π¨ The fifteenth & final report on non-devolved provisions of the Coronavirus Act (2020) has been published.
Since the last report, all temporary, non-devolved provisions in the Act have now expired or been
repealed. Apart from some 'permanent provisions' under the Act...contd.
Although the majority of provisions have expired, specific powers remain in force under the Act & new primary legislation is required in order to repeal them.
We imagine this will be completed after the winter season has ended, i.e. by 31st March 2023.
(i.) Section 11 relating to continued indemnity cover for 'NHS clinical negligence'. Make of that what you will.
(ii.) Section 63, yet again the Govt are retaining these powers to make further provisions, if necessary, within the Act.
While #Scotland have introduced a new 'Recovery & Reform' Bill which amends their 2008 Public Health Act, Northern Ireland extended their powers by six months without a sitting Assembly.
In summary, while it appears #England#Wales haven't extended powers, the Coronavirus Act (2020) remains on the statute book with other devolved admins continuing to use powers by virtue of Section 89 & 90(1)(2).
But some 'permanent provisions' may not expire as expected... (contd.)
While three of the provisions & a part of the fourth (s.55b) were repealed, there's mention of provisions remaining 'necessary' to support 'pandemic recovery' & the Govt Living with COVID plan.
The 'permanent provision' of s.63 - 'power to make supplementary provisions' & it's permanent fixture by virtue of s.89 of the Act, raised our eyebrows π
'Retroactively' to our interpretation is the Govt saying that they don't want to let go of this particular power.
π "With an ambition for the NHS App to be a one stop shop for health needs, the strategy commits to a target of 75% of the adult population to be registered to use the NHS App by March 2024."
A centralised digital wallet linked to facial biometrics.
The Govt bold target of 75% of the adult UK population registered on the #NHS app, then there must be something else coming to help them drive those figures.
Just like the COVID Pass drove people towards 'jabbing for freedom', out of fear they couldn't travel.
Lest we forget that @NHSDigital won't publish their contract with @iProov citing 'security' reasons.
iProov are also on record stating "it could not disclose how long it holds facial data for" other than no longer than necessary under the contract.
Spurious claims by this organisation considering there's no case number by the complainant nor other documentation available.
This is the problem over the last few weeks. We've been so littered in misinformation to the point that the public doesn't know what's true/false...
1β£ It was 'unsurprising' to the claimant that their filing for JR & was refused & subsequently their appeal.
But of course it would be due to the glaring obvious that their claim was about an issue not directly involving the British Govt.
2β£ It is untrue that 11/12 US proposed ammendments to the IHR (2005) are 'off the table'.
According to the current #WHA75 plenary, the text for US ammendments could well be discussed, but that doesn't mean adoption of those ammendments either.
This particular graphic has been circulating & widely used for some months. It's misinformative & requires further clarity:
1β£ The US is one of 194 signatories to the IHR (2005), its biggest update since 1969. These regs *do not* 'override & supercede' the US Constitution...
2β£ The US ammendments to the IHR concern greater collaboration & commucation in the event of a future PHEIC & detail nothing about allowing the WHO to bypass sovereignty.
Other nations can object or make reservations to these ammendments set out within Article 59-64 of the IHR.
3β£ No vote will take place in #Geneva#Switzerland at the 75th WHA on IHR ammendments nor sign any Treaty into international law.
The Assembly are set to 'consider' these ammendments. There has to be time for other WHO nations to respond & make reservations.
3β£ Francis correctly pointed out that the IHR is not codified within UK domestic legisation.
The WHO have IHR 'focal points' within each member state, i.e. to provide better comms with WHO & its members especially during a PHEIC - public health emergency of intl concern.
4β£ We also agree with Francis that there's no need for a new Treaty.
If all WHO members upheld IHR treaty obligations over the past 2 years, incl. advice from WHO Emergency Committee, all we'd require within the next few years is a further strengthening of the IHR.
π 15 years ago, the International Health Regulations (2005) came into effect after the SARS pandemic of 2002-2004, signed by some 194 nations.
This could have been interpreted then as the same power grab being speculated about today with the New Pandemic Treaty.
(contd.)
It's important amongst the speculation, fear, & clickbait articles being recycled that we understand exactly what we're dealing with & in what capacity, if any. *could* the WHO begin to override the sovereignty of parliamentary democracies.
(contd.)
We believe that there's been *some* degree of misdirection regarding the fear of this NPT.
As we've said before, over the past two years the majority of WHO members have effectively torn up guidance from the WHO Emergency Committee, IHR & other international instruments.