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
13 results
Clear
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
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
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
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
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
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
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