Coronavirus Bill - A Warning

In its infinite knowledge, our Government is introducing a so-called Coronavirus Bill, giving them sweeping new powers. And for some reason, those who one might expect to be rushing to man the barricades against overreach of executive power have been conspicuously absent. That is worrying, because, as the Observer’s Carole Cadwalladr has pointed out, there is much in the proposed legislation that is controversial.

Yes, there is an emergency, but as she points out, “we also need to carefully balance the threat to our civil rights from sweeping new powers to arrest, detain, surveil for next 2 years … Why is it for 2 years? The government is not revealing information suggesting it believes this crisis will last 2 years. Why the discrepancy? And if it's not telling us stuff now, this bill will give it powers to tell us not much more stuff in the future”. There is more.

“I'm v concerned about how data will be used. What data will not be revealed to us - as is happening now. And what data will be taken from us - to surveil & monitor us … This is big, important, scary stuff that is going to be enshrined in law today (?) with bare minimum of debate & scrutiny. The govt will work with tech companies in ways that will be totally opaque to us. The only way to contain this virus is to track & trace”. Well, quite.

Labour MP Chris Bryant was also concerned. “I can tell you now, this is the greatest emergency we’ve faced for many years, but I’m not voting for draconian emergency measures that last two years unless they require regular renewal by parliament. The Civil Contingencies Bill requires renewal every 28 days”. David Allen Green had more.

“There is already substantial emergency legislation on the statute book, from the Civil Contingencies Act to publish health and disease legislation … it cannot be assumed that just because there is an emergency, and emergency powers are needed, that there has to be new legislation … New laws should not be a knee-jerk reaction … Especially when existing legislation has built in safeguards”. Over to law lecturer Ruth Stirton.

“All of the facilitative measures … can be delivered under Part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act (s22). And the important limits on the government's power are already in place … Part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act allows for all the facilitative measures likely to be in the [Coronavirus Bill], but doesn't give the government unfettered and unscrutinised power. Let's use the legislation ALREADY IN PLACE that was designed for this sort of crisis”.

She added “DAG is right that making legislation in a rush can end in tears. The Civil Contingencies Act was written carefully in a time of not-crisis, and is widely regarded as the most advanced 'all-hazards' approach to emergency planning in the world … But it also includes important safeguards, such as measures having a limit of 30 days without re-approval, and a requirement for regular Parliamentary scrutiny of the proposed measures”.

On top of all that, there is the S-Word, as in Sunset Clauses, as Commons Library Clerk Graeme Cowie explains: “Sunset clauses are an important safeguard against the use of unusually broad or general executive powers. They also take different forms: (a) time limiting provisions in an Act (b) time limiting the power to make regulations or (c) time limiting the effect of regulations”. You can read the rest of his thread HERE.

This looks like the nastiest of power grabs. Tribal politics is what has enabled it.

Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet5

[The Legalballs Fund has now closed]