Coronavirus Act 2020 (Review of Temporary Provisions) (No. 3)

Raises a concern about whether the third dose for those with compromised immune systems and booster doses are being administered quickly enough, asking if there are steps to speed up the process.

Asks for assurance that schools will remain open in future waves of the pandemic, highlighting the damage school closures have caused to children's mental health, educational attainment, and lifelong learning opportunities.

Challenges the adequacy of time given for Parliament to scrutinise the Act, arguing that 90 minutes every six months is insufficient. She also questions whether the Secretary of State's presentation of the Act as an all-or-nothing Bill allows for proper scrutiny and amendment.

Expresses concern about giving the Government extended powers that are overly broad, suggesting alternatives such as the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 or Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.

Points out that the Coronavirus Act allows the Government to act without returning to the House, unlike other acts such as the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 or Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.

Critiques the Government for not bringing issues to debate and suggests lack of trustworthiness regarding past actions.

Advocates that the legislation should lapse due to improved circumstances, suggesting other powers are available if needed.

Questions how pressures on the NHS will be assessed and whether extreme measures might still be required under the Act's provisions.

Encourages further development of the programme to engage medical support workers, suggesting the Act is just a start.

Requests a guarantee for parliamentary scrutiny and voting rights on any future vaccine passport measures.

Welcomes the lifting of certain draconian measures in the Coronavirus Act but calls for removal of similar elements in other legislation like the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

Asks for detailed explanation on why certain measures need to be retained under the Coronavirus Act when alternatives are available through other Acts.

We support the renewal of the Act for statutory sick pay from day one, but there are concerns about how it is being scrutinised. The Act was passed on a cross-party basis and measures were put in place that we had asked for, such as provision for statutory sick pay from day one, although other measures were also included without our approval. We asked the Government to renew the Act every six months but now there are 90-minute debates not allowing proper scrutiny of the Act.

Suggested that the Opposition should vote against the motion and potentially defeat the government so correct procedures could be in place for tomorrow.

Asked Jon Ashworth to compare attendance on Government Benches with Labour Benches during debate. Mentioned that three of his Back-Bench colleagues are present at the moment.

Expressed sympathy but noted that there have been occasions where Opposition has not provided effective voting opposition to measures proposed by Government, often affecting individual rights and liberties. Questioned whether support for statutory sick pay from day one outweighs other issues involved in the restrictions resulting from Act.

Called for strict adherence to time limits during the debate, noting that there are more speakers than originally anticipated and that speeches should be kept to five minutes.

Welcomed the removal of some provisions from the Act but expressed concern over the lack of parliamentary scrutiny for powers under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. Emphasised the importance of further scrutiny and challenge to government measures, welcoming improved tone from the Opposition on this matter. Highlighted concerns about vaccine passport implementation timing and urged the Secretary of State to focus more on social care improvements during winter months.

The Scottish Government support the four-nations approach to tackling coronavirus while respecting differences. The SNP appreciates the roll-out of vaccinations but is concerned about a difficult winter with potential 'twindemics'. They urge the UK Government to follow devolved nations' examples and financially support restrictions if needed. Parliamentary scrutiny must be provided, especially on schedule 21. The SNP warns that public trust needs restoration in vaccine contracts and regulatory approvals.

We are now in a different situation from the beginning of the pandemic due to medical advancements, especially vaccinations. However, there is still concern about winter pressures on NHS and care sectors with shortages of carers and potential departures if vaccinations become compulsory. The care sector needs more resources than before; 100,000 carer shortfall exists currently with another expected departure of 40,000 due to vaccination requirements. Concerns are raised about transferring patients from NHS into the care sector where pressure will be high.

The Government's all-or-nothing approach to legislation is wrong; parliamentarians must have the power to scrutinise and challenge proposed laws. The Coronavirus Act has been used unjustly, with wrongful charges issued under certain sections of the Act. There should be an appeals mechanism for fixed-penalty notices. The Bill needs to be scrapped and replaced with a more equitable one.

The Coronavirus Act was unnecessary as similar powers already existed in other legislation. It resulted in the infringement of civil liberties, such as forced quarantine for everyone and prohibitions on gatherings that were often unjustified. There should have been more scrutiny and accountability to prevent mistakes that cost lives.

While the Act was reluctantly supported due to its initial necessity, there has not been sufficient opportunity for proper scrutiny or debate on amendments. The Liberal Democrats have consistently voted against renewals due to unnecessary far-reaching powers that encroach on civil liberties. There is a need for better parliamentary control and more comprehensive legislation.

Expressed concerns about the dystopian nature of social restrictions and the complexity of rules during the pandemic, highlighting personal experiences of constituents. Emphasised the need for a change in government to ensure freedom and sincerity in upholding civil liberties.

Criticised the Government's handling of the pandemic, citing high case numbers, hospitalisations, and deaths compared to other countries. Urged for basic public health measures such as masks in public spaces, better sick pay, and strategies to tackle school infections.

Acknowledged healthcare workers' efforts and criticised the Government's over-reliance on vaccination while neglecting non-pharmaceutical interventions. Raised concerns about potential new variants and the effectiveness of vaccine passports, advocating for a broader infection control strategy.

Emphasises the benign intentions of the Government during unprecedented times and acknowledges the dividends paid by emergency actions taken.

Highlights a concern about the lack of interoperability between NHS systems across different parts of the UK regarding vaccination records, which hinders individuals' ability to access services like lectures.

Suggests reviewing and refining certain provisions within the Act that were implemented as expedients but may require a different statutory basis for future use, such as vaccine certificates under section 19.

Questions whether the House will be asked to make decisions about implementing vaccine passports in advance rather than retrospectively, emphasising the importance of parliamentary scrutiny.

Expresses confusion over the Government's stance on mandatory vaccination for care home settings versus the NHS, pointing out that carers often move between these sectors.

Questions the Minister about fines under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act and seeks assurance on an appeal mechanism for those facing penalties.