Responding to Covid-19 and the Coronavirus Act 2020

Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee Closed Inquiry
Opened: 15 May 2020 Closed: 9 Mar 2021 Parliament page
The Coronavirus Act 2020 was emergency legislation passed by Parliament on 25 March, to provide the Government with the powers it wanted to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic in the UK. PACAC has launched this inquiry to scrutinise the constitutional and public administration aspects of the Act, with the goal of … Read more
13 Recommendations
11 Conclusions
1 Report
4 Oral sessions
11 Letters
4 Events
Activity timeline 17 events
9 Dec
2020
Report published
6 Oct
2020
Correspondence
22 Sep
2020
Correspondence
10 Sep
2020
Report published
2 Sep
2020
Correspondence
2 Sep
2020
Correspondence
2 Sep
2020
Correspondence
23 Jul
2020
Oral evidence
21 Jul
2020
Correspondence
14 Jul
2020
Oral evidence
7 Jul
2020
Correspondence
23 Jun
2020
Oral evidence
Oral evidence sessions 4 sessions
23 Jul 2020
View on parliament.uk
Responding to Covid-19 and the Coronavirus Act 2020
Dame Una O’Brien DCB Dr Alister Stark Emma Norris · Institute for Government Jason Beer QC Sir Robert Francis · HealthWatch England The Rt Hon. the Baroness Prashar CBE The Rt Hon. the Lord Butler of Brockwell KG GCB CVO
14 Jul 2020
View on parliament.uk
Responding to Covid-19 and the Coronavirus Act 2020
Clara Swinson · Department for Health and Social Care Edward Argar MP · Department of Health and Social Care Katharine Hammond · Cabinet Office Rt Hon Penny Mordaunt MP · Cabinet Office
23 Jun 2020
View on parliament.uk
Responding to Covid-19 and the Coronavirus Act 2020
Gordon Lyons MLA · Northern Ireland Assembly Jeremy Miles MS · Welsh Government Michael Russell MSP · Scottish Parliament
16 Jun 2020
View on parliament.uk
Responding to Covid-19 and the Coronavirus Act 2020
Dr. Ronan Cormacain · (self-employed) Professor Aileen McHarg · Durham University Raphael Hogarth · Institute for Government
Title HC No. Published Items Response
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government’s handl… HC 377 10 Sep 2020 24 Responded
Recommendations & Conclusions
24 results
1 Recommendation Accepted
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
The governance arrangements for responding to COVID-19 have not always been clear.
The governance arrangements for responding to COVID-19 have not always been clear. Press reports of a “quad” of Ministers making decisions in April raise questions of a parallel governance structure in addition to the formal Cabinet Committee structure. Such parallel … Read more
Government Response
The government details the evolving governance structures for its COVID-19 response, including COBR, Ministerial Implementation Groups, and the later establishment of the COVID-19 Strategy and COVID-19 Operations cabinet committees, thereby setting out the requested arrangements.
View details
2 Conclusion Acknowledged
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
The effectiveness of governance arrangements overseen by the Cabinet Office is something that will continue...
The effectiveness of governance arrangements overseen by the Cabinet Office is something that will continue to be of interest to the Committee and form part of its future work programme.
Government Response
The government details the evolution of its COVID-19 governance arrangements, from initial COBR meetings and Ministerial Implementation Groups to the later establishment of the COVID-19 Strategy and COVID-19 Operations cabinet committees.
View details
3 Recommendation Accepted
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
The Government’s messaging on who could continue to work was not as clear as it...
The Government’s messaging on who could continue to work was not as clear as it should have been. The closure of schools and definitions of “key workers” caused some industries to close that could have continued to operate, such as … Read more
Government Response
The government states it has always made and continues to make every effort to communicate COVID-19 policy clearly and simply, citing specific public information campaigns and clear guidance provided to industries like construction.
View details
4 Conclusion Accepted
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
As a result of the timescales involved and the political situation, detailed scrutiny of the...
As a result of the timescales involved and the political situation, detailed scrutiny of the Coronavirus Bill was not practical. It is therefore very important that Government is held to account for how it uses and justifies the continued application … Read more
Government Response
The government explained its decision to use the Coronavirus Act over the Civil Contingencies Act, highlighting that the Coronavirus Act includes built-in parliamentary scrutiny through six-month reviews and two-monthly reports, which it believes ensure accountability.
View details
5 Recommendation Rejected
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
The Government’s desire to find alternatives, such as bespoke primary legislation, to using the emergency...
The Government’s desire to find alternatives, such as bespoke primary legislation, to using the emergency provisions of the Civil Contingency Act 2004 is understandable. Bespoke primary legislation has the advantage of going through the stages of Parliamentary scrutiny. However, the … Read more
Government Response
The government defends its decision not to use the Civil Contingencies Act for COVID-19, stating that the Coronavirus Act allowed for prior parliamentary scrutiny and provided sufficient safeguards, implicitly rejecting the recommendation for its future use as a stop-gap or for new equivalent safeguards.
View details
6 Conclusion Accepted
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
The Government’s reticence to use the Civil Contingencies Act in response to a genuine national...
The Government’s reticence to use the Civil Contingencies Act in response to a genuine national emergency calls into question how fit for purpose that legislation is.
Government Response
The government explained its decision to use the Coronavirus Act over the Civil Contingencies Act, asserting that the CCA is designed as a last resort and that the Coronavirus Act provided an opportunity for prior parliamentary scrutiny with agreed renewal of powers.
View details
7 Conclusion Accepted
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
The Committee is concerned by both the scale of legislation and the inability of Parliamentarians...
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 … Read more
Government Response
The government noted the committee's concerns, highlighting that existing mechanisms like debates and oral statements offer accountability opportunities and that parliamentary input is taken into consideration, despite regulations not being amendable.
View details
8 Conclusion Accepted
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
The current system of Parliamentary scrutiny in relation to lockdown regulations is not satisfactory.
The current system of Parliamentary scrutiny in relation to lockdown regulations is not satisfactory. The fact that this legislation, which contains stark restrictions on people’s civil liberties, is not amendable by Members, made under the urgent procedure and therefore without … Read more
Government Response
The government noted the committee's concerns, explaining that existing parliamentary opportunities, such as debates and oral statements, provide mechanisms for accountability and that members' input is considered, although regulations are not amendable.
View details
9 Recommendation Accepted in Part
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
Parliamentary processes and debates help to confer legitimacy upon policy changes made through emergency legislation,...
Parliamentary processes and debates help to confer legitimacy upon policy changes made through emergency legislation, particularly when the legislation is so striking in its curtailment of liberties that would normally be taken for granted. Such debates also provide opportunities for … Read more
Government Response
The government notes concerns and states it will continue to provide opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny. It reaffirms the Secretary of State's commitment to facilitate debates on significant national regulations before they come into force, whenever circumstances permit, citing specific recent examples of this practice.
View details
10 Conclusion Rejected
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
The use of the urgent procedure has not always been justified, particularly when the Government...
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 … Read more
Government Response
The government defends its use of the urgent procedure due to the rapid nature of the pandemic, stating it cannot delay urgent regulations. It notes it will consult Parliament and hold votes wherever possible but is confident it acted lawfully and rationally in its use of the procedure.
View details
11 Recommendation Accepted
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
In the event the Government believes it is necessary for the urgent procedure to 32...
In the event the Government believes it is necessary for the urgent procedure to 32 Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government’s handling of Covid-19 be used to make affirmative statutory instruments, it behoves it, especially with legislation as important to the … Read more
Government Response
The government acknowledged seeking to provide timely scrutiny but noted challenges due to rapid changes in disease transmission, citing the Tiers structure and COVID-19 Winter Plan as examples where policy was set out and legislation debated in advance.
View details
12 Recommendation Rejected
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
The Committee strongly welcomes the Government’s publication of draft legislation for implementing future local lockdowns...
The Committee strongly welcomes the Government’s publication of draft legislation for implementing future local lockdowns similar to those in Greater Manchester or Leicester. This is a welcome improvement in transparency and facilitates parliamentary scrutiny of measures that may need to … Read more
Government Response
The government states that the transition to a Tiers structure replaced the need for the specific draft legislation mentioned, rendering the recommendation to increase awareness of it no longer applicable. They highlight other general efforts for parliamentary engagement.
View details
13 Recommendation Rejected
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
The six-monthly Parliamentary reviews offer an opportunity for the House to debate the relevant temporary...
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. … Read more
Government Response
The government rejected the recommendation for additional thematic debates, arguing that the existing system of scrutiny, including numerous debates, oral statements, and committee oversight, provides sufficient opportunities for Parliament to examine the Coronavirus Act.
View details
14 Recommendation Acknowledged
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
The two-monthly reports on the status of non-devolved provisions, published under section 97, should be...
The two-monthly reports on the status of non-devolved provisions, published under section 97, should be an important tool for scrutiny, but as currently structured, the reports do not give enough detail to enable Parliament, experts or the public to do … Read more
Government Response
The government recognised the need for timely reports with evidence-based arguments and is considering additional helpful information, committing to publish analysis for anniversary debates, building on existing detailed two-month reports.
View details
15 Recommendation Accepted
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
It is prudent of the Government not to seek to legislate for every eventuality, which...
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 … Read more
Government Response
The government acknowledges past issues with clarity and commits to continually striving to ensure future announcements are made in good time and that communications clearly distinguish between guidance and legal requirements.
View details
16 Conclusion Accepted in Part
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
The Government did not immediately set out the exceptions to the ban on gatherings in...
The Government did not immediately set out the exceptions to the ban on gatherings in private dwellings in parts of the North of England but instead waited until it introduced the legislation. This is particularly strange when the exceptions relating … Read more
Government Response
The government acknowledged the occasional delay between announcements and regulations, committing to continually strive for timely future announcements and clearer wording to avoid confusion, recognizing the challenge of balancing swift action with clear communication.
View details
17 Recommendation Acknowledged
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
The Government’s published draft legislation for implementing future local lockdowns (referred to in Chapter 2...
The Government’s published draft legislation for implementing future local lockdowns (referred to in Chapter 2 of this report) should mean that it is easier to publish all information immediately when implementing new local lockdowns or relaxing local lockdowns slowly. However, … Read more
Government Response
The government notes the committee's concerns, acknowledging past intervals between announcements and regulations. It commits to continually striving for timely future announcements and clearer wording in guidance, but provides no specific actions for viewing the draft legislation as a 'living document' or immediate publication.
View details
18 Conclusion Accepted
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
The motion under section 98 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 is an “all or nothing”...
The motion under section 98 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 is an “all or nothing” proposition. Under the terms of the motion, either all temporary provisions must be expired or none need to be. The House does not have any … Read more
Government Response
The government acknowledged the 'all or nothing' nature of the motion but argued that members can still effectively influence Ministers during six-monthly reviews, citing an example where this led to policy change, while rejecting a 'pick and choose' approach to maintain legal certainty.
View details
19 Conclusion Acknowledged
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
While the House does not have the power to compel Ministers to cause specific temporary...
While the House does not have the power to compel Ministers to cause specific temporary provisions under the Coronavirus Act to expire, the powers Ministers have under the Act means that Members of the House can still use the six-monthly … Read more
Government Response
The government shares the committee's view that MPs should use six-monthly reviews to raise concerns and press Ministers on expiring or suspending provisions, citing an example where a Minister acted on such representations.
View details
20 Recommendation Acknowledged
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
The resolution of the debate will not affect all coronavirus-related legislation.
The resolution of the debate will not affect all coronavirus-related legislation. For example, “lockdown regulations”, are made under the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 and would therefore not be legally affected by the six-monthly reviews. The Government should … Read more
Government Response
The government recognises concerns and hopes existing parliamentary briefings and public records have clarified the statutory basis of legislation, including what is not part of the Coronavirus Act. It also highlights the Secretary of State's commitment to debate significant national regulations before they come into force, where possible.
View details
21 Conclusion Accepted
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
Paragraphs 74–79 of this report includes evidence relating to specific provisions within the Coronavirus Act...
Paragraphs 74–79 of this report includes evidence relating to specific provisions within the Coronavirus Act that may be of interest to Parliamentarians for the six- 34 Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government’s handling of Covid-19 monthly review. This includes powers under … Read more
Government Response
The Government announced the removal of the Mental Health Provisions under Section 10 (Schedule 8) of the Coronavirus Act in their entirety for England and partially for Wales, noting they were not required. It also provided an update on the use and necessity of powers under Schedules 21 and 22.
View details
22 Conclusion Accepted
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
Not all temporary provisions under the Coronavirus Act 2020 are in force.
Not all temporary provisions under the Coronavirus Act 2020 are in force. The Government’s two-monthly reports, on the status of non-devolved provisions, are therefore an important resource for the debate.
Government Response
The government committed to timetabling six-monthly reviews to ensure two-monthly status reports are published promptly, and will ensure six-month reports are no less detailed, continually providing updated information and evidence-based analysis.
View details
23 Recommendation Accepted
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
The Government should take care to timetable the six-monthly review debate so that the two-monthly...
The Government should take care to timetable the six-monthly review debate so that the two-monthly status report is published in good time before that debate takes place, ensuring Parliamentarians have the most up-to-date report to inform the debate.
Government Response
The government intends to timetable the six-monthly review debate so the two-monthly status report is published in good time, striving to maximise timetabling despite potential limitations like house sittings, and committing to provide up-to-date information.
View details
24 Recommendation Accepted
Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scru…
It is vital that the temporary provisions in the Coronavirus Act are properly scrutinised and...
It is vital that the temporary provisions in the Coronavirus Act are properly scrutinised and justified. The six-monthly review debate is one of the main avenues for this scrutiny to take place. To aid effective scrutiny and transparency, it is … Read more
Government Response
The government has published a Coronavirus Act Analysis, accessible online and committed to updating it, which sets out the rationale, justification, and evidence for the Act's provisions. They also intend to timetable the six-monthly review to ensure timely publication of reports.
View details
Government Response AI assessment · 24 of 13 classified
Accepted 13
Accepted in Part 2
Acknowledged 5
Rejected 4
Total 13 recs + 11 conclusions
Correspondence 11 letters
6 Oct 2020 To committee Letter from the Rt Hon Matt Hancock MP, Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on renewal of provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020, dated 29.9.20
Parliament page
22 Sep 2020 From committee Letter to the Rt Hon Michael Gove MP on debate on renewal of provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020, dated 17.9.20
Parliament page
2 Sep 2020 To committee Letter from Edward Argar MP, Minister of State for Health on follow-up evidence after 14.7.20 oral evidence session, dated 26.8.20
Parliament page
2 Sep 2020 To committee Letter from the Paymaster General Rt Hon Penny Mordaunt MP on follow-up evidence after 14.7.20 oral evidence session, dated 21.8.20
Parliament page
2 Sep 2020 To committee Letter from Gordon Lyons MLA, Junior Minister, Executive Office, Northern Ireland on follow-up evidence after 23.6.20 oral evidence session, dated 3.8.20
Parliament page
21 Jul 2020 To committee Letter from Michael Russell MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, Europe and External Affairs on civil contingency planning and preparedness, dated 17.7.20
Parliament page
7 Jul 2020 To committee Letter from Ed Humpherson, Director General for Regulation, Office for Statistics Regulation on Covid-19 statistics, dated 1.7.20
Parliament page
16 Jun 2020 To committee Letter from Chloe Smith MP, Minister of State on Boundary review and electoral data and annual canvass 2020, dated 9.6.20
Parliament page
9 Jun 2020 Correspondence with Rt Hon Mark Drakeford MP regarding invitation to give oral evidence on Coronavirus, dated 2.6.20
Parliament page
9 Jun 2020 Correspondence with Rt Hon Nicola Sturgeon MSP regarding invitation to give oral evidence on Coronavirus, dated 2.6.20
Parliament page
9 Jun 2020 Correspondence with Rt Hon Arlene Foster MLA regarding invitation to give oral evidence on Coronavirus, dated 2.6.20
Parliament page