Emergency legislation - information and commentary
Discussion
Here are the emergency regulations that compel the closure of pubs and other places in England. They have been made by the Secretary of State for Health using what lawyers call a Henry VIII power, contained in an Act of Parliament. The Regulations came into effect at 2pm on 21 March 2020.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/327/pdfs/u...
I distrust the present Government. I am concerned that a Government led by a man of no discernible principles or moral character is going to have emergency powers. BUT, having said that, so far this emergency legislation is in a classic British form. It is time limited, and it appears proportionate to the need to stop idiots like Tim Martin and his idiotic customers continuing to behave in a socially irresponsible way.
Let's see what happens next.
BTW, Henry VIII powers are so called because the English king of that name ruled in an authoritarian manner, partly because of a revamp of the civil service during his reign (the so called, debunked, un-debunked, re-bunked "Tudor Revolution In Government"). There is debate whether Henry VIII was more or less effective as a despot than his predecessors or successors, but his name is the one that gets associated with the making of rules by Ministers as opposed to Parliament. Also shagging and eating a lot of pies.
Henry VIII powers are controversial. They are not very democratic. Theresa May once argued in Court that rules she made as Home Secretary trumped an Act of Parliament. The Court disagreed with her. Henry VIII powers are already numerous, but they are set to become more numerous as Brexit takes its course. In the shorter term, they can be expected to be used a lot whilst the current crisis continues. The question always is whether a Government that takes powers will later release those powers. During WW2 the Government was a cross-party National Unity Government. Anyway, we shall see.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/327/pdfs/u...
I distrust the present Government. I am concerned that a Government led by a man of no discernible principles or moral character is going to have emergency powers. BUT, having said that, so far this emergency legislation is in a classic British form. It is time limited, and it appears proportionate to the need to stop idiots like Tim Martin and his idiotic customers continuing to behave in a socially irresponsible way.
Let's see what happens next.
BTW, Henry VIII powers are so called because the English king of that name ruled in an authoritarian manner, partly because of a revamp of the civil service during his reign (the so called, debunked, un-debunked, re-bunked "Tudor Revolution In Government"). There is debate whether Henry VIII was more or less effective as a despot than his predecessors or successors, but his name is the one that gets associated with the making of rules by Ministers as opposed to Parliament. Also shagging and eating a lot of pies.
Henry VIII powers are controversial. They are not very democratic. Theresa May once argued in Court that rules she made as Home Secretary trumped an Act of Parliament. The Court disagreed with her. Henry VIII powers are already numerous, but they are set to become more numerous as Brexit takes its course. In the shorter term, they can be expected to be used a lot whilst the current crisis continues. The question always is whether a Government that takes powers will later release those powers. During WW2 the Government was a cross-party National Unity Government. Anyway, we shall see.
i have no issue with the laws, the issues i have are they being used to protect the NHS legacy, not failing on their watch, or to save peoples lives? Giving money out to ensure they get voted back in, not everyone is getting support. There should be cross party involvement in these things.
My bad! I blame West to East jet lag and inadequate coffee drinking. My paintbrush was too too broad. Not all rule-making powers conferred by Statute are of equal concern, and the Henry VIII concern in an emergency or non-emergency situation arises from amending powers that are subject to minimal scrutiny by Parliament. As a Constitution geek, however, I have always been concerned by the heavy reliance that British Government places on Ministerial rule making, and that concern is the greater when we have an emergency, and a partisan Government. I would say the same whichever party formed that Government.
The Bill is another thing altogether. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004, a controversial product of the Blair era, contains various requirements for Parliament to ratify decisions. The present Government prefers to introduce its own legislation rather than rely on that already in place. Over legislation has been a thing for the last few decades. No doubt there is a need for action, but the people behind the action do not have records for being trustworthy types. Perhaps they will show that they are.
The Bill is another thing altogether. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004, a controversial product of the Blair era, contains various requirements for Parliament to ratify decisions. The present Government prefers to introduce its own legislation rather than rely on that already in place. Over legislation has been a thing for the last few decades. No doubt there is a need for action, but the people behind the action do not have records for being trustworthy types. Perhaps they will show that they are.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 22 March 14:16
Yup, same here. Some erosion of civil liberties is inevitable, but we hope it will be temporary. The Regulations that came into force on 21 March are limited, sensible, and proportionate. The Bill is more perturbing, and the question of duration is a live one.
Perhaps I judge Johnson unfairly, but I do not think that I do, based on his track record. Cummings appears to be at the least a dangerous fool, and Cummings gives the impression, correctly or otherwise, of being the person in charge. Even if he is not ill intentioned, he does seem to be rather ill informed, and prey to contrarian positions and whacky ideas.
Perhaps I judge Johnson unfairly, but I do not think that I do, based on his track record. Cummings appears to be at the least a dangerous fool, and Cummings gives the impression, correctly or otherwise, of being the person in charge. Even if he is not ill intentioned, he does seem to be rather ill informed, and prey to contrarian positions and whacky ideas.
barian said:
I will stay out of this particular debate, but reading the legislation again I was surprised (I will not say disappointed) to note that massage parlours are required to close. Do these involve much in the way of social interaction?
I shall commission some research into this urgent and pressing question. I hope that this research ends happily. Experts? Pah! I read about how to do science and stuff on Facebook. Did you know that if you boil up Mr Sheen with Fairy Liquid and blackberry jam it kills the bug? Old medieval remedy. The Government doesn't want you to know that. That's why they have made it illegal to own tinfoil.
Wildcat45 said:
Is there a reason why the Civil Contingencies Act isn't being used? Parliament has to approve it, but I'd have thought this was just the time for it.
Is it because:
The Govt doesn't want to have a commons debate as such a debate may distract from matters arising?
The opposition would demand a coalition government or some sort of seat at the table?
The act goes too far or isn't flexible enough?
It's easier to use specific ministerial powers in a more flexible or adaptable way?
Introducing the act may panic people?
Or none of the above?
My view is that the current Government dislikes the Parliamentary safeguards built in to the 2004 Act, which requires debates, and which is also anchored by reference to the Human Rights Act 1998, which this Government also dislikes. Historical snippet: the HRA is not some foreign imposition. The ECHR, which the HRA implements, was drafted by a team led by the British Conservative politician David Maxwell-Fyfe, later Lord Kilmuir, who served as Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor in postwar Conservative administrations, and largely reflects principles developed by the common law. Johnson et al, however, are not Conservatives, so that matters not to them. Is it because:
The Govt doesn't want to have a commons debate as such a debate may distract from matters arising?
The opposition would demand a coalition government or some sort of seat at the table?
The act goes too far or isn't flexible enough?
It's easier to use specific ministerial powers in a more flexible or adaptable way?
Introducing the act may panic people?
Or none of the above?
The debates required by the 2004 Act could, with suitable amending legislation perhaps, be conducted by videolink. A tech challenge, but not beyond the resources of the UK.
By the way, confusion reigns in the courts this morning, with some insisting on hearings, jurors being told to assemble, and other courts switching to video and telephone hearings. I was in a hearing last week in a commonwealth jurisdiction where I was number two in a three lawyer team. I was in court with the other parties and the Judge, but the QC instructed by my side and the junior junior were on a videolink from London. It worked well enough. We had suggested that everyone should be on videolink, but the court insisted on gathering seven lawyers , one Judge, and three court staff in one room.
A blog on the Bill
https://constitution-unit.com/2020/03/23/parliamen...
I have noticed from Twitter and Facebook that some people think that the Bill is already the law. The absence of public education about how the UK Constitution works shows itself yet again.
https://constitution-unit.com/2020/03/23/parliamen...
I have noticed from Twitter and Facebook that some people think that the Bill is already the law. The absence of public education about how the UK Constitution works shows itself yet again.
Update: the business closure regs for Wales.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2020/326/made
Ireland, I see, enacted its emergency powers legislation last week. Other European countries, which follow the more Bonapartist model of the State, tend already to have more extensive powers to control public behaviour than common law jurisdictions have.
Another thing notable on Twitter etc is how many people are keen on authoritarianism in general, and some seem to be very keen on ideas such as Martial law. There is a bit of that going on in N,P&E here.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2020/326/made
Ireland, I see, enacted its emergency powers legislation last week. Other European countries, which follow the more Bonapartist model of the State, tend already to have more extensive powers to control public behaviour than common law jurisdictions have.
Another thing notable on Twitter etc is how many people are keen on authoritarianism in general, and some seem to be very keen on ideas such as Martial law. There is a bit of that going on in N,P&E here.
Red Devil said:
Breadvan72 said:
By the way, confusion reigns in the courts this morning, with some insisting on hearings, jurors being told to assemble, and other courts switching to video and telephone hearings. I was in a hearing last week in a commonwealth jurisdiction where I was number two in a three lawyer team. I was in court with the other parties and the Judge, but the QC instructed by my side and the junior junior were on a videolink from London. It worked well enough. We had suggested that everyone should be on videolink, but the court insisted on gathering seven lawyers , one Judge, and three court staff in one room.
Admit it BV, you really wanted to have the hearing, complete with the big screen and battery pack, on a Caribbean beach. 
rayny said:
Breadvan72 said:
Does a staff canteen have a special immunity that a place down the road does not? In any event, quite a few workplaces are now closed.
I thought that the intention was to help prevent the spread of the virus by reducing interaction between people.If the staff canteen could be used, then the staff would not need to mingle with people outside the building whilst walking to and from the shop(s).
I used to work in the particular office I had in mind - With the canteen closed, it means a walk of about a quarter of a mile through a residential area that is heavily weighted towards retired (elderly) people.
OK. I will spell it out. People in the staff canteen would be mingling. With other people. The virus does not say "Oh, work canteen, that's OK then". FFS, start taking this seriously!
rayny said:
I'm not saying that the staff canteen would stop the spread of infection - but it could be used to help prevent it spreading outside of the building into the local community.
The idea is to keep public interaction to a minimum.
In the canteen staff would be mingling with people they are spending the working day with anyway.
By going out to get their lunch they are possibly going to interact with an extended group of, possibly vulnerable, people.
I'm sorry if I did not make this clear in my previous post .
I am sorry to be blunt, but you are an idiot. I am sorry to have to be firm, but FFS, wake up. Have you not listened to a single word about this disease? You say that the canteen staff would be mingling with the people they work with. FFS, THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Each of those people will also have travelled, mixed with people at home, etc. You think that your plan will contain the disease inside the office. Are you expecting all the workers to sleep there? Do you think that the virus respects the boundaries of buildings? I am sorry again to yell, but people who hold idiotic ideas such as yours are a big part of the problem. Please, get the message. No mingling. The idea is to keep public interaction to a minimum.
In the canteen staff would be mingling with people they are spending the working day with anyway.
By going out to get their lunch they are possibly going to interact with an extended group of, possibly vulnerable, people.
I'm sorry if I did not make this clear in my previous post .
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Who do you propose we ask? I would have thought Johnson has enough advice from qualified people both in the UK and from other countries ahead of us in this to make a reasonable judgement.
Notwithstanding that, I’m asking you, what would you have done? I note that in your diatribe you don’t actually say.
By the way, you do realise that the limited number of deaths in China was following a much stricter lockdown than Boris has introduced?
Roger Irrelevant said:
That's a bit strong, for all you know the employer might have put 'No Coronavirus Past This Point' signs on the entrance to the canteen.
Ooops! My bad! I had not thought of that. Seriously though, the astonishingly stupid suggestions about the staff canteen left me gobsmacked. Is it possible for people to be that ill-informed? Answer: obviously yes. I wonder if we will see an attempt to defend the indefensible position, or whether the penny has now dropped.
Back to the emergency rules. We can expect, later this week -
(1) to have a new Act in force.
(2) to have some rules made by Ministers using powers to be contained in that Act.
Over legislation? I think so. The Government already had available the 2004 Act. For reasons that I think may well be political, it has chosen instead to build a clumsy, over long, over complex new Act that seeks to cover way too many subjects.
Parliament is to be asked yes/no questions as to continuing in place a whole raft of disparate measures. Of course, asking people binary yes/no black/white questions about multi factor complex subjects has never gone badly, now has it!
One of the problems that we face is that, even if Johnson et al are not ill-intentioned (and as to that I have strong doubts), they have a track record of incompetence. Can anyone remember a Cabinet line-up so devoid of apparent talent? Compare the Cabinet in WW2, a cross-party battery of very able people.
Meanwhile, the UK has no effective opposition. Labour is self indulgently consuming itself with an endless leadership contest, and internal wrangles over gender ideology . The LibDems have vanished. The SNP is in turmoil also, also consumed by gender ideology, and now by recriminations over the Salmond thing.
Hey ho. Let's have a look at the emergency powers re travel and assemblies as they appear later this week.
From my desk in sunny South Oxfordshire I can hear the traffic on the M40, two miles away. Will I still hear that by Friday?
Here's a set of Rules made back on 10 February, on the basis of extant public health preservation powers dating from the 1980s (1984, if you must know!)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/129/conten...
Note that the Rules empower detention on the direction of the Secretary of State or of an NHS Consultant, in the interests of public health.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/129/conten...
Note that the Rules empower detention on the direction of the Secretary of State or of an NHS Consultant, in the interests of public health.
You remain a massive idiot. When in a hole, stop digging. Please explain the science whereby the virus knows not to infect anyone in the work canteen. Your Nobel Prize is waiting for you.
On the legislation side, I am interested in the fact that the Government put in place wide powers for the NHS as early as 10 February 2020, but then spent the next six weeks flip-flopping. Cock up, or conspiracy? I vote cock up.
On the legislation side, I am interested in the fact that the Government put in place wide powers for the NHS as early as 10 February 2020, but then spent the next six weeks flip-flopping. Cock up, or conspiracy? I vote cock up.
jm doc said:
Make your own mind up whether we are right to plunge the country into the deepest recession with businesses destroyed and bankrupted with potentially millions unemployed and a generation of children brought up in poverty on the guesswork of these people.
I'll have to borrow your crystal ball when it's free. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff