The Coronavirus Act 2020 revisited

Labour’s next challenge in parliament will be the six-month parliamentary review of the Coronavirus Act 2020, which gained Royal Assent on March 25th 2020.

Under section 98 of the Act, a minister must come back before the House withing 7 days of Sep 25th, with a standard motion that the temporary provisions of the Act continue.

The expectation is that this will be agreed, but if it is not the government then has 21 days to make the provisions expire.

So what should Labour do? Form to date suggests it will let it all pass, but I honestly thing it should consider a vote against, on the basis that the Act does not meet current needs. It may turn out that there are enough rightwing Tories voting against it for other reasons for it to be voted down or, if the speaker allows an amendment on a ptocedure set out in this way amended significantly.

Either way, either by seeking to amend or by seeking to vote down with a view to amending new emergency legislation (Coronovarus Act Mark II). Labour should argue that, contrary to what the government said in March and largely because of the misuse and abuse of central power to date., the pandemic needs local legal powers, and that these need to become part of the Act.

At the moment, powers of local authority Directors of Public Health are limited to ‘guidance’ and whether local measures get central legal backing depends on the political whim of central govt, as we’ve seen in Greater Manchester, where Tory MPs were keen to score political ‘victories for their version of freedom, in a way which ran counter to Andy Burnham’s attempts at consensus with government and clear messaging.

As a result, legislation was delayed for around four days after the government claimed to have acted, and caused significant lack of clarity, but the divergence berween legislation and guidance has marked the pandemic response more generally.

This has to be a central Labour demand, as does a demand for an enacted commitment to funding NHS biomedical services properly to develop their own laboratory services, because the collapse of the poorly contracted and staffed Lighthouse Lab provision has caused the current meltdown.

Alongside this, a reviewed Act should make emergency regulations for training of thousands more lab technicians, of whom there is a chronic dearth after years of neglect in this area, which is partly which the big labs are failing. This needs to happen within the NHS.

Next, Labour should seek to force an amendment to the effect that a new test, trace and isolation system, building on what is there because of lack of time but with all ongoing problems resolved, including those related to private sector profit maximization, and the system put under local control as possible, should be brought back to a specially convened Cobra meeting, attended by opposition leaders, and with 10 days of the approval of the amended Act.

All such proposals should meet with general approval and while of course the govt will refuse to engage and vote the six month extension through, it will stand Labour in good stead to be offering detailed proposal through the legislative requirements.

Finally, Labour should consider, depending on numbers of votes from various sides of the debate, a broader amendment seeking to reflect the reality of the breakdown of trust in government, and compliance with the measures they put in place. That is, and nationwide measure should now have to be a measure for the full House, with the opportunity given to MPs to ensure that measures are backed by proper financial support, and as far as is now possible, by popular consent.

Will Labour do this? Nah, of course not. But here’s hoping.