Source · Select Committees · Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Recommendation 4
4
Paragraph: 18
As a result of the timescales involved and the political situation, detailed scrutiny of the...
Conclusion
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.
Paragraph Reference:
18
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
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. The CCA has strict tests (known as the “triple lock”) which must be met before emergency regulations under it can be made. These are not in place to prevent its use at all costs, but a test that ensures that Parliamentary scrutiny is not unnecessarily sacrificed. In this instance, although the measures in the Coronavirus Act were urgent, the opportunity for prior Parliamentary scrutiny for the Coronavirus Act. That was thought to be preferable to making regulations under the CCA, where Parliamentary debate would take place after the legislation had come into force. It provided an opportunity to make the legislation subject to such review as Parliament thought fit, with an agreed renewal of powers. agencies who were responding to the pandemic as CCA regulations would have required Parliamentary approval within seven days (if Parliament was still sitting) and could have been amended at that point; could have been struck down in the Court as secondary legislation; and would have had to be renewed every 30 days, therefore not a straightforward stop-gap approach. The Government still believes that was the right approach. Parliament went into recess shortly after the Coronavirus Act was passed and then changed its business arrangements in order to protect Parliamentarians and their staff, thereby limiting the opportunity for retrospective debate and repeat approvals. To provide accountability, the Act requires that the Government has the following statutory obligations: a) the House of Commons have to approve the continued operation of the Act’s temporary provisions within the period of 7 sitting days after the 6-month anniversary of the Act’s passing and every six months thereafter if the temporary provisions still exist; and b) the Government is be required to report every two months on the use of powers under the Act for as long as they remain in force. for Parliament to scrutinise the Government’s actions. It is important to note that, once enacted, the lifespan of this Act and the measures in it, is limited. It will only be in force for as long as necessary to deal with the Coronavirus. Parliament has drawn limits to the scope and time period for which these powers are required. A two-year life span for this Fifth Special Report of Session 2019–21 7 time, with the option for the provisions in the Act to be extended by the relevant national authority. Not all powers have been enacted yet but this may change, as they may be needed in due course within this pandemic.