I’m reviewing the Government’s plans for dealing with the Corona Virus.
Do you agree with the new emergency powers contained within the Corona Virus Bill? Do they alarm you? Are you from a minority group with observations on how this will impact you either positively or negatively?
Here’s an example of some of the proposals:
- It will be easier to section people into mental health facilities, and to keep them detained there for longer periods.
- There will be a temporary removal of the legal duty on councils to provide social care to vulnerable older people, disabled people etc.
- The process for funerals will be sped up, including the power to order a cremation instead of a burial and for the ashes to be retained by the Local Authority (this is being debated against as I write)
- Police officers will be able to detain people suspected of having Covid-19, force them to isolate and fine them if they refuse a test.
If you have any comments, please email me at [email protected]
I may not be able to respond to each message personally, but would value your views to inform my briefing to our Home Affairs team.
* Isabelle Parasram is the Vice President of the Liberal Democrats.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems beat Labour in a Liverpool by-election for first time since 1997
Little Wonders #dundeewestend
Will Labour kill off the landmark climate and nature bill?
Lib Dems will continue to back 50 per cent cap on faith-based admissions to schools
Toby Keynes
Peter Davies
William Wallace
Slamdac
John Marriott
13 Comments
I haven’t read the Bill due to its length, but I have read through the table of contents.
I consider that the Government has made a serious attempt to identify the legal powers it needs during the greatest national emergency since World War 2, and I am broadly supportive.
I have received many messages about the burial provisions from other Muslims who are very concerned about them. I would like the Government to adopt Naz Shah’s proposals intended to allow burial where feasible. Subject to that, I support giving the power to suspend burial and enforce cremation if the emergency situation makes that desirable.
Our Party should support the Bill, but it needs a sensible sunset clause. The Government’s opening gambit of asking for 24 months is too long. The right sunset period is probably 12 months. To me 6 months feels too short.
Does the Bill contain any provision for MPs to vote remotely? I think it should.
Whatever it takes!
This 330 page bill being rammed through parliament should be of concern to any Liberal. Police and courts clearly need powers specific to this outbreak but limits on their applicability should be set based on cases and tests (not a broad time-based land grab).
That they’re sneaking in provisions to remove social care and lock up more people with mental health problems tells us exactly what kind of government we have right now, and I hope our Lords have the backbone to push back on the unnecessary elements of the bill.
This bill is three times as long as the Withdrawal Agreement!
Thanks Mohammed, John and James – your comments will all be included (anonymously) in my review. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts. Isabelle
emergency situations require emergency measures. But as Liberals we should be wary of governments taking advantage of the situation to remove vital and well established human rights. The best protection would be a built-in 6 monthly renewal clause.
Two things alarm me.
1. That these measures were not brought in sooner. The Government has dragged its feet all along and could have greatly reduced the spread of the virus if it had acted with more purpose. We are Liberals, not libertarians, and should, in my view, welcome action which protects the population from something so serious.
2. The way the media constantly reassures people that the latest people who died all had underlying health issues. This is a double whammy. To those who have multiple underlying health issues such as my wife and me (asthma, diabetes, and a previous case of pneumonia in my case and a longer list in my wife’s) it is a reminder that there is a high chance that you’re not going to survive this. That’s demoralising enough. But to everyone else the message is maybe you don’t need to worry too much about this. It will just be like a bad case of flu and then you’ll be fine. So no wonder the beaches and parks were all full of people over the weekend mingling and spreading the virus!
It is not so much the actual laws that seem generally proportionate but the process of reviewing them that concerns me. If we had a proper constitution would there have been a bill to suspend it and would that be constitutional? However serious the situation, there must be checks on power and a new constitution would be a significant part of that.
I think a Bill is needed but I don’t understand why the first two points are necessary. Is the government going to use the first to section people who are refusing to isolate themselves? That sounds like totalitarian government to me. The second point is even more mystifying as I thought the elderly and vulnerable are one of those groups whom we are trying to protect from catching the virus. Surely they need more support rather than less.
I am also concerned about using the army unless there are regular reviews of the operation of the Bill with an option to withdraw some of its provisions or the entire Bill itself.
Thank you very much Isabelle for the work you are doing on this.
If this is necessary it should definitely have a short life. Sue has listed some very doubtful
points
Isabelle Parasram,
I hope you will answer some questions.
I understand that this Bill passed the Commons yesterday. I assume it has been substantially amended. Has a review period of six months been agreed? Did the government propose amendments in the Lords on Tuesday to bring into law the measures the Prime Minister announced on Monday night? Is this likely to become law on Friday? Will it give the police to the power to fine people who are out of their homes for reasons other than those the PM has restricted them to?
Latest BBC Headline
“Coronavirus: Off-licences added to list of ‘essential’ retailers”
As John Marriott says ‘Whatever it takes!’ Hic.
It is a lot of law, prohibitive law, which we hope will be unnecessary in a while.
Whenever a new law is proposed, liberals traditionally ask:
* What does the Home Office propose?
* What does the Home Office think it can get away with?
Circumstances require us to give more lee way to civil servants at the moment. But liberals will remember the ‘get away with’ moments.
Not related to this but an emergency piece of legislation I would like to see put in place immediately is a limit to that someone can gamble online.
My elderly mother who was a regular bingo goer whose name I am not going to mention has inundated her over the last couple of days with text messages about how she can continue to play bingo online instead of visiting the bingo hall and offered her ridiculous signup bonuses which have increased each time she has not responded to a text.
I asked her if she has received offers like this before to play online which she assures me she has not.
I get that industries are struggling right now, but to target elderly patrons who used to visit their halls and to instead encourage them to gamble online seems a little perverse to me.
I do not think it wise or healthy to see a rise in online gambling during these pressing times at people who are already feeling vulnerably isolated.