Select committee: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Recommendation 13

Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government’s handling of Covid-19 Published 10 Sep 2020 Paragraph 59

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 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Act 2020 but they do not allow the House to individually vote on whether specific provisions should continue or be repealed.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.

From: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government’s handling of Covid-19 (HC 377), paragraph 59, 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