The new "rule of six" -- and the absence of an SI
Discussion
I am not going to repeat many of the points made on other threads – merely raise one point for consideration.
The government announced earlier this week that the “rule of six” will apply from Monday 14 September such that it will be a criminal offence for more than six people to meet in a private dwelling. Its updated Covid guidance is now to the same effect.
Yet the Statutory Instrument that will make this so has not been made nor is even a draft available.
Presumably by saying that the new rules will apply on Monday, the government means from 0.01 am. Is it not extraordinary that at 12 noon on the Friday before, an interested person should not be able to find out precisely what this new criminal offence is? When will the SI be available?
The government announced earlier this week that the “rule of six” will apply from Monday 14 September such that it will be a criminal offence for more than six people to meet in a private dwelling. Its updated Covid guidance is now to the same effect.
Yet the Statutory Instrument that will make this so has not been made nor is even a draft available.
Presumably by saying that the new rules will apply on Monday, the government means from 0.01 am. Is it not extraordinary that at 12 noon on the Friday before, an interested person should not be able to find out precisely what this new criminal offence is? When will the SI be available?
It is not. This change in the law requires either an amendment to the existing SI by a further SI or an entirely new SI.
It may be that the change is to be made merely by changing "30" to "6" in the current regulations, but that is not clear.
The basic principle is that the public is entitled to know in advance if conduct is criminal. How is that so if I cannot fund out at Friday lunchtime exactly what I am allowed to do by 0.01 am on Monday?
It may be that the change is to be made merely by changing "30" to "6" in the current regulations, but that is not clear.
The basic principle is that the public is entitled to know in advance if conduct is criminal. How is that so if I cannot fund out at Friday lunchtime exactly what I am allowed to do by 0.01 am on Monday?
dhutch said:
Valid point to an extent.
However everyone knows what the rule is and how it applies. It's been all over the telly and interwebs, and makes reasonable sense given we have a raising rate going into winter flu season.
The only real thing left is how firmly it can be enforced. Personal I hope reasonably firmly. I also hope for more clamping down on blatant piss taking on those not wearing masks in shops etc.
Daniel
This is arrant nonsense. Unless and until the SI is available I do not know "what the rule is and how it applies" -- the general summary given thus far is non substitute for the SI itself. However everyone knows what the rule is and how it applies. It's been all over the telly and interwebs, and makes reasonable sense given we have a raising rate going into winter flu season.
The only real thing left is how firmly it can be enforced. Personal I hope reasonably firmly. I also hope for more clamping down on blatant piss taking on those not wearing masks in shops etc.
Daniel
This is not about whether the change is good or bad, but about how the law is made. I find it baffling that anyone can think a government can properly govern not by decree (at least then one could read the decree) but by prime ministerial statement.
There can be no excuse either: the announcement was made earlier this week and there has been plenty of time to lay the SI before Parliament.
Gareth79 said:
The clause to allow them to make these laws was in the Coronavirus Act, they still need to lay an SI to implement them. The governement can't make laws through press releases.
The previous SIs have been laid the day before they come into force, I imagine so they can be tinkered with until the last minute. I'm not sure if they can be laid at the weekend though.
The power to make the regulations is not in the Coronavirus Act, it is said to be in a 1980s Public Health Act, as amended more recently. The previous SIs have been laid the day before they come into force, I imagine so they can be tinkered with until the last minute. I'm not sure if they can be laid at the weekend though.
For example, the regulations made in March (The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 (SI 2020/350)) begin:
"The Secretary of State makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 45C(1), (3)(c), (4)(d), 45F(2) and 45P of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984(1)."
That is one of the objections that has been made -- that the Public Health legislation was never intended to be used in this way.
It is simply wrong to say that Parliament gave the executive express power to impose a lockdown in the Coronavirus Act: it did not and was not asked to.
Welshbeef said:
Surely the law that has just been past and comes into effect midnight Monday
Do keep up. The whole point of this thread is that the law has not been passed because there is no Statutory Instrument.What I suspect will happen is that the regulations will be made on Monday morning, be laid before Parliament later in the day, and come into force at some point in the afternoon/ evening.
Not merely is it an outrage but I cannot see how the Secretary of State can honestly subscribe to the statement required by section 45R(2) of the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act to use the negative resolution procedure that "In accordance with section 45R of that Act the Secretary of State is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make this instrument without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
Given the time that has been available to use the positive resolution procedure under section 45Q it is extraordinary that it should be thought appropriate to use the section 45R procedure: but of course it avoids the proper scrutiny which the Act was drafted to ensure. In other words, when Parliament passed the Public Health legislation it thought that, except in cases of true urgency, both Houses would have to approve regulations before they become effective.
I appreciate that this is the arcana of parliamentary procedure. But we have these procedures for a reason and I find it breath taking that a government of any political complexion can think it appropriate to act in this way.
Given the time that has been available to use the positive resolution procedure under section 45Q it is extraordinary that it should be thought appropriate to use the section 45R procedure: but of course it avoids the proper scrutiny which the Act was drafted to ensure. In other words, when Parliament passed the Public Health legislation it thought that, except in cases of true urgency, both Houses would have to approve regulations before they become effective.
I appreciate that this is the arcana of parliamentary procedure. But we have these procedures for a reason and I find it breath taking that a government of any political complexion can think it appropriate to act in this way.
He would do well to reflect on what a previous Conservative leader said in 1975:
"The first duty of Government is to uphold the law. If it tries to bob and weave and duck around that duty when it is inconvenient, if government does that, then so will the governed, and then nothing is safe—not home, not liberty, not life itself."
"The first duty of Government is to uphold the law. If it tries to bob and weave and duck around that duty when it is inconvenient, if government does that, then so will the governed, and then nothing is safe—not home, not liberty, not life itself."
If you want a taste of what sensible people in the profession think, look at Jeffrey Gruder QC's Twitter:
https://twitter.com/JeffreyGruder
He is not someone of whom most people have heard, but he commands huge respect in his bit of the Bar .
https://twitter.com/JeffreyGruder
He is not someone of whom most people have heard, but he commands huge respect in his bit of the Bar .
unident said:
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Yup. I view the risk of the virus to my children as statistically insignificant. On this basis I can't see any justification for exposing them to an unnecessary (for them) and new vaccine.
And the risk they potentially pose to others?Breadvan72 said:
The CA has rejected the Dolan JR application. I am not very surprised, as the claim was in my view too scattergun in its approach. More focused challenges from local authorities might be in the pipeline, but I dunno.
Stratford-on-Avon DC is reported to have written a JR pre-action protocol letter. They are pretty cross about being in Tier 3 when neighbouring areas with lower rates are in Tier 2. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff