This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/23/mps-to-review-coronavirus-emergency-laws-every-six-months

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
MPs to review coronavirus emergency laws every six months MPs to review coronavirus emergency laws every six months
(about 3 hours later)
No 10 says sweeping powers will be subject to renewal, after Commons pressureNo 10 says sweeping powers will be subject to renewal, after Commons pressure
Emergency legislation giving ministers sweeping powers to ban gatherings and forcibly quarantine suspected coronavirus patients will be reviewed every six months, Downing Street has announced, following pressure by MPs and rights groups. Emergency legislation giving sweeping powers to ban gatherings and forcibly quarantine suspected coronavirus patients was on track to be passed by MPs on Monday night, despite continued worries about civil liberties and the potential effect on vulnerable people.
The coronavirus bill, which is expected to pass every stage in the Commons on Monday without being put to a vote, gives the powers for a two-year period. As published, the only safeguard would be an obligation for ministers to report on its use every two months. The coronavirus bill, which will be in force for two years, was expected to complete all its stages through the Commons in one day without opposition MPs forcing any votes after Downing Street offered the concession that it would be reviewed every six months.
Labour and other opposition parties, as well as some Conservative MPs, had said that while they recognised the need for the powers, which the government has stressed it will use only if needed, they were worried about the timescale. Labour welcomed the move, but expressed concern at some of the measures in the 329-page bill, which will go to the Lords later in the week, notably changes to rules over mental health and the provision of social care.
On Monday, before the first stage of the bill in the Commons, Boris Johnson’s spokesman said the measures would now be reviewed every six months. Clauses suspend existing duties requiring councils to meet the eligible needs of vulnerable older people, disabled people, and care leavers moving into adult social care.
“We are grateful to the opposition for their constructive approach considering this legislation,” he said. “The measures in the bill are temporary, proportionate to the threat we face, and will only be used when strictly necessary. Part of the bill will allow councils to prioritise care for those they consider most at risk if adult social care services become overwhelmed by surging demand or staff absences. But charities warned this could put vulnerable people at risk.
“However we recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and have heard concerns about the need for periodic reviews of the powers in the bill. We have therefore this morning tabled a government amendment to the bill to require the House of Commons to renew the legislation every six months. Disability Rights UK said: “Given the already broken social care system this bill will almost inevitably leave many thousands of disabled people without essential support or any rights to request this support. Rolling back our rights is not good for anyone and in the current circumstances will put many lives at risk.”
“Should the Commons decline to renew the temporary provisions, the government will be required to bring forward regulations to ensure that they expire. The two-year time limit for the act overall remains in place, and not all of the measures will come into force immediately.” Opening the Commons debate on the bill, Matt Hancock, the health secretary, said the scale of the threat posed by coronavirus necessitated “extraordinary measures of the kind never seen before in peacetime”.
Labour welcomed the move, but sought clarity on how the amendment would work. Hancock said: “Of course there are significant departures from the way we normally do things, but they are strictly temporary, and I think they are proportionate to the threat we face and they’ll only be activated on the basis of the best possible scientific evidence.”
Shami Chakrabarti, the shadow attorney general, said: “Many of us would prefer even more frequent reviews, but given the particular challenges of this crisis, we are glad that the government seems to have moved some way towards the compromise offered by Labour in the constitutional and public interest. Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, said that while robust measures were necessary to save lives, on social care it should “not be possible for local authorities to immediately drop care packages to a lower level”.
“We need the government to explain the differences between their amendment and ours and give assurances that there will not be loopholes to the six-monthly review – especially in England, which has only the Westminster parliament to hold executive power to account – and give people the financial support they need to get through this crisis.” He said Labour opposed the change that would allow people with mental illness to be sectioned on the approval of just one doctor, rather than two, saying: “Our medical professionals are going to be under huge pressure over the coming months and mistakes may well be made.”
Clive Lewis, one of the Labour MPs who raised concerns, said the six-month review “allows us to scrutinise and adjust those elements that haven’t worked and, where necessary, work to ditch certain provisions we felt as an opposition were being abused”. Earlier, one key battle was averted as No 10 gave way on the demand for a regular review of the bill’s powers, following concerns from Labour and other opposition parties, as well as some Conservative MPs.
He said: “This pandemic should not be used as cover for what could be described as an executive coup, if it goes ahead as configured. There are real concerns about our right to protest through to care for the disabled. Boris Johnson and his government’s record and rhetoric on civil liberties was never its strong suit. To now hand them powers like this without review would be to court disaster.” Just ahead of the first stage of the bill in the Commons, Boris Johnson’s spokesman said the measures would now be reviewed every six months. “We recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny and have heard concerns about the need for periodic reviews of the powers in the bill,” he said.
Shami Chakrabarti, the shadow attorney general, said: “Many of us would prefer even more frequent reviews, but given the particular challenges of this crisis, we are glad that the government seems to have moved some way towards the compromise offered by Labour in the constitutional and public interest.”
Clive Lewis, one of the Labour MPs who raised concerns, said real concerns remained: “This pandemic should not be used as cover for what could be described as an executive coup, if it goes ahead as configured. There are real concerns about our right to protest through to care for the disabled.”
Among possible powers in the bill is for police, public health and immigration officers to detain people suspected of having Covid-19, force them to isolate, and fine them if they refuse a test.Among possible powers in the bill is for police, public health and immigration officers to detain people suspected of having Covid-19, force them to isolate, and fine them if they refuse a test.
Other elements of the bill give legal force to the closure of schools and nurseries, allow ministers to ban gatherings, and gives extra powers to intervene if the government suspects anyone is disrupting the distribution of food. Another element would permit the closure of the UK’s borders if too many border staff fell ill.Other elements of the bill give legal force to the closure of schools and nurseries, allow ministers to ban gatherings, and gives extra powers to intervene if the government suspects anyone is disrupting the distribution of food. Another element would permit the closure of the UK’s borders if too many border staff fell ill.
The bill would also allow only one doctor, rather than two, to oblige someone with mental illness to receive treatment, with time limits loosened for how long they could be detained. It also eases the legal obligations on councils in providing social care to older and otherwise vulnerable people.
Other measures intended to ease pressures on the NHS would allow recently retired medical staff and students who have nearly qualified to work immediately, with protection given against any negligence claims. Other provisions are connected to improving access to statutory sick pay, and speeding up the process for funerals.Other measures intended to ease pressures on the NHS would allow recently retired medical staff and students who have nearly qualified to work immediately, with protection given against any negligence claims. Other provisions are connected to improving access to statutory sick pay, and speeding up the process for funerals.