header-logo header-logo

LNB news: Coronavirus (COVID-19)—BIICL publishes rule of law analysis on 18 months of legislation

19 October 2021
Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Rule of law
printer mail-detail
The British Institute of International and Comparative Law’s (BIICL) Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has published a report reflecting on the last 18 months of coronavirus (COVID-19) legislation through a rule of law lens
Lexis®Library update: The report aims to assist MPs in their consideration of a motion to renew the temporary provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CA 2020) on 19 October 2021, by providing them with an overview of the broader legislative context within which the renewal debate sits.

The report discusses how far the government's legislative response to the pandemic has respected the Rule of Law, particularly focussing on assessing the extent to which the government's response changed over the last year to address Rule of Law concerns that were brought to the government's attention in the first six months of the pandemic.

In the report, the BIICL found that:

• the government is still failing to provide Parliament with impact assessments for coronavirus legislation, meaning that Parliament has often not had the information it needs in order properly to scrutinise measures which have profound social, economic and health impacts

• the government has made positive changes in increasing the transparency of scientific advice and evidence. However, there have continued to be occasions where the government has not been sufficiently transparent as to how advice and evidence has fed into policy making

• the Coronavirus Act 2020 received very little parliamentary scrutiny when it was made, and the mechanisms for ensuring post-legislative scrutiny and accountability have been largely ineffective. In addition, insufficient time has been allocated to the renewal debates, which has limited the House of Commons' ability to provide effective post-legislative scrutiny of the Act

• the government has continued to use unamendable, delegated legislation to introduce measures which substantially affect people's everyday lives and criminalise ordinary behaviour. The BIICL query the necessity of using delegated legislation to implement significant policy changes after the initial crisis stage of the pandemic had passed

• in the first six months of the pandemic, there was widespread concern at the government's use of the urgent procedure to make regulations that came into force before they had been debated or approved by Parliament. The government has made positive changes in response to this criticism, and has ensured that Parliament has had the opportunity to debate and approve in advance of implementation most of the major, national coronavirus measures. However, the government continues to use the urgent procedure to accelerate standard parliamentary timescales. Again, the BIICL query the need for the government to prioritise an urgent response over proper parliamentary scrutiny at this stage of the pandemic

• new coronavirus laws have continued to come into effect at very short notice, even when there does not seem to be a need for an urgent implementation of the new law, making it difficult for individuals and businesses to get fully up to speed on their rights and responsibilities before new legislation comes into force

• many significant coronavirus laws are still being introduced via amending regulations. Because these amending regulations have been introduced at very short notice, a consolidated version of the original regulations - incorporating the amendments - has not always been publicly available by the time the new laws have come into force. This makes it difficult to make sense of how the law has changed

• the government has continued to portray its public health advice as having the force of law, causing confusion among the public and the police, and has resulted in police forces acting beyond their powers by enforcing government guidance rather than the law

The report ends with the BIICL's conclusion that ministers appear to have grown accustomed to the ease with which laws can be made when the government has enhanced legislative control, and they seem reluctant to relinquish law-making functions back to Parliament now that the urgency of the initial stages of the pandemic has passed.

The BIICL has said there is an urgent need to distil the lessons learnt in the last 18 months about the extent to which the current legal framework and institutional arrangements are able to ensure that the response to public health emergencies is also compatible with the commitment to the Rule of Law.

Source: 18 Months of COVID-19 Legislation in England: A Rule of Law Analysis

This content was first published by LNB News / Lexis®Library, a LexisNexis® company, on 18 October 2021 and is published with permission. Further information can be found at: https://www.lexisnexis.co.uk/

Categories: Legal News , Covid-19 , Rule of law
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Slater Heelis—Chester office

Slater Heelis—Chester office

North West presence strengthened with Chester office launch

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Cooke, Young & Keidan—Elizabeth Meade

Firm grows commercial disputes expertise with partner promotion

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

NEWS
The House of Lords has set up a select committee to examine assisted dying, which will delay the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
back-to-top-scroll