Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (Amendment) Bill

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This is the Bill’s first outing in debate, because although it was presented in the 2022 Session, unfortunately the House was unable to debate it. It relates directly to the beginning of the pandemic and the emergency measures that were taken by the Government and Parliament in implementing the Coronavirus Act 2020. At the time, a lot of concern was expressed about insufficient scope for parliamentary scrutiny under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, and how the level of scrutiny available under that Act compared unfavourably to that available under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Since that time, a number of academic and other articles have been written, and speeches given, in which the concern has been expressed that the Government used the wrong tool to implement restrictions on individual liberty during that pandemic, resulting in this House having an insufficient role in scrutinising that important legislation.

This issue was raised, very ably, by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) during the original debate on the Bill that became the Coronavirus Act 2020. He said:

“the whole purpose of the 30-day provision in the Civil Contingencies Act was for the Executive to be accountable to Parliament.”

The Leader of the House, however, responded to a point that he had made earlier by saying:

“we cannot use the Civil Contingencies Act…If we have time to bring forward legislation, it is proper that we do that, and anything we did under the powers of the 2004 Act would apply for only 30 days.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2023; Vol. 674, c. 132.]

Well, that is exactly what the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 is there to do. It was implemented to deal with emergencies even graver than that caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

The Civil Contingencies Act was the subject of detailed discussion before its enactment. Section 28 is entitled

“ Parliamentary scrutiny: prorogation and adjournment”,

while section 27 provides for “Parliamentary scrutiny” in other circumstances, stating that

“Where emergency regulations are made”

under the Act,

“a senior Minister of the Crown shall as soon as is reasonably practicable lay the regulations before Parliament, and…the regulations shall lapse at the end of the period of seven days beginning with the date of laying unless during that period each House of Parliament passes a resolution approving them… If each House of Parliament passes a resolution that emergency regulations shall cease to have effect, the regulations shall cease to have effect…at such time, after the passing of the resolutions, as may be specified in them, or…no time is specified in the resolutions, at the beginning of the day after that on which the resolutions are passed… If each House of Parliament passes a resolution that emergency regulations shall have effect with a specified amendment, the regulations shall have effect as amended”.

The shadow Minister has indicated that she would like to make a very short contribution.

The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) was a consistent campaigner against lockdowns during the pandemic and has continued to be since. The UK was badly unprepared. NHS waiting lists were at record levels even before the pandemic hit. We had staff shortages of 100,000 in our health service and 112,000 vacancies in social care. The Government’s handling of public health measures was chaotic as we jumped in and out of lockdowns, and the best scientific advice was frequently ignored.

The primary duty of any Government is to keep the public safe and to make sure we are prepared for national emergencies like the one we faced in 2020, but there are a few problems with the approach highlighted today. The Bill would require regulatory impact assessments to be conducted before any regulations could come into effect in England. Any regulations would have to be laid for at least 20 days before they could pass into statute. We know that in pandemics sometimes Governments have to move quickly, and the requirement to wait at least 20 days before regulations came into effect seems a potentially dangerous move. To my mind, the question that the hon. Member raises is more one of whether the Government are up to the task of dealing with another public health emergency in a way that ensures that democratic accountability and public confidence are maintained. If decisions are taken transparently and if everyone is seen to be following the rules, we stand a much better chance of maintaining public confidence and making better decisions.

I do not agree that this Bill, which risks tying the Government’s hands behind their back during a national emergency, is the way to do it. I would like to see what the covid-19 inquiry says about how that was handled and how we as a Parliament should deal with these issues in future.

I am sure that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) will want to welcome the news that in the past 12 months to March 2024, 63 million more GP appointments were delivered by our superb GPs and practice staff than in March 2019. That is more than 1.4 million extra per working day. I am sure she would be delighted to praise our GPs and health professionals for that.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for providing the House with an opportunity to debate an important area of public policy. I am aware of his ongoing interest in this area. We have discussed the pandemic on many occasions in this place, and no doubt we will do so again. The particular issue his Bill raises is parliamentary scrutiny of emergency legislation made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. That is also a topic we have debated before, and a matter about which he has tabled two identical private Members’ Bills in previous parliamentary Sessions.

We take the parliamentary scrutiny of new legislation and of the measures that the Government took to respond to the pandemic extremely seriously. However, such scrutiny must be balanced against the need to act quickly and decisively to respond to a health emergency and to protect the public. During the covid-19 pandemic, the Government had to move quickly to introduce new laws and guidance to protect public health and maintain access to essential services. My hon. Friend will be aware that during the covid-19 pandemic, as decisions were made at pace, Ministers from the Department made regular statements to the House and invited scrutiny on policy—indeed, my hon. Friend spoke on many of those occasions himself—as well as regular calls for colleagues across the House so that they could ask questions and seek solutions for members of the public who were looking for answers. Moreover, the Government have responded to numerous parliamentary inquiries and Committee reports and responded on a range of issues, including legislative mechanisms employed during the pandemic response.

Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 17 May.