Source · Select Committees · Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Recommendation 7
7
Paragraph: 48
The Committee is concerned by both the scale of legislation and the inability of Parliamentarians...
Conclusion
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.
Paragraph Reference:
48
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
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 reassure the Committee that there will continue to be a wide range of opportunities for Members to hold the Government to account for the handling of the Coronavirus pandemic, including general debates and oral statements in the usual way. Ministers have listened carefully to Members’ contributions made in debates on regulations, and although that has not—as unfortunately it could not—resulted in any amendment to the set of regulations at issue, that input is taken into consideration as the policy has evolved over time. The flexibility shown on all sides of the House in adapting procedures and processes to fit these changing circumstances has been vital in achieving an optimal balance between speed and scrutiny. During the six-month review debate (30th September 2020) on the Coronavirus Act, it became clear that Members were not unduly concerned by the use of regulation making