Share this page!

Adam Wagner Profile picture
Twitter logo
9 Feb, 11 tweets, 4 min read
A short thread on why I am dubious that the government can lawfully impose charges on travellers entering the UK for quarantine and testing (proposed at £1,750 and £210)

1/
The UK has signed up to the International Health Regulations (IHA) 2005. These therefore create binding international legal obligations on the UK.

The IHA explicitly prevent charging for travellers' quarantine or medical examinations.

who.int/publications/i… /2
International law is not actionable in a UK court unless it has been implemented in law.

But it can be used as an aide to interpretation where a statute isn't clear as to what powers it grants.

See e.g. Lord Bingham in A v SSHD publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ld…

/3
The Quarantine regulations will, I assume, be made under section 45B of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984

legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22/…

/4
That gives pretty broad powers but I can't see any power to charge for quarantine. Perhaps it will be inferred from somewhere else in Part 2A?

But...
... Part 2A of the 1984 Act was brought in by the Health and Social Care Act 2008 which was expressly (see the Explanatory Notes) intended to implement the UK's obligations under...

The International Health Regulations 2005

legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/14/…

/5
Surely Parliament didn't intend for the powers under Part 2A of the Public Health Act 1984 to permit a minister to make regulations which breached the express requirements of the International Health Regulations 2005?

So how can the minister have power to impose charges?
/6
I may be missing something - let me know if I am.

I am also conscious govt may use a different power altogether to set this up, perhaps Schedule 21 of Coronavirus Act 2020? But that seems not quite right and still doesn't expressly allow for charging.

legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/s…
/7
Thoughts welcome!

/end
One further point: Regulation 45F permits the levying of charges under Regulation 45B

But I'm still not conivinced parliament would have intended these to be charges for quatantine given that is not permitted by the International Health Regulatinos legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22/…
This is a possibility - but if the government is forcing people to quarantine it seems that the effect is the same

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Adam Wagner

Adam Wagner 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!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @AdamWagner1

Adam Wagner Profile picture
11 Feb
The mandatory hotel quarantine guidance has been published gov.uk/guidance/booki…
Fees Image
You can apply for deferred payment if you can't afford the fees Image
Read 8 tweets
Adam Wagner Profile picture
11 Feb
This guidance is stricter than law. The law permits exercise including with one other person not from household. That applies to children as much as it does for adults. There is no reason in law why any child (whether they have a garden or not) could not play in a playground. /1 Image
Another crucial point is that children under 5 are not included in the limits for taking exercise with one other person. So there is no reason in law why two parents from different households could not be together exercising with their 4 children under 5 /2 Image
Also included is "where exercise is being taken as part of providing informal childcare for a child aged 13 or under, one or more members of their linked childcare household" /3 legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1374… Image
Read 4 tweets
Adam Wagner Profile picture
11 Feb
Still no sign of hotel quarantine regulations.

If tomorrow, no prospect of a parliamentary vote on them until *after* they are brought into force.

This is a law which will lead to the detention of potentially thousands of British adults and children - zero prior scrutiny.
This is a policy which has been on the cards not just for days, or weeks, but for months. Absolutely no justification for using the emergency procedure which requires "by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the order without a draft being so laid and approved."
We currently only know the bare bones of the policy. We don't know key details:
- How will the charge work? Will it be means tested?
- What happens to disabled people who can't reasonably be detained?
- What about unaccompanied children?
- Who will guard hotels?
Read 7 tweets
Adam Wagner Profile picture
11 Feb
This is just wrong. The police should ignore guidance, which isn't statutory or legally binding, and stick to the law which they are meant to be enforcing, which is complex enough Image
This is really pernicious. I can see how police have got there - by assuming that the guidance is an insight into what the legislation means. But it isn't. The Covid guidance has consistently gone further than the legislation. A legal limit on exercise distance could have been...
... included in the regulations as it was in Wales, but it wasn't. The guidance confuses, not clarifies, the law. The police would be far safer to ignore it, not least because it is a huge waste of their resources attempting to stope people driving a few miles for exercise...
Read 4 tweets
Adam Wagner Profile picture
8 Feb
I wrote a long-read on the human rights implications of lockdown.

Not straightforward, I tried to take seriously extreme danger of Covid, difficulty in proving the impact of lockdown measures and the collateral damage they have on our lives unherd.com/2021/02/the-da…
If you are looking for an article saying lockdowns are bad and shouldn’t happen, you will be disappointed. If you are looking for an article saying lockdowns are the obvious best way to deal with a pandemic, the stricter the better, not for you. The world is complicated...
I appreciate it’s a hotly contested issue and people have formed rival camps but having spent a lot of time talking about the complex human rights implications, and difficulties in proving what works, I think it is crucial to analyse properly as we approach a year of lockdown
Read 6 tweets
Adam Wagner Profile picture
7 Feb
Well, it's been quite a ride

(short, non-comprehensive thread on illegal dating and sex 2020-21)
During most of the first lockdown (26 March - 1 June 2020) sex and dating between couples who didn't live in the same household was probably illegal.

That's because dating/sex wasn't on the list of "reasonable excuses" to be outside the home

legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/…
On 13 May 2020 the rules were relaxed slightly so that people not from the same household could meet outside the home for exercise or open air recreation

So you could 'recreate' with someone outside, but not inside

legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/500/…
Read 26 tweets

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/month or $30/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!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @AdamWagner1 has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @AdamWagner1!

Read all threads by @AdamWagner1