Select committee: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Recommendation 5

Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government’s handling of Covid-19 Published 10 Sep 2020 Paragraph 34

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee Responding to Covid-19 and the Coronavirus Act 2020 All items in this report Report on parliament.uk ↗ Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗

Recommendation (the committee's words)

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.

From: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government’s handling of Covid-19 (HC 377), paragraph 34, 10 September 2020

Government response

The government responded to the whole report on 9 December 2020 (deadline 10 November 2020).

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The Government welcomes the Committee's report and responds point by point, largely defending its use of the Coronavirus Act and urgent procedures while committing to hold votes on regulations of national significance before they come into force where possible.

On the Civil Contingencies Act, the Government "still believes that was the right approach" of using the Coronavirus Act, citing prior parliamentary scrutiny and legal certainty, and states it believes there are "sufficient safeguards" in the Act.
On the urgent procedure, it says it "cannot hold up urgent regulations that are needed to control the virus and save lives", and describes use of the section 45R procedure as "lawful and rational".
It commits to give Parliament the opportunity, "where practicable", to debate regulations of national significance before they come into force, and says: "We intend to maintain this approach, whenever circumstances permit."
On thematic debates, it points to existing debates and the system of scrutiny in the Act. On two-monthly reports, it is "considering what other information would be helpful to include in future reports".

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error