Colin Warnek
Well-known member
A new public health act needed to prevent sudden lockdowns without parliamentary consultation in future . I’d have him in Johnson’s place tomorrow as this is exactly the thing we need to make sure happens.
————
SB:
It’s time to believe in vaccines, and to start restoring our way of life as we make progress in vaccinating the vulnerable. We simply must have regard to the harms caused by lockdowns and restrictions as well as the disease. Now as we emerge from this lockdown, it is vital we bring back proper democratic checks and balances too.
We cannot be said to be free of lockdowns and restrictions when at a moment’s notice, the Government might shut down our ability to travel abroad to see family, to form relationships with one another, or to start businesses and invest in our futures. That’s why we need the protection of a new Public Health Act.
It would be based on precedent, bringing together and reforming established law and practice.
First, it would ensure Parliament could vote in advance and often on lockdowns and restrictions, to ensure their proportionality is justified by ministers. Second, it would provide that legislation could be amended and debated in the usual way – not imposed as a take it or leave it ultimatum to MPs.
Third, it would require ministers to go through the process – as with other policy proposals – of cost-benefit analysis, quantifying the harms and the benefits of their proposals.
And finally, it would recognise that experts are only human too, ending monopoly expert advice to Government by introducing multi-disciplinary teams and “red team” challenge. Advice to ministers will be improved when Government scientists compete under professional challenge and if we reform the quality of modelling.
Of course we can still provide for the Government to act fast and decisively in emergency, as the Civil Contingencies Act does, but this has been a devastating chapter in our history, made worse by the fact that we cannot be sure whether the Government's response to Covid-19 has done more harm than good.
The use of power by ministers in this crisis has been far above my expectations and the scrutiny of it by Parliament far below. That’s why we need a new Public Health Act which applies the close scrutiny provided for in the Civil Contingencies Act for good reason: draconian powers must be restrained in a free society.
”
————
————
SB:
It’s time to believe in vaccines, and to start restoring our way of life as we make progress in vaccinating the vulnerable. We simply must have regard to the harms caused by lockdowns and restrictions as well as the disease. Now as we emerge from this lockdown, it is vital we bring back proper democratic checks and balances too.
We cannot be said to be free of lockdowns and restrictions when at a moment’s notice, the Government might shut down our ability to travel abroad to see family, to form relationships with one another, or to start businesses and invest in our futures. That’s why we need the protection of a new Public Health Act.
It would be based on precedent, bringing together and reforming established law and practice.
First, it would ensure Parliament could vote in advance and often on lockdowns and restrictions, to ensure their proportionality is justified by ministers. Second, it would provide that legislation could be amended and debated in the usual way – not imposed as a take it or leave it ultimatum to MPs.
Third, it would require ministers to go through the process – as with other policy proposals – of cost-benefit analysis, quantifying the harms and the benefits of their proposals.
And finally, it would recognise that experts are only human too, ending monopoly expert advice to Government by introducing multi-disciplinary teams and “red team” challenge. Advice to ministers will be improved when Government scientists compete under professional challenge and if we reform the quality of modelling.
Of course we can still provide for the Government to act fast and decisively in emergency, as the Civil Contingencies Act does, but this has been a devastating chapter in our history, made worse by the fact that we cannot be sure whether the Government's response to Covid-19 has done more harm than good.
The use of power by ministers in this crisis has been far above my expectations and the scrutiny of it by Parliament far below. That’s why we need a new Public Health Act which applies the close scrutiny provided for in the Civil Contingencies Act for good reason: draconian powers must be restrained in a free society.
”
————
Last edited: