Recommendations & Conclusions
24 items
1
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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 full and proper discussion, advice or consultation that would be expected in Cabinet Committees. Any review of the Cabinet Office’s response to COVID-19 should include an examination of the governance arrangements for COVID-19, including COBR, the C-19 daily meetings, the “Quad” and Cabinet Committees. The Government must in its response to this report set out the governance arrangements and how decisions were made in response to COVID-19.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government details the evolving governance structures for its COVID-19 response, including COBR, Ministerial Implementation Groups, and the later establishment of the COVID-19 Strategy and COVID-19 Operations cabinet committees, thereby setting out the requested arrangements.
Read full response →
2
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Acknowledged
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 AI summary
The government details the evolution of its COVID-19 governance arrangements, from initial COBR meetings and Ministerial Implementation Groups to the later establishment of the COVID-19 Strategy and COVID-19 Operations cabinet committees.
Read full response →
3
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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 the Government’s messaging and guidance of workers who kept the economy going during lockdown. The Government must take care to ensure that its messaging is consistent and properly addresses all relevant audiences. (Paragraph 14) The Government’s approach to legislation and the framework for Parliamentary scrutiny
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states it has always made and continues to make every effort to communicate COVID-19 policy clearly and simply, citing specific public information campaigns and clear guidance provided to industries like construction.
Read full response →
4
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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 points of interest to the House for the first six-month Parliamentary review, particularly in relation to the information that the Government needs to provide to help facilitate effective Parliamentary scrutiny.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explained its decision to use the Coronavirus Act over the Civil Contingencies Act, highlighting that the Coronavirus Act includes built-in parliamentary scrutiny through six-month reviews and two-monthly reports, which it believes ensure accountability.
Read full response →
5
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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 not have been used for COVID-19 and believes there was a potential role for the Civil Contingencies Act in providing a “stop-gap” for more detailed scrutiny of the Coronavirus Bill to take place.” The potential use of the Civil Contingencies Act as a “stop-gap” should be considered by the Government in response to emergencies in the future. Furthermore, the Coronavirus Act does not have the same safeguards as the Civil Contingencies Act. It is troubling the Paymaster General referred to these safeguards as a reason not to use that Act. Any Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government’s handling of Covid-19 31 separate legislation to deal with civil contingencies—and particularly legislation that needs to be passed very quickly—should include safeguards and scrutiny provisions that are equivalent to those in the CCA, with regular renewal of powers allowing for more detailed Parliamentary scrutiny that, due to expediency, cannot be given during the passing of emergency legislation.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government defends its decision not to use the Civil Contingencies Act for COVID-19, stating that the Coronavirus Act allowed for prior parliamentary scrutiny and provided sufficient safeguards, implicitly rejecting the recommendation for its future use as a stop-gap or for new equivalent safeguards.
Read full response →
6
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Accepted
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 AI summary
The government explained its decision to use the Coronavirus Act over the Civil Contingencies Act, asserting that the CCA is designed as a last resort and that the Coronavirus Act provided an opportunity for prior parliamentary scrutiny with agreed renewal of powers.
Read full response →
7
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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 more concerning is the fact that Members have no mechanism to amend this legislation which is being made under statutory instrument. All stages of the Bill were taken through the House of Commons in one sitting day. This means Members had just one sitting day to fully influence and amend the Coronavirus Act. Members have no power to amend statutory instruments made under that Act. As we detail below, Members have had no opportunity to meaningfully engage with and amend the lockdown regulations under the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government noted the committee's concerns, highlighting that existing mechanisms like debates and oral statements offer accountability opportunities and that parliamentary input is taken into consideration, despite regulations not being amendable.
Read full response →
8
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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 passing of the Coronavirus Act means the framework Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government’s handling of COVID-19 is inadequate.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government noted the committee's concerns, explaining that existing parliamentary opportunities, such as debates and oral statements, provide mechanisms for accountability and that members' input is considered, although regulations are not amendable.
Read full response →
9
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Accepted in Part
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 …
Read more
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 guidance, be it on their own initiative or things that have been brought to their attention by constituents or by experts. The Committee recommends that the Government gives higher priority to facilitating parliamentary scrutiny of such legislation in future.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government notes concerns and states it will continue to provide opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny. It reaffirms the Secretary of State's commitment to facilitate debates on significant national regulations before they come into force, whenever circumstances permit, citing specific recent examples of this practice.
Read full response →
10
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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 on 15 June but not debated until 6 July. It is unclear why the urgent procedure was necessary when the planned legislation was announced over a week before it was to come into force. It is even more unclear why debate was not possible until over a month after their announcement.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government defends its use of the urgent procedure due to the rapid nature of the pandemic, stating it cannot delay urgent regulations. It notes it will consult Parliament and hold votes wherever possible but is confident it acted lawfully and rationally in its use …
Read full response →
11
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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 regulations in a much more timely fashion than it has so far in relation to COVID-19.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledged seeking to provide timely scrutiny but noted challenges due to rapid changes in disease transmission, citing the Tiers structure and COVID-19 Winter Plan as examples where policy was set out and legislation debated in advance.
Read full response →
12
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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 resources are understandably stretched, it is potentially beneficial for the Government to partially “outsource” some of the work on such legislation by publishing that legislation in draft. The Government should seek to increase awareness of the existence of this draft legislation among parliamentarians, experts and other interested parties so that as wide a group as possible are able to provide feedback on the draft regulations.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government states that the transition to a Tiers structure replaced the need for the specific draft legislation mentioned, rendering the recommendation to increase awareness of it no longer applicable. They highlight other general efforts for parliamentary engagement.
Read full response →
13
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Rejected
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 …
Read more
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 supported by more regular thematic debates. An example of such a debate could be on social care easements within the Act. The Government should schedule thematic debates on provisions within the Coronavirus Act to provide the House with an opportunity to consider specific provision in greater detail. The motion for debate should be a substantive motion. While this motion would not be legally binding, it would allow for amendments and for the House to express a clear view.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejected the recommendation for additional thematic debates, arguing that the existing system of scrutiny, including numerous debates, oral statements, and committee oversight, provides sufficient opportunities for Parliament to examine the Coronavirus Act.
Read full response →
14
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Acknowledged
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 …
Read more
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 reports evidence-based arguments for why the provisions continue to be necessary and quantitative evidence on the impact of using those provisions. If the Government is going to extend the relevant temporary provisions Coronavirus Act after the six- month point, it should consult briefly on what additional information to include in the two-monthly reports and strive to include this as soon as possible. The Committee recommends that the Government includes in future reports evidence- based arguments for why the provisions continue to be necessary and quantitative evidence on the impact of using those provisions. If the Government is going to extend the relevant temporary provisions Coronavirus Act after the six-month point, it should consult briefly on what additional information to include in the two-monthly reports and strive to include this as soon as possible. (Paragraph 64) The use of guidance and rule of law implications
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government recognised the need for timely reports with evidence-based arguments and is considering additional helpful information, committing to publish analysis for anniversary debates, building on existing detailed two-month reports.
Read full response →
15
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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 response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This point notwithstanding, it is incompatible with the rule of law for the Government to misrepresent what the law actually is at any time. There have been disappointing examples of this misrepresentation during the pandemic, such as describing people in parts of the North of England as being “banned” from doing things that they were not yet banned from at all. Ministerial declarations to the public are not the same as legislation and in a Parliamentary democracy they should not be treated as such. In future the Government should ensure its communications are clear as to whether something is guidance or whether it is a requirement under the law. An example of clearer communication has been over the use of face coverings in shops and public transport.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges past issues with clarity and commits to continually striving to ensure future announcements are made in good time and that communications clearly distinguish between guidance and legal requirements.
Read full response →
16
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Accepted in Part
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 …
Read more
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 the lockdown regulations for Leicester. Failing to explain the exceptions in good time risks causing confusion and compliance with what were, at that time, voluntary lockdown measures.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledged the occasional delay between announcements and regulations, committing to continually strive for timely future announcements and clearer wording to avoid confusion, recognizing the challenge of balancing swift action with clear communication.
Read full response →
17
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Acknowledged
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” …
Read more
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” and should be updated as other responses are developed. (Paragraph 78) Points of interest for the House for the six-monthly review
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government notes the committee's concerns, acknowledging past intervals between announcements and regulations. It commits to continually striving for timely future announcements and clearer wording in guidance, but provides no specific actions for viewing the draft legislation as a 'living document' or immediate publication.
Read full response →
18
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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 provisions under the Act.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledged the 'all or nothing' nature of the motion but argued that members can still effectively influence Ministers during six-monthly reviews, citing an example where this led to policy change, while rejecting a 'pick and choose' approach to maintain legal certainty.
Read full response →
19
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Acknowledged
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 …
Read more
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 suspend particular provisions that do not seem to be necessary at that time.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government shares the committee's view that MPs should use six-monthly reviews to raise concerns and press Ministers on expiring or suspending provisions, citing an example where a Minister acted on such representations.
Read full response →
20
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Acknowledged
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 …
Read more
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 which activities and aspects of the Government’s response to COVID-19) is not part of the Coronavirus Act and will not be affected by the debate and vote.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government recognises concerns and hopes existing parliamentary briefings and public records have clarified the statutory basis of legislation, including what is not part of the Coronavirus Act. It also highlights the Secretary of State's commitment to debate significant national regulations before they come into …
Read full response →
21
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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 to health provision and powers to modify the Mental Health Act.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The Government announced the removal of the Mental Health Provisions under Section 10 (Schedule 8) of the Coronavirus Act in their entirety for England and partially for Wales, noting they were not required. It also provided an update on the use and necessity of powers …
Read full response →
22
Conclusion
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Accepted
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 AI summary
The government committed to timetabling six-monthly reviews to ensure two-monthly status reports are published promptly, and will ensure six-month reports are no less detailed, continually providing updated information and evidence-based analysis.
Read full response →
23
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Accepted
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 AI summary
The government intends to timetable the six-monthly review debate so the two-monthly status report is published in good time, striving to maximise timetabling despite potential limitations like house sittings, and committing to provide up-to-date information.
Read full response →
24
Recommendation
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny …
Accepted
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 …
Read more
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 temporary provisions in the Coronavirus Act, why those provisions are still justified and the evidence base for demonstrating those provisions are still effective. This should include provisions that are in force and those that are not. This will improve the transparency of these measures and help determine whether they are still necessary and proportionate. We recommend the Government publish this information in good time for the six-month review. This should be done at least two weeks before that debate takes place. (Paragraph 103) Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government’s handling of Covid-19 35
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government has published a Coronavirus Act Analysis, accessible online and committed to updating it, which sets out the rationale, justification, and evidence for the Act's provisions. They also intend to timetable the six-monthly review to ensure timely publication of reports.
Read full response →