Coronavirus Act 2020 (Review of Temporary Provisions)

Gratefully acknowledges the Secretary of State's commitment to listening and constructive conversations, highlighting the need for Ministers to act quickly when necessary while also ensuring proper scrutiny in Parliament.

Expresses gratitude for the measures outlined by Hancock and requests further information on mental health provisions and schedule 21 relating to potentially infectious persons.

Concerned about stripping back of health and social care powers, seeks reassurance that such measures will be used only when absolutely necessary and that people's health and social care rights will be protected.

Questions the Secretary of State about evidence suggesting that many disabled people and those needing care have not received appropriate care. Requests clarification on whether schedule 12 is being renewed and expresses concern over easements on local authorities' duties to assess and meet care needs.

Appreciates the sensible measures taken by the Government for involving and obtaining ongoing consent from Parliament. Clarifies that many of the restrictions imposed do not come through the Coronavirus Act 2020 but primarily through other legislation like the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.

Thanks business managers for their work in reaching a solution that addresses earlier concerns raised by Mr Speaker about parliamentary scrutiny. Presses Hancock to clarify where the line will be drawn regarding bringing measures before Parliament ahead of implementation.

Critiques the inappropriate use of schedule 21 and seeks clarification on what constitutes a 'potentially infectious' person, questioning the powers given to police officers under this schedule during the pandemic.

Welcomed the Secretary of State's statement and highlighted constituents' concerns about the Act. Emphasised that the debate is crucial for giving credibility to the Secretary of State’s work, allowing further scrutiny and exposing difficult decisions.

Condemned students at Coventry University who were seen partying despite the virus's behaviour depending on individual actions. Asked the Secretary of State to condemn such behaviour.

Expressed gratitude for correspondence with the Secretary of State regarding local restrictions in Wales that prohibit travel outside county borough areas except for reasonable excuses. Criticised companies refusing to refund holiday costs due to Welsh Government rules not being legally binding, urging the Secretary of State to enforce compliance.

Asked about inconsistent application of rules affecting businesses such as weddings and exhibitions. Suggested that venues should be allowed to host multiple groups of six people for events like weddings, advocating for flexibility in enforcement.

Questioned whether the Minister would have 21 days to introduce another Act if this one were voted down today.

Showed sympathy with the Secretary of State but supported Tim Farron's points about wedding and event industries being adversely affected by rigid rules. Suggested exercising flexibility to help these struggling sectors.

Asked for public health evidence regarding the 15-person limit at wedding venues, suggesting it would be beneficial if the industry could see such considerations taken into account.

Agreed with Nick Thomas-Symonds, emphasising the need for joint approaches rather than directives from Whitehall.

Asked if Nick Thomas-Symonds was pleased with the app and whether he had installed it and switched it on.

Pointed out that the app works better in Wales, urging for more substantial consultation regarding parliamentary scrutiny.

Agreed with Nick Thomas-Symonds on the unsatisfactory approach to parliamentary scrutiny and recommended following Select Committee reports for improvements.

Critiqued the use of widely drawn powers in schedule 21, agreeing that all 141 prosecutions under these powers were unlawful.

Mr Graham Brady emphasised the reasonable constraints under which the Government operates and noted the commitment made by the Government to follow a new procedure. He highlighted the importance of Members of Parliament being judged on their ability to strike a balance between protecting public liberty, safety, and livelihoods.

Mr Mark Harper agreed with Mr Graham Brady's statement that the Secretary of State effectively confirmed what was put forward in his amendment, except for changing one word from 'practicable' to 'possible'.

Mr Andrew Mitchell thanked Mr Graham Brady for doing a great service to constituents by working on the amendment aimed at ensuring the Government utilise collective wisdom in tackling serious problems.

Mr Chris Bryant questioned what the new procedure is, but it was not clearly defined in Mr Graham Brady's response. He later noted that despite some measures, the Government retains ultimate decision-making power.

Mr Blackford revisits his remarks from March, reflecting on the initial wave of the pandemic and the significant sacrifices made by citizens. He highlights the continued presence of the virus and its deadly nature, noting the milestone of 1 million global deaths. He criticises the government for weakening economic support at a time when health restrictions are being strengthened, citing expert warnings about mass redundancies due to inadequate replacement schemes. He also warns against repeating the economic failures of the Thatcher era.

Supports the Government due to concerns about the virus, not parliamentary scrutiny. He emphasises the need for routine weekly testing of NHS staff to reduce indirect deaths caused by disruptions in services during a second wave.

Critiques the lack of scrutiny, leading to poor decision-making and U-turns from the Government. He highlights the need for proper scrutiny before decisions are implemented rather than after.

Calls for better parliamentary scrutiny on coronavirus measures, emphasising that good scrutiny improves government. Also points out the importance of Parliament's role in governing with consent from MPs.

Discusses the frustration felt by many people due to restrictions and questions whether there will be effective parliamentary scrutiny, especially for local decisions affecting large populations.

Opposes renewal of the Act, citing concerns about rights of disabled people and breach of international law. Highlights negative impacts on care packages and support for families with disabled children.

Critiques the inadequate time allocated for debate (90 minutes), expresses frustration over lack of parliamentary respect and insufficient attention to hardships faced by constituents.

Acknowledges revocations but finds them cosmetic, criticises vague promises for scrutiny. Expresses concern about broad police powers and the lack of measures for workplace safety and food supply during future lockdowns.