The coronavirus pandemic has had devastating and significant impacts on every single individual’s life, albeit it in a wealth of different ways, this period has been described by our Prime Minister as the biggest threat this country has faced for decades. The past few months have subsequently seen unthinkable changes in the way we work, live and learn.
We are all very aware of the new and ever-changing restrictions, both locally and nationally, as the media and regular conferences from the government continually aims to provides us with comprehensive updates. But how is the law underpinning the constant changes to lockdowns, restrictions on social gathering’s and what business can or cannot be operating? It is the legislation itself that provides the legitimacy and the enforceability of regulations the government places upon society. Due to this, I thought it would be beneficial to look further into what the Coronavirus Act 2020 actually is, it’s aim and purpose and how it has been implemented into society.
An Overview of the Coronavirus Act 2020
The overarching purpose of the Coronavirus Act is to allow to government to ‘respond to an emergency situation and manage the effects of a coronavirus pandemic’. It states within the Bill that it contains ‘temporary measures’ designed to mitigate potential impacts and subsequently reduce the spread of COVID-19 within the population (per WHO). Throughout the impact assessment there is a particular emphasis on only using powers ‘when necessary’ with ‘proper oversight and accountability’, which ultimately reassures us, as the public, that these powers can only be implemented on the basis of scientific advice, primarily stemming from the World Health Organisation (WHO).
Implementation of the Coronavirus Act 2020
The legislative process is renowned as being onerous and in some instances, very lengthy. In order for a legislative proposal, ‘a bill’, to become an official Act of Parliament, it must pass through the House of Commons, the House of Lords and finally be given royal assent before it becomes law. Throughout both Houses there are numerous stages consisting of first/second/third readings and committee/report stages which all involve the proposed legislation being discussed, debated and scrutinised. Typically, this process may take between a few months to a year, however this is entirely dependent on the length of the bill, how controversial it is and whether it needs to be passed quickly (per gov.uk).
Unsurprisingly, the Coronavirus Act was one of those bill’s that was deemed an emergency piece of legislation as COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic by the WHO on March 11th. As a result of this new scientific evidence, the Coronavirus Act needed to be passed quickly and was subsequently passed just 14 days later, showing the need for a quick and effective legislative response.
Additionally, the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) has also identified that to effectively manage the outbreak in the UK, a new legislation must be introduced and this needed to be fast-tracked through Parliament. Therefore, as a result of this state of urgency, the act was indeed fast-tracked through both Houses of Parliament.
The connotations of the word ‘fast-tracked’ do infer that the bill may have skipped some steps of the process, in order to speed up the passage of the bill. Nonetheless, and quite reassuringly, a fast-tracked bill does still pass through all the normal stages in Parliament, ensuring the correct parliamentary process is maintained. The only difference being that the bill passes through on an expedited timetable which simply accelerates the passage of the bill (per Institute for Government).
After the Coronavirus Act was fast-tracked through the parliamentary stages and received royal assent, it came into effect on the 25th March 2020. The Act gave the UK government more power and control over essential services during the pandemic (per Pinsent Masons).
Potential Issues with Fast-Tracking of Legislation
Evidently, there was a need for the fast-tracking of the Coronavirus Act as the UK government needed law to underpin their actions. This process was seen as necessary as there was an imminent threat of the NHS becoming overwhelmed if the government didn’t act quickly, therefore passing the Coronavirus Act as fast as possible was key (per the BBC).
However, this does leave the question that: how can legislation be fast-tracked in a matter of days, when most bill’s take a year or more to be debated, adapted and subsequently scrutinised? There could be some potential problems involved in fast-tracking legislation, crucially, the possibility of weaker scrutiny or less opportunity for a full comprehensive debate of the bill. Consequently, with less time allocated to debates within the parliamentary timetable, this may increase the likelihood of errors and unintended impacts upon the general public (per Institute for Government). Similarly, as the main focus will be to get the legislation through the parliamentary process as quickly as possible, this pressure may reduce the public confidence of the actual legislation, which thus places strains upon the rule of law (per Law Gazette).
The Impact of the Coronavirus Act and Covid-19
The implementation of the Coronavirus Act has resulted in over 600 changes to already existing legislation, this clearly highlights the widespread impact of the act and shows changes to laws you probably wouldn’t even think would be affected. For reference and to give just one example of impacted legislation, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1884, has had words inserted/substituted by the Coronavirus Act showing that existing legislation, governing very different areas have law, have been impacted upon.
There’s no doubt that the effects and impacts of this pandemic will continue to prevail for the foreseeable future as the UK economy has plunged into the deepest recession since records began in 1955 (per the Guardian). 7.6 million jobs are at risk because of COVID-19-related lockdowns and shockingly, in the four weeks from March 16, there were 1.4 million new applications for social assistance through the universal credit system (per McKinsey).
The Coronavirus Act has attempted to mitigate these impacts via implementations like furlough schemes and deferral of VAT payments. Yet, the extent to which the Act has actually met its purpose of mitigating all the above situations can still be questioned (per gov.uk).
Effectiveness & Legitimacy
As a result of the urgency for this act, the effectiveness of the laws within can always be questioned and somewhat critiqued. Without even delving into the Act and its effectiveness upon the general public, the actual impact assessment of the Coronavirus Act states that as it is temporary, emergency legislation, a formal impact assessment is ‘not required for Better Regulation purposes’. This leads one to question how effective the Act will be at maintaining its purpose of only using powers when necessary and as appropriate to the risk posed by the virus. There could be concerns here that the initial impact assessment is not sufficient and hasn’t examined deeper into how the restrictions on social gatherings are, for example, impacting our freedom of assembly and association under Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The Joint Committee on Human Rights has expressed concerns for the volume of legislation coming into force before it has been laid in Parliament which ‘creates risks for the rule of law…’. This report placed concerns of how informed the public are being kept informed especially when the majority of changes will affect a large number of our human rights.
Indeed, the Coronavirus Act has to balance the need for protection of health and public morals whilst implementing rules in a ‘justifiable, fair and proportionate way’ which upholds our human rights and obligations under the rule of law.
Looking Ahead...
The future of the Coronavirus Act remains dependent on how quickly/efficiently we can control COVID-19 and reduce the reproduction rate below one (per the BBC). As the cases fall and the need for the legislation within the act decreases, it may no longer and (hopefully) be necessary in UK law.
The Coronavirus Act is due to expire 2 years after the 25thMarch (the day it was passed), as the measures in the bill were only for temporary use when proportionate to the threat faced. Therefore, the legislation is only in place for as long as required to respond to the pandemic (per gov.uk).
However, as the unpredictability of the coronavirus pandemic continues to prevail, the act is subject to a parliamentary review with the notion that "the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 should not yet expire." Which will subsequently extend the provisions of the act to provide further legislative confidence over the control of COVID-19.
Poppy is a second year Law student at Newcastle University and is from Leeds. She is looking to pursue a career as a solicitor in the commercial law sector.
Comments