Our liberties should not be undermined without debate
When the Prime Minister returned to work at the end of April he pledged that all decisions on managing Covid-19 would be taken with “maximum possible transparency” and that the Government would share all its “working and thinking” with the British people.
The best place to share such thinking is in Parliament. The daily press briefings have never been a satisfactory format for exploring the reasons behind Government decision-making. If the British people really are to be allowed to share in the process, this can only be achieved through their representatives in the House of Commons. Yesterday’s farcical attempt at socially distanced voting is proof there will be some kinks to iron out, but it is vital that Parliament resumes, in as close to normal conditions as possible, so that laws can be openly debated.
Take the latest changes to public health law, introduced on Monday by Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary. They include a new rule specifically prohibiting anyone from staying overnight anywhere except their own home. Mr Hancock asserted that these regulations would “flip the basis of the law back to specifically outlining things that you cannot do, as opposed to saying you can’t do anything unless it’s specifically provided for”.
A welcome principle – yet Mr Hancock is being a little disingenuous. Yes, this change represents an increase in personal freedom – but it also brings the law further into the private domain.
Instead of being accosted in a public place and told to go home, people can now be visited by the police to find out if they are entertaining guests beyond the permitted limit. Police chiefs have already stated that they will not seek to “forcibly remove” someone found to be breaking this law. But they can direct the offender to leave another’s house, with the threat of a fine or even arrest if co-operation is not forthcoming.
The “overnight stay” law may be desirable on public health grounds. But this should be a matter for personal judgment, taking into account individual circumstances. Such questions should at least be offered to the Houses of Parliament for discussion, for health advice to be aired and the arguments for and against personal freedom to be heard.
Mr Hancock instead took the view that the measures were so urgent that the emergency procedures permitted by public health legislation could be used. Hence the regulations were “made” on Sunday and became law on Monday morning. Only after becoming law – by way of statutory instrument – were they laid before Parliament.
Yes, the Government has the power to rush such legislation through and to discuss it later. But this is hardly a transparent approach calculated to gain public trust.
To build such trust, the Government is right to insist that Parliament should return, and that means in Westminster and not via Zoom. If some MPS have health concerns that restrict their ability to participate, proxies and other arrangements will suffice. For others to cite childcare as an obstacle to attendance is feeble – countless key workers have had to overcome similar issues. Nor should it be difficult to find a way of voting that balances practicality with managing risk.
MPS owe it to their constituents to get back to work, and the Government must trust Parliament to do its job.