Coronavirus Bill — House of Lords, 2020-03-24
Topic: Civil Rights
Sarah Ludford (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, the only bright spot in this crisis is that experts are being listened to; long may that continue Obviously, the overarching concern is that the powers in the Bill should last no longer than is strictly necessary, should not overreach and should not set unwelcome precedents—one thinks, for example, of the reduction to one doctor for the exercise of Mental Health Act powers and the problems around care assessments. Moreover, the powers should not impact unfairly on disadvantaged minorities or marginalised groups, and should not go further than can be truly justified. It is not entirely clear why the Civil Contingencies Act or the Public Health Acts were insufficient in various areas In Schedule 21, there is a test of necessity and proportionality which is strangely absent from Schedule 20—the one that affects directions to people. From these Benches, we will therefore table an amendment to require that all the powers in the Bill should be exercised in accordance with the principle of necessity, proportionality and non-discrimination, respecting the European Convention on Human Rights and other human rights instruments. We also want the Government to keep the powers under frequent review and to publish reasons and explanations for any measures introduced under the Bill Although the right to life—Article 2 of the ECHR—underpins the response to this pandemic, human rights issues under several articles of the convention are engaged: Article 5 on the right to liberty; Article 8 on the right to family life, as relating to isolation, quarantining and restriction of family visits; Article 11 on freedom of assembly and association, relating to the prohibition of public meetings and gatherings. These are just some of the examples. I am glad that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by the right honourable Harriet Harman—I declare an interest as a member—is conducting an inquiry into the human rights implications of the response to Covid-19 There have been shocking cases of victimisation and blaming of certain people due to their perceived ethnic or national origin, particularly those of Chinese and other east Asian appearance. The power for local authorities not to meet some assessed care needs and to avoid the duty to conduct a care needs assessment will impact on the vulnerable. The Government should, at a minimum, notify the Council of Europe and the United Nations, as stewards of the ECHR and international human rights instruments respectively, that the UK is enduring a national emergency, and of the measures being taken. Do they in fact need to formally derogate? Perhaps the Minister could tell us People need to be able to assess, scrutinise and, if necessary, question and challenge the Government. It is not helpful to have a Minister on Twitter call someone by a rather vulgar term because they had the temerity to raise questions about the Government’s approach, as happened yesterday. Apparently, there have been no advertisements on social media. I am on only Twitter so I do not see Facebook, Instagram or any of the others but, considering that a lot of money was spent on Brexit no-deal ads on social media, this omission seems anomalous Assessing Schedules 20 and 21 is a bit difficult, as we do not yet know how the Government will give effect to the measures heralded in the Prime Minister’s announcement last night. I imagine that is still being worked through. Schedule 20 does raise a lot of concerns. Where are people to be directed or detained? Is a police station envisaged or just home? What screening is to take place, especially given the lack of current testing capacity? Will there be any judicial authorisation of detention or any provision for appeals? What about people who, for one reason or another, do not have a home to go to—the street homeless, sofa surfers, victims of domestic abuse, some immigrants and refugees, who get little or no support? Surely imposing isolation and quarantining restrictions on people living in abusive or dangerous environments would place them in an impossible situation. As concerns Schedule 21, are the closure of premises regulations issued just last Saturday under the public health Act—they were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Newby—to be revoked in the same way as the February regulations on direction and detention of persons are repealed by this Act in Schedule 20 I want briefly to mention one or two other things. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Falconer, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, who raised issues about funerals and religious beliefs as concerns the need for burial and not cremation. As someone who organised my late husband’s funeral just five months ago, and a memorial service four months ago, this is very important to me. I will perhaps have more chance tomorrow to raise concerns about immigration powers as they affect people in immigration detention as well as in prison. Also, the fear of data sharing with the Home Office could deter people from seeking health treatment. Will the Home Office undertake to suspend that data sharing There are also some concerns about video hearings in court. Much as one accepts that they are necessary in the circumstances, various safeguards would be required. There are also concerns about changes to the Investigatory Powers Act and the extension to 12 days for a warrant. From experience, we know that there is a ratchet effect of expansion of state powers, as terrorism legislation has shown. We will need to be vigilant to prevent spillover.