Ooh these are *complicated* regulations. Always a bad sign when there is a contents page
Preliminary point: Absolutely absurd that these regulations have been published less than 24 hours before the vote. They are so complex they should have had months of debate like a proper law.
So the first bit is about which events require Covid passes - Category A, B, C and D events
B, C and D events are subject to exceptions so watch out
Cat A: venues listed in Schedule 1 (will come to that)
Cat B: "is attended, or is likely to be attended, at any point" 😬by 500 or more people indoors or partly indoors and partly outdoors
Cat C: Outdoors with 4,000 or more people
Cat D: events with over 10,000 people
Category B events require that the 500+ people "are likely to stand or move around" during the event, and that *doesn't* include going to the toilet or getting food or drink. 🚽
Regulation 5 sets out the requirements to ensure that nobody enters relevant events without satisfying the criteria in Regulation 8 - coming to that, that's Covid passes
Regulation 6 provides for the possibility of spot checks "not reasonably possible to carry out a check on every person within regulation 5(3)as described in that paragraph, without endangering the safety of any person attending, or providing services at, the venue or event"
Bureaucracy for local authorities who have to approve spot check plans
Regulation 7: requirement for venues to keep statements and records. Hope that venues have this sorted by Wednesday!
Regulation 8 is the Covid Pass regulation, includes:
1⃣ 2 vaccine doses
2⃣ Approved test up to 48 hours before entering
3⃣ Clinical trial
4⃣ Can't be vaccinated for clinical reasons
NOT positive PCR within six months - this has been taken out it appears
Regulation 9: accepted proof
Can be NHS Covid pass or equivalent for other parts of UK.
Could also be overseas vaccination proof
Valid notification of a negative result from a qualifying test - assume you can bring the lateral flow with you?
Proof of negative test
Regulation 10 - exempt persons
Important list, includes:
- People under 18
- Services providers (e.g. employees) at venues
- organised sports or fitness activities attending venue (so excludes people attending gyms?)
Regulation 12: new power for local authorities - Coronavirus Improvement Notices
Another new power for local authorities under regulation 13: Coronavirus Immediate Restriction Notices
LAs can close premises or require improvement
And another new power under regulation 14: Coronavirus Restriction Notices
The usual offences and fixed penalty notices.
For those saying "this is easily fakeable", there is a £10,000 fixed penalty notice for a person who "makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply false evidence of COVID status to another person which P knows is false or misleading"
Otherwise it's £1,000 (or £500 if paid within 14 days) for other offences under the regulations - e.g. venue not complying with duties or LA improvement notices
Schedule 1: venues where the rules apply
Schedule 2: exempt events
- Weddings and weddings receptions
- "significant life events" (ooh, isn't the PM having a christening soon? I seem to remember the only time we had "significant life events" before was when his last child was!)
Here is the explanatory note
Note these regulations come into force on Wed 15 December at 6am - get ready everyone!
They expire on 26 January 2022 but can obviously be extended by new regulations
Nb if you run a venue please read these regulations and the guidance in full, I haven't included everything in these brief tweets. Lots to get your head around and sorted by Wed.
I have updated my Covid resources table. Because this is an entirely new category of restrictions and regulations I have added a *new table row colour"! docs.google.com/document/d/1ne…
This government may be the first in the history of liberal democracies which enacts a bill of rights which has the effect of reducing rather than increasing rights protections.
If there are other examples, please let me know!
This is like enacting a Clean Air Act which opens five new coal power stations
If I was responsible for these proposals I would be embarrassed. The idea that public authorities can't breach rights if implementing primary legislation. Or making human rights claims harder to bring by adding needless bureaucracy. Removing rights entirely from certian people...
So now we know why the govet has sat on its Independent Human Rights Act Review report for weeks - it is far more modest than the govt wanted. The govt's proposals for a bill of rights include some which go much further and would be regressive. Same as it did with judicial review
Government approach: 1. "This is very complicated we need an independent expert view" 2. Govt commission said experts - with total control over who it appoints 3. Experts give answer govt doesn't want 4. Govt ignores experts
5. Government consults on non-expert led proposals 6. Government ignores consultation and enacts regressive "bill of rights" which uniquely perhaps in the history of democracy bills of rights, reduces rather than increases rights protections
Let’s see the details of the government’s “bill of rights”. It doesn’t sound like there is much which hasn’t been widely trailed for the past few months. Very unlikely this will strengthen rights protections and will more likely weaken, or pick fights with the European…
Court of Human Rights by forcing judges to alter the balance in the way they interpret rights away from how Strasberg has, therefore, ironically leading to more influence from Strasbourg rather than less. The “right to trial by jury” may be legally meaningless but added…
… So that it can be said this “bill of rights” is not entirely regressive from a rights perspective. The freedom of speech change sounds like it is a sop to the right-wing press as the human rights act already has an extra emphasis on freedom of speech through section 12…
Still no sign of the Covid passes law which is being debated *tomorrow* in parliament
I say “debated” but this isn’t like a real parliamentary debate. The law cannot be amended and it comes into force the day after the debate so no time for changes anyway
One of the worst legacies of Covid will be parliament accepting important laws being passed by emergency secondary legislation, published hours before a debate, with no proper scrutiny
Classic Express nonsense. I have been telling them for at least 10 years the Human Rights Act and European Convention on Human Rights have nothing to do with the European Union but why let that get in the way of a good story?
I haven't seen the Telegraph article which I think this comes from (because £) but the reality is that parliament did exactly this with prisoner votes using normal legislation, the Council of Europe accepted it, everyone moved on
An inconvenient truth for this government is the UK government and courts has had a fruitful dialogue with the European Court of Human Rights for the past decade and the judgments govt has objected to have been watered down (whole life orders and prisoner votes). Meanwhile...