Coronavirus Bill

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I can confirm that the Bill is to deal with the current coronavirus emergency, and that is an important point. But I would also say that although the world has changed in the past three weeks in ways that many could not have imagined, every measure that has been taken by the Government has been part of the action plan that we published three weeks ago. Of course, the Bill has been drafted over a long period, because it started on the basis of the pandemic flu plan that was standard before coronavirus existed and has been worked on over the past three months at incredible pace by a brilliant team of officials right across Government. The Bill is consistent with the action plan, so while some people might have been surprised by each of the measures we have taken, they have all been part of the plan that we set out right at the start. I can confirm that it is only for coronavirus.

I also want to give further detail to my previous answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), which is that section 21 does not specify what it defines as a gathering or an event. It is deliberately broad, so it could include a care home, should we need it to, and that would be defined in secondary legislation should that be necessary.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

I am sure the whole House will want to support my right hon. Friend and the provisions in the Bill. I just want to reinforce two points. The first is that I was very concerned to see the two-year provision, which is why I put my name to new clauses 1 and 6, and I am very pleased to hear what the Government have said about the six-month review. Notwithstanding what he just said about the period of time in which this has been produced, it is a heroic effort— 321 pages of legislation which may well be subject to changes in the next few weeks and months as this crisis develops. I hope, therefore, that he will see the six-month review not just as a rubber-stamping effort, but as a chance to improve the legislation, should it require that improvement.

[Matt Hancock]

We could consider that. The proposal is to have a debate and vote as opposed to a whole new piece of legislation and, of course, only to renew it if the measures in the Bill are still necessary. Then, of course, they will fall after two years. I understand the concern of my right hon. Friend and his wisdom. I know that as Secretary of State he dealt with some of these issues, albeit not here but around the world, and he knows the sorts of measures that are needed, which are contained in the Bill.

Coronavirus Bill

Andrew Mitchell Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I agree, and I do not understand why the Government have gone in this direction. I have been told in several private meetings that it is because they believe that the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 can only be used when they do not know that something is coming down the line, but I think the definition of an “emergency” in section 19 of the 2004 Act would allow for every single thing that we are considering.

I tabled an amendment, and I must apologise to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), because it is entirely my fault that, by accident, his name ended up on my amendment. I am terribly sorry. If the Government Whips want to beat anybody up, they should beat me up. There is a serious point here, which is that if the Government are going to take draconian powers and give themselves the power to switch them on and off, that should come back to Parliament more frequently even than is allowed for in the Government’s amendment.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman may well be right about the Civil Contingencies Act, because the drafter of that legislation has confirmed that that is his understanding—at least, I believe that to be the case. I agree that two years is too long. I would have preferred the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) to be adopted. I do not think there is any sense in the Committee that we want to vote on this. We want to put the Government on notice that the length of time is a matter of concern and we must have a chance to review the legislation; the Government appear to be moving towards agreeing to six-monthly reviews. Although I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the matters that he has sought to enshrine in his amendment, I think that that would encapsulate the will of the Committee.

[Chris Bryant]

I have absolutely no intention of dividing the House. The nation does not need dividing and I do not think the Committee needs dividing on these matters either. I am grateful to the Government, who have tried to be in as listening a mood as they possibly can. My anxiety, however, is that the Government’s amendment, as tabled, is defective and simply does not work. My anxiety is that in six months’ time the Government will present us with a take it or leave it argument—you’ve either got the whole Act and all the provisions carrying on for another six months or you’ve got to leave it—and retain those powers for another 18 months.

--- Later in debate ---

Turning to mental health and amendments 64 and 65, there are changes in the Bill to the detention regime and a restriction whereby someone can be detained on the say-so of a single doctor, which is a significant change for committal. That is set out in schedule 7. In the first instance, can that be the case only where it is absolutely necessary? Secondly, can we have no single recommendation from a doctor at a private hospital when the patient is detained at that hospital? Can we at least seek to adhere to timetables that are already in place? There are powers in the Bill on extension and removal of time limits, which clearly no Parliament in ordinary circumstances would wish to introduce. Can the Minister at least give some sort of guarantee that timetables will be respected as far as possible?

[Mr Mitchell]

So that I am certain that I have understood the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, is he saying that once the immediate crisis is over anyone who has been sectioned under that regime should immediately be subject to the existing regime?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, absolutely. In fact, that should apply not just in the mental health sphere. If these are truly temporary measures, that has to apply across a range of measures.