Debate contribution: Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Powers to Act for the Protection of Public Health) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2023

Debate contribution by Mrs Diane Dodds on 11 March 2024.

MLA

Mrs Diane Dodds

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

11 March 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Executive Committee Business

Heading

Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Powers to Act for the Protection of Public Health) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2023

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4269577

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Before I address the SR, I want to say that the Minister did an incredible amount of work during the COVID pandemic.

Those were very difficult days for the Minister and the wider Assembly and Executive, but most of all for our constituents, the people of Northern Ireland. We are debating whether we should continue COVID powers: that is a really significant step forward for us and shows that we have, in many ways, left some of this behind. However, we are all mindful of those families who still grieve and those who lost their lives during an extraordinary and terrible time for our community in Northern Ireland. The SR that the Minister has moved asks us to extend the regulations until 24 March. However, the Minister made it clear, in the Chamber today and in his notes to the Committee, that he intends to continue to extend those until, I presume, there is a more fulsome public health solution to the issue. That is where a lot of our problems and difficulties lie. Certainly, on these Benches, we are uncomfortable about extending that precedent, which was meant for extraordinary times, when we are now talking about the lesser threat of COVID. As the Member who spoke previously said, the World Health Organization has, thankfully, downgraded that pandemic. For those on these Benches, that is extremely uncomfortable. When the laws were introduced, we were told that they were time-limited and would not be extended for one moment longer than they were needed. It is important that we all hold on to that. Members across the House — the Member who spoke previously mentioned it, and many on these Benches have indicated it as well — have said that our constituents find these restrictions undemocratic and, in many ways, draconian in respect of our freedoms and liberties. While they were necessary at the time, I wonder why we would want to retain legislation like that on our statute book. During the Committee meeting, officials from the Department briefed us on the issue. They were asked specifically about COVID, and, as the Hansard report shows, they said:

"There have not been any significant increases",

and that flu in our communities is more pressing for the health service at the moment. The officials also said:

"There are no significant new variants at this point."

Therefore, we are certainly in a much better position than we would ever have been. To sum up, I confirm that, on these Benches, we are extremely uncomfortable with the legislation. We find it incredibly difficult to support. We would like a more permanent solution. The Minister needs to address the issue, make the solution permanent and come at it as quickly as he can. In the meantime, in common with other Members who have spoken, we do not support the motion.

473 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:47 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification