The first few titles in the CA2020 deal with health and social care. While containment and delay through general population lockdowns are the most eye-catching and most discussed measures, the bulk of the legislation is more technical and specialised in nature. All aspects of that Plan are potentially covered. The Act aims to implement the government’s Coronavirus: Action Plan, which seeks to Contain, Delay, Research, and Mitigate. The CA2020 delivers fulsome details over 342 pages, so this summary is highly selective (for more detail see the official Explanatory Notes).
#United kingdom regress to measures code
In short, the emergency code which is the most suitably engineered for the purpose, the CCA2004, has been the least used for reasons which should not be tolerated. Following this survey, it will be suggested that the selection of legal instruments and the design of their contents has been ill-judged. Here, we shall review the contents and defects of the new CA2020, followed by the competing features of the laws that were previously in place: the PHA1984 and CCA2004. In addition, the government installed without any scrutiny in any form regulations under the PHA1984. Parliament then vanished into recess for four weeks. Rather than turning to the laws already in place to handle crises like the pandemic, Parliament fast-tracked the Coronavirus Act 2020 (‘CA2020’), with scant debate of its shabbily drafted contents over just seven days toward the end of March. Despite these finely-honed models, the UK state regressed to panic mode when faced with the COVID-19 pandemic. Here too, core legislation has been installed, including the all-encompassing Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (‘CCA2004’) and the sectoral Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (‘PHA1984’). Less widely appreciated are the extensive codes available to the government about other real or imagined disasters, ranging from floods to meteor strikes and including public health risks. The United Kingdom has garnered considerable prowess in handling emergencies, as illustrated by its encyclopedic counterterrorism laws. Contributions have covered Italy, Hungary, Brazil, Poland, Mexico (see here), and Colombia.
Editor’s Note : This piece is part of Just Security’s Assessing Emergency Powers During #COVID-19 series, w hich aims to highlight legal and civil society voices from across the globe, assessing the specific legal consequences of declared and de facto emergencies.
0 kommentar(er)
