></a><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">. </span></i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Suggested citation: Sophie van der Valk and Mary Rogan, Author,</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> ‘Facemasks in Prison – safety versus recognition?’ (18 March 2021) </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><o:p></o:p></span><span face="Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52);">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/03/facemasks-in-prison-during-pandemic-how.html</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 22px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span style="line-height: 24px;"> </span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3562689494407279962.post-56918463199752214372021-03-11T12:49:00.000+00:002021-03-11T12:49:10.105+00:00Executive Power and the Right to Primary Education: The Case of School Closures<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"> <span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Conor Casey, European University Institute</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">On 12 March 2020 then Taoiseach Leo Varadkar </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Press-Releases/2020-press-releases/12-march-2020-statement-from-the-department-of-education-and-skills.html.">announced</a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> that the Government had taken the momentous decision to order the closure of primary and secondary schools and third-level institutions in response to climbing levels of COVID-19 infection. This closure would last until August 2020 for primary and secondary schools. On 6 January 2021 the Government </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="file:///Users/conorcasey/Documents/Article%20Ideas/Blog%20Posts/Minister%20Foley%20confirms%20that%20schools%20will%20remain%20closed%20to%20students%20(Press%20Release)%20Department%20of%20Education,%20%207%20January%202021%20https:/www.gov.ie/en/press-release/11176-minister-foley-confirms-that-schools-will-remainclosed-%20to-students/%20(accessed%208%20March%202021).">ordered</a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> a further closure of primary and secondary schools, a closure that is currently being phased out.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Like many decisions taken by the Government in response to the pandemic, the repercussions of school closures are being felt very keenly by thousands of citizens and families. Teachers, pupils, and parents have tried to adapt to the difficulties of online teaching, struggled to balance work commitments with at-home learning, and striven to ensure children’s educational progress does not regress. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Whether one agrees or disagrees with the merits or wisdom of the Government’s decisions, there is no doubting they are truly weighty ones that directly touch on the State’s constitutional obligation to provide for free primary education. On what <i>legal basis</i> did the Government take such a significant decision dramatically affecting the lives of thousands? Surprisingly, this question has received vanishingly little discussion. The purpose of this post is to outline the most plausible legal basis for the Government’s closure order and offer some critical thoughts.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Government power and the Constitution<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">The Irish Government derives its powers from two sources. One source of legal authority comes from statutes passed by the Oireachtas granting the Government, or a member of Government, statutory authority. Statues like these will typically provide a Government minister power to take X, Y, or Z action in respect of a particular policy area; or set out broad objectives to be achieved while giving a minister discretion on how to go about pursuing them through promulgating secondary regulations. Statutes make up, by far, the bulk of the Government’s legal authority. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">The second source of authority comes directly from the Constitution. The Constitution explicitly vests several powers in the Government, including power over the conduct of foreign affairs, the appointment of judges, defence of the State from invasion, and preparation of the budget. Aside from explicit powers vested by constitutional text, there is a fuzzy reservoir of constitutional powers housed within Article 28’s laconic </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3306617">vesting</a> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">of ‘the executive power’ of the State. Article 28 gives the Government the constitutional power and duty to see the laws are faithfully executed, power to set up non-statutory tribunals of inquiry, plenary powers to regulate immigration for the State including the entry, residence and exit of immigrants, and the power to create non-statutory policy schemes. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Article 28 has been used as the legal basis for many weighty policies: the </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/2712d0e6-2e6b-4ddc-910c-4d4a1cf03237/2007_IESC_62_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH">IBC/05 residency scheme</a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">, </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/c0cacd82-5138-44c0-a4f0-008a270c5308/2014_IEHC_532_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH">Direct Provision</a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">, the State’s main </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/INIS/Family%20Reunification%20Policy%20Document.pdf/Files/Family%20Reunification%20Policy%20Document.pdf">policy document</a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> on family reunification for non-EEA migrants, its division of immigration permission into different ‘stamps’, and for </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3306617">several</a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> legal aid schemes. More recently, the High Court has </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/4c363613-d8d4-4813-91ff-ea95c099d390/2020_IEHC_461.pdf/pdf#view=fitH">confirmed</a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> the Government could rely on its executive power to underpin its widespread promulgation of public health guidelines exhorting citizens to take certain steps to help curb the spread of covid-19. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">There are several limits on using executive power to achieve policy goals. The most important is that it cannot be used to </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/6c26f1ad-34cd-4693-9c55-0ebae512368e/2013_IEHC_226_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH">frustrate</a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> or usurp legislative power by purporting to amend, disapply or suspend a statute. Executive power cannot also be used to impose legal burdens or obligations on citizens – the hallmark of a legislative power reserved exclusively to the Oireachtas. Indeed, Simons J. in the <i>Ryanair </i>case held that any </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://www.courts.ie/acc/alfresco/4c363613-d8d4-4813-91ff-ea95c099d390/2020_IEHC_461.pdf/pdf#view=fitH"><i>purported</i></a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> attempt to give the impression that </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">executive power derived guidelines were legally enforceable would be an unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power. This means that constitutional rights like liberty, family, security of the dwelling, property, and access to primary education, cannot be restricted without a statutory basis.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Decision to close schools<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">On 12 March 2020 the Government ordered the closure of primary and secondary schools and third-level institutions as precautionary response to climbing levels of infection. This closure would last until August 2020. On 6 January 2021, the Government again decided that all schools – including special schools – were to be closed, in response to the third wave of the pandemic. In this second instance, the Government based its decision to order a blanket closure on guidance from NPHET, which </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="file:///Users/conorcasey/Documents/Article%20Ideas/Blog%20Posts/Letter%20from%20Chief%20Medical%20Officer%20to%20Minister%20for%20Health%20re:%20Covid%20(5%20January%202021)%20%20https:/www.gov.ie/en/collection/ba4aa0-letters-from-the-cmo-to-the-minister-for-health#january-2021 (accessed 7 March 2021).">maintained</a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> that while there was ‘very little evidence of transmission within schools’ the levels of mobility and linked activity that reopening could generate would bring an increased risk of further community transmission.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">While statutory instruments have been used to implement the bulk of the Government’s lockdown strategy, it appears that the closure of schools came from a non-statutory source - a Government <i>decision</i> drawing on the executive power of the State to issue non-statutory policies. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">The blanket nature of the closure has been sharply criticised for its disproportionate impact on children with special educational needs or with poor access to online facilities. Some have argued the policy of school closure represents, in its current iteration, an unconstitutional infringement of the rights of children to be provided with primary education by the State. A legal </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://www.childrensrights.ie/sites/default/files/information_sheets/files/Legal%20Opinion_Education%20Rights%20%20-%2025%20Jan%202021.pdf">opinion</a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> prepared for the Children’s Rights Alliance argued that ‘children with special needs for whom online learning is not practicable are not receiving any educational provision at all’ and that many mainstream primary students lack the ‘IT facilities and adult supervision’ to make use of the online educational provision.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><b><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Are there any problems with closing schools via executive power?<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">There is, in my view, nothing inherently problematic with the Government relying on its non-statutory constitutional powers to pursue policy goals. Using executive power unilaterally and without a statutory basis can be a useful way to respond rapidly to a policy problem, and to maintain a high degree of flexibility. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">The common good, to which the Irish Constitution orients all political life, arguably demands a unified and energetic executive able to act in this manner where necessary.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">But relying on executive power to pursue policies has its detractions. Policies created through executive power are simply not subject to the same level of deliberation and scrutiny as those stemming from bills passed through the legislative process. One does not need to work from an unrealistic ideal-type image of the parliamentary process to suggest that it offers <i>some </i>level of increased scrutiny and debate more than unilaterally issued executive measures; an increased level of debate and scrutiny which can be useful for bringing perspectives to bear that might have been overlooked or given inadequate consideration by Government or its civil servants. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">Such inputs can spark public debate and pressure for policy alterations. In this context, it is worth considering whether the need for statutory authority to issue a closure order would have led to more political debate in the Oireachtas about the disproportionate impact on children with special needs? Would it have led to a more tailored policy suitable to their needs? What can be said at least is that the chances such concerns would have been aired and debated were vastly more likely in a more open and deliberative forum like the Oireachtas. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">More problematic, from a strictly legal perspective, is whether the closure of schools can be conceptualised as a <i>restriction </i>of children’s constitutional rights as opposed to merely being a different way of <i>regulating </i>or structuring their exercise. The more charitable interpretation is that the Government has not restricted the right to primary education but regulated it in a manner suitable to the current circumstances of the pandemic. That is to say, the <i>mode</i> of delivery might have changed, but the Government is still allocating the resources to vindicate the right to primary education as before. The less charitable interpretation, one </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"><a href="https://www.childrensrights.ie/sites/default/files/information_sheets/files/Legal%20Opinion_Education%20Rights%20%20-%2025%20Jan%202021.pdf">reached</a></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> by counsel briefed by the Children’s Rights Alliance, is that it is reasonable to conclude there are ‘categories of children for whom <i>no educational provision is currently being made.’ </i>In other words, their constitutional rights are being de facto restricted.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm; text-align: justify;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-family: Helvetica;">I do not profess an opinion either way here save to say that, to the extent one can view the closure of schools as a restriction on the rights of some children to access primary education, then the constitutional propriety of relying on executive power to close schools diminishes rapidly and the need for a legislative basis to lawfully ground such action becomes more pressing. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Conor is a Max Weber Fellow at the European University Institute and incoming Lecturer at the University of Liverpool School of Law & Social Justice. The author would like to thank Hilary Hogan for helpful comments on the post.</span></i><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;">Suggested citation: Conor Casey, ‘Executive Power and the Right to Primary Education: The Case of School Closures’ (11 March 2021) <o:p></o:p></span><span style="background-color: white; caret-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.52); font-family: Roboto, RobotoDraft, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/03/executive-power-and-right-to-primary.html</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica;"> </span></p>COVID-19 Law and Human Rights Observatory Trinity College Dublinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12795884696627074940noreply@blogger.com0