Source · Select Committees · Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Recommendation 10
10
Paragraph: 51
The use of the urgent procedure has not always been justified, particularly when the Government...
Conclusion
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.
Paragraph Reference:
51
Government Response
Acknowledged
HM Government
Acknowledged
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 Health Secretary has said that for significant national measures which effect the whole of England or are UK-wide, we will consult Parliament and, wherever possible, will hold votes before such regulations come into force. Responding to the virus means that the Government must act with speed when required, and we cannot hold up urgent regulations that are needed to control the virus and save lives. transport (June 15), this was the first such legal requirement for them to be worn by members of the public. As such, the usage and ownership of face coverings was not widespread at that time and we prioritised an early announcement in order to allow people maximum time to obtain them before the regulations came into effect. Decision-making has necessarily required complex judgements to be taken on the appropriate measures to adopt in line with constantly evolving scientific advice, and the ability of affected industries and the public to adapt to the new face coverings requirements. the Regulations being made to enable the public to prepare—as was the case with these Regulations—it is important not to conflate that broad principle with the working through of the detail as to what sort of indoor venues should be included and which ought or need Fifth Special Report of Session 2019–21 9 not be, based upon the scientific evidence and advice as it develops, or the mechanisms by which face coverings might be most effectively made mandatory on public transport. protected, but only insofar as is proportionate. The draft affirmative procedure generally takes six to eight weeks, and although steps can be taken to shorten this where appropriate, this is a matter not solely in the Government’s gift. This was the case in each of these regulations, and the Government is confident it acted in accordance with the law, including with respect to the procedure under section 45R. Parliament continues to exercise other important forms of accountability over executive action (e.g. Prime Minister’s Questions and reports from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments). The use of the section 45R procedure was, in the case of both Regulations, lawful and rational. The regulations have been made using powers approved by Parliament and have been used appropriately.