Recommendations & Conclusions
24 items
1
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
The governance arrangements for responding to COVID-19 have not always been clear. Press reports of a “quad” of Ministers making decisions in April raise questions of a parallel governance structure in addition to the formal Cabinet Committee structure. Such parallel systems risk creating silos where decisions are made without the …
Government response. The structures underpinning the Government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic have evolved over time. The virus appeared on 31 December 2019 and, within the first few days of January 2020, actions to respond to the threat had already begun in …
2
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
The effectiveness of governance arrangements overseen by the Cabinet Office is something that will continue to be of interest to the Committee and form part of its future work programme.
Government response. The structures underpinning the Government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic have evolved over time. The virus appeared on 31 December 2019 and, within the first few days of January 2020, actions to respond to the threat had already begun in …
3
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
The Government’s messaging on who could continue to work was not as clear as it should have been. The closure of schools and definitions of “key workers” caused some industries to close that could have continued to operate, such as the construction industry. There should have been greater recognition within …
Government response. The Government had always and continues to make every effort to communicate any and all changes to COVID-19 policy to the public as clearly and simply as possible. When national restrictions were introduced in March, the Government published guidance detailing …
4
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
As a result of the timescales involved and the political situation, detailed scrutiny of the Coronavirus Bill was not practical. It is therefore very important that Government is held to account for how it uses and justifies the continued application of the Act. In chapter 4 we set out some …
Government response. The Civil Contingencies Act (CCA) is designed to be used only as a last resort, where it is not possible to take conventional or accelerated primary legislation through Parliament, and thereby to allow Parliamentary scrutiny before measures pass into law. …
5
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
The Government’s desire to find alternatives, such as bespoke primary legislation, to using the emergency provisions of the Civil Contingency Act 2004 is understandable. Bespoke primary legislation has the advantage of going through the stages of Parliamentary scrutiny. However, the Committee is not convinced that the Civil Contingencies Act could …
Government response. The Civil Contingencies Act (CCA) is designed to be used only as a last resort, where it is not possible to take conventional or accelerated primary legislation through Parliament, and thereby to allow Parliamentary scrutiny before measures pass into law. …
6
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
The Government’s reticence to use the Civil Contingencies Act in response to a genuine national emergency calls into question how fit for purpose that legislation is.
Government response. The Civil Contingencies Act (CCA) is designed to be used only as a last resort, where it is not possible to take conventional or accelerated primary legislation through Parliament, and thereby to allow Parliamentary scrutiny before measures pass into law. …
7
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
The Committee is concerned by both the scale of legislation and the inability of Parliamentarians to effectively amend COVID-19 legislation. The scale of legislation, covering a large number of statutory instruments made under multiple sources, makes it very difficult for even experts to follow what legislation is in effect. Even …
Government response. The Government notes the Committee’s concerns. There has been a significant amount of COVID-19 legislation in a relatively short space of time, so to aid accessibility all COVID-19 legislation has been collated at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/coronavirus. More widely, we would like to …
8
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
The current system of Parliamentary scrutiny in relation to lockdown regulations is not satisfactory. The fact that this legislation, which contains stark restrictions on people’s civil liberties, is not amendable by Members, made under the urgent procedure and therefore without parliamentary scrutiny or effective oversight, coupled with the extremely quick …
Government response. The Government notes the Committee’s concerns. There has been a significant amount of COVID-19 legislation in a relatively short space of time, so to aid accessibility all COVID-19 legislation has been collated at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/coronavirus. More widely, we would like to …
9
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Parliamentary processes and debates help to confer legitimacy upon policy changes made through emergency legislation, particularly when the legislation is so striking in its curtailment of liberties that would normally be taken for granted. Such debates also provide opportunities for parliamentarians to raise problems that exist in the legislation or …
Government response. The Government notes the Committee’s concerns. There has been a significant amount of COVID-19 legislation in a relatively short space of time, so to aid accessibility all COVID-19 legislation has been collated at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/coronavirus. More widely, we would like to …
10
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
The use of the urgent procedure has not always been justified, particularly when the Government has announced that measures will be introduced some weeks in advance. Examples of this are provided by the regulations mandating the use of face coverings on public transport, which were announced on 4 June, introduced …
Government response. These are unprecedented times and the virus moves quickly, so we need to have the powers at our disposal to respond immediately. It is deeply important that we strike the right balance between acting at pace and proper scrutiny. The …
11
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
In the event the Government believes it is necessary for the urgent procedure to 32 Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government’s handling of Covid-19 be used to make affirmative statutory instruments, it behoves it, especially with legislation as important to the national interest as lockdown measures, to schedule debates on those …
Government response. The Government does seek to provide as much notice and opportunity for scrutiny as possible, but the rapid changes in disease transmission rates means that due to timing, we are not always able to make use of draft legislation to …
12
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
The Committee strongly welcomes the Government’s publication of draft legislation for implementing future local lockdowns similar to those in Greater Manchester or Leicester. This is a welcome improvement in transparency and facilitates parliamentary scrutiny of measures that may need to be introduced urgently in future. At a time when Government …
Government response. The Government does seek to provide as much notice and opportunity for scrutiny as possible, but the rapid changes in disease transmission rates means that due to timing, we are not always able to make use of draft legislation to …
13
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
The six-monthly Parliamentary reviews offer an opportunity for the House to debate the relevant temporary provisions within the Coronavirus Act 2020 but they do not allow the House to individually vote on whether specific provisions should continue or be repealed. The six-month reviews, therefore, while important and helpful, should be …
Government response. The Coronavirus Act commanded widespread support at the time of its passing and during the six-monthly debate, as an important source of support for our citizens and for the services they rely on, during this grave and challenging national emergency. …
14
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
The two-monthly reports on the status of non-devolved provisions, published under section 97, should be an important tool for scrutiny, but as currently structured, the reports do not give enough detail to enable Parliament, experts or the public to do this. The Committee recommends that the Government includes in future …
Government response. The Government recognises the need for two monthly reports to be in a timely manner and ensure the inclusion of evidence-based arguments. We are considering what other information would be helpful to include in future reports and taking into consideration …
15
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
It is prudent of the Government not to seek to legislate for every eventuality, which would lead to a myriad of confusing, flawed and ultimately unenforceable provisions and exceptions. There is, therefore, a clear role for both guidance and legislation in Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government’s handling of Covid-19 33 …
Government response. HMG notes the Committee’s concerns and recognises that there has, on occasion, been an interval between the announcement of changes, and the making of the regulations that—at least in part—underpin those changes. We acknowledge this and will continually strive to …
16
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
The Government did not immediately set out the exceptions to the ban on gatherings in private dwellings in parts of the North of England but instead waited until it introduced the legislation. This is particularly strange when the exceptions relating to private dwellings substantially mirrored the relevant exceptions contained within …
Government response. HMG notes the Committee’s concerns and recognises that there has, on occasion, been an interval between the announcement of changes, and the making of the regulations that—at least in part—underpin those changes. We acknowledge this and will continually strive to …
17
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
The Government’s published draft legislation for implementing future local lockdowns (referred to in Chapter 2 of this report) should mean that it is easier to publish all information immediately when implementing new local lockdowns or relaxing local lockdowns slowly. However, the draft legislation should be viewed as a “living document” …
Government response. HMG notes the Committee’s concerns and recognises that there has, on occasion, been an interval between the announcement of changes, and the making of the regulations that—at least in part—underpin those changes. We acknowledge this and will continually strive to …
18
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
The motion under section 98 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 is an “all or nothing” proposition. Under the terms of the motion, either all temporary provisions must be expired or none need to be. The House does not have any power under the Act to order Ministers to expire specific …
Government response. The Government shares the Committee’s view that, notwithstanding the exact wording of section 98, Members of the House should use the six-monthly reviews to raise issues and concerns and seek to press Ministers to take a different course. This is …
19
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
While the House does not have the power to compel Ministers to cause specific temporary provisions under the Coronavirus Act to expire, the powers Ministers have under the Act means that Members of the House can still use the six-monthly reviews to urge the Government to expire or at least …
Government response. The Government shares the Committee’s view that, notwithstanding the exact wording of section 98, Members of the House should use the six-monthly reviews to raise issues and concerns and seek to press Ministers to take a different course. This is …
20
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
The resolution of the debate will not affect all coronavirus-related legislation. For example, “lockdown regulations”, are made under the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 and would therefore not be legally affected by the six-monthly reviews. The Government should set out clearly before the debate which legislation (and therefore …
Government response. The Government recognises the Committee’s concerns and hopes that the briefings and analyses provided before the debate made clear the statutory basis of the changes brought about under the Coronavirus Act. The range of policies and interventions brought in under …
21
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Paragraphs 74–79 of this report includes evidence relating to specific provisions within the Coronavirus Act that may be of interest to Parliamentarians for the six- 34 Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government’s handling of Covid-19 monthly review. This includes powers under schedules 21 and 22 of the Act and powers relating …
Government response. In addressing this recommendation, and the concerns of MIND (in Paragraph 91), the Government would like to assure the Committee that the temporary modifications to the Mental Health Act 1983, allowed for by the Coronavirus Act 2020, were designed to …
22
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Not all temporary provisions under the Coronavirus Act 2020 are in force. The Government’s two-monthly reports, on the status of non-devolved provisions, are therefore an important resource for the debate.
Government response. The Government intends to timetable the six-monthly review date so that the two- monthly status report is published in good time. Whilst it may not always be possible to do this, for example, if the House is not sitting when …
23
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
The Government should take care to timetable the six-monthly review debate so that the two-monthly status report is published in good time before that debate takes place, ensuring Parliamentarians have the most up-to-date report to inform the debate.
Government response. The Government intends to timetable the six-monthly review date so that the two- monthly status report is published in good time. Whilst it may not always be possible to do this, for example, if the House is not sitting when …
24
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
It is vital that the temporary provisions in the Coronavirus Act are properly scrutinised and justified. The six-monthly review debate is one of the main avenues for this scrutiny to take place. To aid effective scrutiny and transparency, it is essential that the Government articulates: the original rationale for the …
Government response. The Government intends to timetable the six-monthly review date so that the two- monthly status report is published in good time. Whilst it may not always be possible to do this, for example, if the House is not sitting when …