Publications / Briefings

What Covid Regulations might MPs be asked to debate on 14 December and how will the Regulations be approved?

12 Dec 2021
null
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP, making a statement to the House of Commons updating Members on Covid-19, 8 December 2021. ((©) House of Commons / Jessica Taylor)

What Covid Regulations will the House of Commons debate on 14 December, and how? Amid backbench unrest, the occasion will be shaped by the interplay between delegated legislation scrutiny, parliamentary procedures, and raw politics. The outcome could have profound consequences for both public health policy and the Prime Minister’s position.

Dr Brigid Fowler, Senior Researcher, Hansard Society
Dr Ruth Fox, Director , Hansard Society
Dheemanth Vangimalla , Researcher, Hansard Society
, Senior Researcher, Hansard Society

Dr Brigid Fowler

Dr Brigid Fowler
Senior Researcher, Hansard Society

Brigid joined the Hansard Society in December 2016 to lead its work on Parliament and Brexit, as well as contribute to its ongoing research on the legislative process, parliamentary procedure and scrutiny, and public political engagement. From 2007 to 2014 she was a Committee Specialist for the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, where she led on the Committee’s EU-related work. In the first six months of 2016 she was on the research team of Britain Stronger in Europe. She has also worked as assistant to an MEP in Brussels and as an analyst and researcher on EU and European affairs in the private sector and at the University of Birmingham and King’s College London.

After completing BA and MPhil degrees at the University of Oxford in PPE and European Politics, respectively, she spent the first part of her career focusing on the politics of post-communist transition and EU accession in Central Europe, and completed her PhD at the University of Birmingham on the case of Hungary. She has given media comment, appeared before select committees and published several journal articles and book contributions.

, Director , Hansard Society

Dr Ruth Fox

Dr Ruth Fox
Director , Hansard Society

Ruth is responsible for the strategic direction and performance of the Society and leads its research programme. She has appeared before more than a dozen parliamentary select committees and inquiries, and regularly contributes to a wide range of current affairs programmes on radio and television, commentating on parliamentary process and political reform.

In 2012 she served as adviser to the independent Commission on Political and Democratic Reform in Gibraltar, and in 2013 as an independent member of the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Committee Review Group. Prior to joining the Society in 2008, she was head of research and communications for a Labour MP and Minister and ran his general election campaigns in 2001 and 2005 in a key marginal constituency.

In 2004 she worked for Senator John Kerry’s presidential campaign in the battleground state of Florida. In 1999-2001 she worked as a Client Manager and historical adviser at the Public Record Office (now the National Archives), after being awarded a PhD in political history (on the electoral strategy and philosophy of the Liberal Party 1970-1983) from the University of Leeds, where she also taught Modern European History and Contemporary International Politics.

, Researcher, Hansard Society

Dheemanth Vangimalla

Dheemanth Vangimalla
Researcher, Hansard Society

Dheemanth joined the Hansard Society in July 2021 as a Researcher to contribute to the Review of Delegated Legislation. His role also involves supporting the day-to-day delivery of the Society’s legislative monitoring service, the Statutory Instrument Tracker®.

Dheemanth has a diverse professional background that includes experience in both the legal and non-legal sectors. He completed his MBBS degree at the University of East Anglia. He has since attained a Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) while working full-time as a junior doctor at an NHS hospital trust. He has previously conducted legal research with the hospital’s legal services department. As a research assistant, he has also contributed to a public international law project concerning citizenship and statelessness. Additionally, he has experience conducting scientific and laboratory-based research during his BMedSci degree in Molecular Therapeutics at Queen Mary University of London.

Get our latest research, insights and events delivered to your inbox

Subscribe to our newsletter

We will never share your data with any third-parties.

Share this and support our work

On 8 December, the Prime Minister announced that the government was moving its Covid-19 policy to ‘Plan B’, in response to the identification and rapid spread of the new Omicron variant of the virus. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made a parallel statement to the House of Commons. The House is due to debate Statutory Instruments (SIs) relating to Covid-19 on 14 December. As part of ‘Plan B’, the government has identified three measures in particular that either have been, or we anticipate will need to be, introduced via regulations, made into law in the form of Statutory Instruments (SIs):

  1. extending the legal requirement to wear face coverings to more indoor settings;

  2. introducing daily tests for those who have been in contact with someone who has the Omicron variant of Covid-19, rather than requiring them to isolate; and

  3. introducing so-called ‘Covid passports’ – mandatory certification, based on vaccination or tests, for entry to nightclubs and large events.

The government has said that these measures will be reviewed on 5 January 2022 and that they will all be sunsetted to expire on 26 January. The three ‘Plan B’ measures are most likely to be enacted in three separate SIs. Of the three prospective Instruments, as of 11 December only one – the SI on face coverings – has been laid before Parliament. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/No. 1400) were laid on 9 December and came into force on 10 December. In line with the government’s sunsetting commitment, they expire on 26 January 2022. The Regulations expand the legal requirement to wear face coverings to indoor settings in England including banks, places of worship, museums, and public areas in hotels and hostels, except where certain “reasonable excuses” apply. The remaining two prospective ‘Plan B’ SIs (on testing instead of isolation, and ‘Covid passports’) have not so far been laid before Parliament or published.

As of 11 December, only the face coverings SI has been formally scheduled for debate in the House of Commons on 14 December. Otherwise, the House’s ‘Future Business’ paper lists for that day only "Motions to approve statutory instruments relating to public health”. In addition to the two remaining prospective ‘Plan B’ SIs (on testing instead of isolation, and ‘Covid passports’), there are two further Coronavirus-related SIs that pre-date the ‘Plan B’ announcement and have been laid before Parliament, but still require parliamentary debate and approval. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No.5) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/No. 1382) is in effect a legislative ‘tidying-up’ measure that extends the current exemption from self-isolation requirements to people considered fully vaccinated under the International Travel Regulations. The exemption does not apply to contacts of a confirmed or suspected case of the Omicron variant. This SI was laid before Parliament on 8 December and most of its provisions came into force on 9 December (some are due to come into force on 18 January 2022). Given that this SI was made and laid before Parliament prior to the face covering Regulations, it is not clear why it has not also been confirmed for debate on 14 December. The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) (No.2) Regulations 2021 propose to extend the requirement for mandatory Covid-19 vaccination to anyone working in the NHS in a regulated activity in the health and social care sector who will have direct, face-to-face contact with a service user, unless subject to a medical exemption. This draft SI was laid before Parliament on 9 November but has not yet been debated – or scheduled for debate – by MPs. It is scheduled to be debated by the House of Lords on 14 December. Given the SI’s anodyne title, it is unsurprising that many parliamentarians may not have realised that Regulations to extend mandatory vaccination to NHS workers have already been laid before Parliament. Taking the ‘Plan B’ and earlier, still-pending, SIs together, and given the difficulties the government faces on its own backbenches, the House of Commons could be asked to debate and approve as few as one, most probably three, but possibly as many as five SIs on 14 December. This assumes that the government does not decide before then that it needs further measures. Of the five known probable SIs, the mandatory NHS vaccination SI is a 'draft affirmative’ SI: it cannot be made into law (signed by the Minister) unless and until it has received parliamentary approval. The remaining four are, or are likely to be, ‘made affirmative’ SIs: they are made into law before being laid before Parliament, but cannot remain law unless they receive parliamentary approval within a statutory period. In the case of ‘made affirmative’ SIs under the emergency procedure (Section 45R) in the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, this statutory period is 28 days from the date on which an SI is made, not counting periods when both Houses of Parliament are adjourned for more than four days. Taking account of currently planned parliamentary recess dates, by our count any such SIs made on 13 and 14 December 2021 would need to be approved by 28 and 29 January 2022.

In its policy paper on the possible introduction of ‘Covid passports’ in a ‘Plan B’ scenario, published on 27 September, the government stated that it would expect to make the relevant Statutory Instrument under Section 45C of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and that, if the measure were needed urgently, it would use the emergency procedure under Section 45R. (The government has already used the emergency Section 45R procedure 95 times during the pandemic.) In its September paper, the government said that it would “seek to provide a vote in Parliament ahead of any regulations coming into force”. It has also stated that ‘Covid passports’ will be a requirement from 15 December ahead of their debate on 14 December.

Especially given that the ‘Covid passport’ SI is not published as of 11 December, this prospective timetable before it comes into force on 15 December is inadequate to allow any proper scrutiny to take place. MPs will have almost no time to read the legislation and any supporting material, such as the Explanatory Memorandum and any Impact Assessment.

The ‘Covid passport’ measure is opposed by a growing band of Conservative backbenchers and, reportedly, some MPs on the government payroll. The scale of the prospective rebellion raises the possibility that the government might have to rely on Opposition votes to get its measure through. This would be politically risky and could fatally undermine the Prime Minister’s position among Conservative MPs, following an already torrid month for him. However, the fact that the ‘Covid passport’ SI will be subject to the emergency ‘made affirmative’ procedure in theory might give the government more options. Notwithstanding the government’s promise to try to give Parliament a vote before they come into force, the Regulations are only required to win parliamentary approval by late January. In theory, the government could introduce and enforce ‘Covid passports’ until then without the measure receiving any formal parliamentary scrutiny or approval. Moreover, the SI will be sunsetted to expire on 26 January. If ‘Covid passports’ were no longer needed after that point, the government could simply let the SI lapse without it ever having been put to a debate or approval decision. If ‘Covid passports’ *were* needed after that date, the government could simply lay an identical SI and set the 28-day clock running again. However, politically, it would be extraordinarily difficult for Ministers to take such an approach. Given the position in which it finds itself, and if the reported numbers of likely Conservative party rebels are accurate, the government would therefore appear to have four options on ‘Covid passports’ – from its perspective all of which are politically unpalatable:

  1. rely on Opposition votes to win approval for ‘Covid passports’ on 14 December, which would be deeply damaging for Conservative Party unity;

  2. introduce ‘Covid passports’ from 15 December but delay the debate and approval vote on the measure until the New Year, which would also be politically very difficult and give rise to further damaging accusations of ‘government by diktat’;

  3. introduce ‘Covid passports’ from 15 December and let the measure lapse at the end of January without it ever having received parliamentary approval, again raising the prospect of inter- and intra-party conflict about the constitutional role of Parliament; or

  4. abandon the measure and risk seeing its health messaging fatally undermined by its party management failures and the erosion of trust in the government’s approach to the pandemic.

The draft SI proposing to extend mandatory Covid-19 vaccination to NHS and care sector workers is due to come into force 12 weeks after it is made. The government has indicated that it plans to bring it into force from 1 April 2022. This suggests that the draft SI would have to be approved by both Houses by the end of the first week of January at the latest. Especially given that the Instrument is scheduled for debate and an approval decision in the House of Lords on 14 December, it might therefore be bundled together with other Covid-related SIs for debate and decision in the House of Commons the same day.

However, the SI has been subject to a damning report by the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (SLSC). The SLSC said that the SI’s explanatory material provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the Instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation. The SLSC further highlighted that the Regulations lack practical detail about how key terms are to be applied, and that the Department of Health and Social care failed to make reference to any lessons learned from the roll-out of mandatory vaccination in care homes or identify what contingency plans it is making to cope with expected staff losses when the NHS Regulations take effect. In the House of Lords, both a ‘fatal' and a ‘non-fatal' motion have been tabled against the SI for the 14 December debate.

The Impact Assessment (IA) for the Instrument was only published on 10 December and is difficult to locate, buried away on the government website alongside the original policy consultation documentation. In any case, the independent Regulatory Policy Committee (RPC) report, published on 8 December, rated the IA as ‘not fit for purpose’. Normally, the government would take up to 30 working days to respond to the RPC’s report. However, “given the urgency of these measures”, it rushed out a response which was also published on 10 December.

Counting the SI, the Explanatory Memorandum, the Impact Assessment, the Regulatory Policy Committee’s report and the government’s immediate response, there are over 100 pages of documentation to read and scrutinise.

If the NHS mandatory vaccination SI is scheduled for debate in the House of Commons on 14 December, but MPs only learn this the preceding day, it will once again confirm the extent to which Ministers take advantage of the interplay between their control of the House of Commons agenda and delegated legislation scrutiny procedures.

The government has no discretion over whether any particular SI does or does not require parliamentary approval: this is prescribed in the SI’s parent Act of Parliament. However, the government may determine the way in which SIs are debated and approved, through its control of the House of Commons’ agenda and procedures. Normally, an affirmative SI debated in the Chamber of the House of Commons (rather than in a Delegated Legislation Committee) is subject to a 90-minute debate, followed by a decision on the approval motion. However, when multiple SIs with a common theme are to be debated on the same day, it is not unusual for the government to lay a Business of the House motion wrapping discussion of the SIs into a single, longer, debate. Normally, at the end of such a combined debate, each SI is still subject to an individual approval decision, via separate decisions on each approval motion.

In theory, a Business of the House motion can do almost anything. It is therefore arguably possible that the government could lay a motion to the effect that, at the end of the combined debate, the Chair should put a single question on all the outstanding motions. However, Business of the House motions themselves require the agreement of the House. Given the number of Conservative MPs who are opposed to some of the government proposals that may be before the House on 14 December, the government would likely be reliant on Opposition support to pass any Business motion proposing the approval motions for the SIs to be decided via a single 'omnibus' question. If the Minister moved such a Business of the House motion and it was defeated, the House would revert to the default procedure – that is, separate 90-minute debates and decisions on each SI. If a single question were put with respect to the approval motions for multiple SIs, any Member could also make a ‘complicated question' claim to the Speaker, demanding that the single question be divided into a series of separate ones for decision. However, if the House had agreed a Business of the House motion bundling all the SI decisions together, the Chair might assert that its hands were tied.

Fowler, B. & Fox, R. & Vangimalla, D. (2021), What Covid Regulations might MPs be asked to debate on 14 December and how will the Regulations be approved? (Hansard Society: London)

Who funds this research?

This research was supported by the Legal Education Foundation as part of the Hansard Society's Delegated Legislation Review.

Latest

Blog / ‘Brexit Freedoms’ Bill: Is Jacob Rees-Mogg planning to give Parliament more control over Retained EU Law?

How Parliament will scrutinise changes to Retained EU Law (REUL) has been a matter of concern since the Government announced it would introduce the ‘Brexit Freedoms’ Bill. The Minister for Brexit Opportunities has now suggested Legislative Reform Orders (LROs) as a possible solution. But what are LROs and what would this mean for scrutiny of REUL?

21 Jul 2022
Read more

Blog / When is a 'cross-party Committee' no longer cross-party? The case of the European Scrutiny Committee

The long-term near-absence of Labour participation in the work of the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee means that the Committee is not operating as a fully cross-party Committee. Especially given the way in which the Committee’s role is changing since Brexit, this needs fixing, fast.

21 Jul 2022
Read more

Briefings / The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill: Delegated Powers

The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is scheduled for its Second Reading debate in the House of Commons on Monday 27 June 2022. This briefing on the delegated powers in the Bill analyses six areas of particular concern and proposes ways they might be mitigated during the Bill's passage through Parliament.

24 Jun 2022
Read more

Reports / Compendium of Legislative Standards for Delegating Powers in Primary Legislation

The scope and design of the delegation of legislative powers in any Bill affects the long-term balance of power between Parliament and Government. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee (DPRRC) scrutinises all such delegation. This report distils standards for the delegation of powers from 101 DPRRC reports from 2017 to 2021.

25 Apr 2022
Read more

Blog / Finding grace under pressure? Ukraine’s parliament at war

After over 70 days of total war, the first 43 under the very direct threat of bombing, Ukraine’s parliament, the Verkhovna Rada (Supreme Council), has undergone a significant transformation in terms of procedures, political orientation and constituency work.

13 May 2022
Read more