Read on Twitter
To explain: since March, the government has used the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 to pass lockdown laws - over 60 (I have listed them here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ne4zhPYAZK8G867D1Iz0Gg2ZJFLGmF2K/edit).
The lockdown laws have imposed stringent restrictions on movement, freedom of association, family life, religion etc. But each and every lockdown law passed has used the super emergency procedure which allows the government to pass them without a parliamentary vote for 28 days
The government did this for months before MPs revolted at which point it promised to put any major changes before parliament first. It has done this since the three tiers in mid-October.
BUT...
BUT...
(1) The govt is still only giving parliament about 12 hours to consider laws and the vote is a simple yes or no
(2) Changes to tiered areas are not considered major changes so these don't go to a vote until 28 days later by which time it has usually changed.
(2) Changes to tiered areas are not considered major changes so these don't go to a vote until 28 days later by which time it has usually changed.
So where we are left is an almost complete democratic deficit:
(1) Hardly any votes/debates
(2) Debates so rushed and have no prospect of amendment that they become toothless
(3) Government deciding whether a change is "major" so even the anaemic scrutiny available is rare.
(1) Hardly any votes/debates
(2) Debates so rushed and have no prospect of amendment that they become toothless
(3) Government deciding whether a change is "major" so even the anaemic scrutiny available is rare.
Important to note that I am not making a 'lockdown skeptic' argument here (though I think we should have fierce debates over any major restrictions on rights), but rather one about democracy and scrutiny.
For those who ask 'where have the human rights lawyers been when we are making these arguments' - I and others have been beating this drum since March. Ultimately it is for Parliament to wrest back control and 'sovereignty', to coin a phrase as courts will not come to the rescue.
The problem is that we have become used to this ‘emergency’ procedure being used. It didn’t need to be like this. Parliament could have developed a far more democratic approach through eg 14 day emergency procedure including amendments and committee scrutiny.
If you want to follow the whole sorry story since March # in 200 tweets then this thread is for you! https://twitter.com/adamwagner1/status/1239152935147311104
A few more thoughts from 6 months ago. Can’t really believe this is still going on https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/coronavirus-covid-19-law-parliament-emergency-powers
