Alex1Powell Authors Adam Wagner

7 days 30 days All time Recent Popular
Adam Wagner
Adam Wagner
@AdamWagner1
A year ago, the idea that you could close every restaurant, café and pub in the capital without a Parliamentary vote or even a debate would have been unthinkable. Today we have allowed government by executive decree and it now seems normal. Covid lawmaking has corroded democracy

To explain: since March, the government has used the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 to pass lockdown laws - over 60 (I have listed them here https://t.co/5Z1p3gVjbX).


The lockdown laws have imposed stringent restrictions on movement, freedom of association, family life, religion etc. But each and every lockdown law passed has used the super emergency procedure which allows the government to pass them without a parliamentary vote for 28 days

The government did this for months before MPs revolted at which point it promised to put any major changes before parliament first. It has done this since the three tiers in mid-October.

BUT...

(1) The govt is still only giving parliament about 12 hours to consider laws and the vote is a simple yes or no

(2) Changes to tiered areas are not considered major changes so these don't go to a vote until 28 days later by which time it has usually changed.
POLITICS
Adam Wagner
Adam Wagner
@AdamWagner1
Here is the terms of reference and panel for the "Independent Review of the Human Rights Act"

Some initial thoughts

Terms of reference:

- Entirely expected that the "take into account" duty, which has been interpreted by the UK courts as a duty to follow the European Court of Human Rights where it has clearly and constantly taken a particular line, is under review...


"The impact of the HRA on the relationship between the judiciary, executive and Parliament, and whether domestic courts are being unduly drawn into areas of policy"

This is such a diffuse and difficult question to answer and ultimately depends on your definition of "policy"...

The framing of the question gives lie to this being a neutral 20-year "review". It's not, because the government plainly wants the outcome to be a finding that the HRA has led to courts "unduly" being drawn into areas of "policy"

There will be certain members of the panel, e.g. Sir Stephen Laws of the Judicial Power Project, who will argue strongly that the HRA has led to courts being "unduly" drawn into areas of policy.
HUMAN RIGHTS ACT