Profile picture
, 8 tweets, 3 min read
My Authors
Read all threads
The government needs to move away from "wartime" decision making and involve parliament in forthcoming coronavirus decisions when it returns in virtual form next week, the @instituteforgov argues in a new paper. Ministers should do the following 5 things.
instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/p…
(1) Get MPs' approval for the lockdown regulations at the earliest possible opportunity. These are the most draconian restrictions in living memory, maybe ever. It's extraordinary that they were enacted by ministers, and only in Scotland have they been approved by a legislature.
(2) Report to parliament on decisions taken in the regular mandatory "reviews" of the lockdown, and arrange for MPs to renew the lockdown regulations regularly. The present law is that, if MPs approve the lockdown by 18 May, they do not have to approve it again.
(3) Deal with the legal issues that have arisen from ministers' decision to enact these restrictions without primary legislation (see proposals by @TomRHickman).

Future measures will be less vulnerable to legal challenge if backed by primary legislation.
ukconstitutionallaw.org/2020/04/16/tom…
(4) Away from the lockdown: commit to greater scrutiny of decisions taken with emergency powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020, which range across health, education, social care and more. Safeguards should be equivalent to the Civil Contingencies Act, the normal emergency framework.
(5) Engage with ordinary forms of parliamentary scrutiny: questions, select committee appearances, etc. We point to various evidence that this has already had a real, positive impact on policy. MPs can raise issues ministers are missing, and interrogate and add to the evidence.
The early days of the coronavirus response required rapid, sometimes secret decision making. It is hard for parliament to do that.

Decisions on the next stage will be taken more slowly. They will also be more controversial, particularly if lockdown is lifted piecemeal.
The next stage of the government's coronavirus response will therefore be more effective, legitimate and lawful if parliament is involved.

More detail and recommendations in the paper:

/ends

instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/p…
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh.

Enjoying this thread?

Keep Current with Raphael Hogarth

Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Raphael_Hogarth see all

Profile picture
Raphael Hogarth
@Raphael_Hogarth
I think the Durham Constabulary statement is good in parts and not so good in others. I also think there are lessons from this Cummings saga about the way the government has handled the whole lockdown.
The police say they are interested in breaches of Regulation 6 of the lockdown regulations, which are laws, and not government guidance, which are not. Good. The police have sometimes forgotten that they have no business enforcing guidance. See blog:
instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/governmen…
I wouldn't say there was no offence in going to Durham, as I don't really believe that he went because he had no other childcare options (rather than going because it was somewhere nice to SI). But I agree, at least, that the childcare excuse, *if true*, is a reasonable excuse.
Read 13 tweets
Profile picture
Raphael Hogarth
@Raphael_Hogarth
How the government must and should change the law as a result of the PM's announcement:
(1) Most trivially, the PM said "we will increase the fines" those who break the rule. If he means the fixed penalty notices that police officers can mete out, these amounts are set in Reg 10 of the lockdown regulations. That will need changing.
legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/…
(2) The PM said "you can sit in the sun in your local park, you can drive to other destinations, you can even play sports but only with members of your own household." Does that require a change in the law?
Read 10 tweets
Profile picture
Raphael Hogarth
@Raphael_Hogarth
This is an odd argument, in my view. As we argued in recent @instituteforgov paper, there were arguments in favour of using primary legislation rather than the CCA, but I don't think they were legal ones, and it does create scrutiny issues.
(brief thread)
instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/p…
Gove says that the legal advice was that the government could only use the CCA in response to a "bolt from the blue" and, if they used it when they had time to pass primary legislation instead, it was open to legal challenge.
I can't see much support for that.

The CCA does say that where *existing* legislation gives you the powers you need, you must, if there's time, use those rather than the CCA.

It doesn't say that where it doesn't, you must bring forward *new* legislation rather than use the CCA.
Read 7 tweets

Embed code for your website

×
Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!