Select committee: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

Recommendation 15

Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government’s handling of Covid-19 Published 10 Sep 2020 Paragraph 76

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)

It is prudent of the Government not to seek to legislate for every eventuality, which would lead to a myriad of confusing, flawed and ultimately unenforceable provisions and exceptions. There is, therefore, a clear role for both guidance and legislation in Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government’s handling of Covid-19 33 response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This point notwithstanding, it is incompatible with the rule of law for the Government to misrepresent what the law actually is at any time. There have been disappointing examples of this misrepresentation during the pandemic, such as describing people in parts of the North of England as being “banned” from doing things that they were not yet banned from at all. Ministerial declarations to the public are not the same as legislation and in a Parliamentary democracy they should not be treated as such. In future the Government should ensure its communications are clear as to whether something is guidance or whether it is a requirement under the law. An example of clearer communication has been over the use of face coverings in shops and public transport.

From: Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government’s handling of Covid-19 (HC 377), paragraph 76, 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