Fourth Report - Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government’s handling of Covid-19

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.