Written by Faizah Haider
The COVID-19 crisis called for emergency measures to control the spread of Coronavirus, to reduce the number of deaths and the burden on our struggling healthcare system. As stated in, ‘Article 2 of the Convention of Human Rights’ the government has an obligation to protect our right to life. In this case drastic action was taken to save lives following medical advice where no other option was feasible, as no vaccine is currently available. Therefore the lockdown was implemented, closing businesses, grinding the economy to a halt.
Whilst people were panicking over their means of survival and what the future will now hold, The Emergency Coronavirus Bill was passed by Parliament on 25 March 2020. This Bill was passed in just three days without opposition Members of Parliament. This 329 page document outlining new laws which will be applied over the next two years costing taxpayers an estimated £300 billion. It gives the police, immigration officers, and public health officials special powers to act. These new laws could restrict our freedom of movement and intrude into our private and family lives. However the government has agreed that this bill will be reviewed every six months by Parliament. Human rights organisations feel that this is too long to wait. They are calling for amendments to be made to The Coronavirus Bill right now; to include a clear statement that the use of these powers must always remain only when necessary, proportionate, and non-discriminatory. Reading through these laws I had flashbacks to the Terrorism Act in the UK which was similar to the Patriot Act in the US. Both of which have often been abused to stop and search minority groups.
Fears have arisen such as worded well by Amnesty International, ‘emergency powers can sometimes be misused, and this must not give a green light to trample on our basic human rights and liberties’. Urging us all to be mindful of the changes which are occurring under the cover of the pandemic.
The main points of the Coronavirus Bill include:
- Provide statutory sick pay for employees.
- Allow the police to detain and hold people they think could be infectious, using reasonable force.
- Restrict gatherings and public events.
- Impose travel restrictions.
These points may be necessary in emergency circumstances, but draw very close to the line of infringing on human rights. Vulnerable people including those at risk of domestic abuse or those with immigration status should be put first. Women’s rights under these categories are also of great concern by many human rights organisations, who are campaigning for the government to keep them under consideration. The Bill also temporarily suspends local authorities legal duty to meet the care needs of all people who are eligible under the Care Act 2014. This may lead to increased vulnerability of the elderly.
This bill also states military powers can be increased to support police activity, which could potentially lead us towards mimicking a police state. Amnesty International a globally recognised human rights organisation are pushing for greater protocols setting the professional standards of these scenarios where this power is needed.
Immigration also features heavily on this Bill linked to the movement of potentially infected persons in and out of the UK’s borders. Again, many human rights organisations want vulnerable people in this category to feel safe to approach the Home Office without fear of being refused health aid or public services, which they or their families may need. This includes the fear of their data being shared and being put at additional risk during detainment.
We also need to be aware of the possibility of increased mass surveillance and its impact on our right to privacy and data rights. The health secretary Matt Hancock has openly admitted, ‘General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) does not inhibit use of data for coronavirus response. GDPR has a clause excepting work in the overwhelming public interest. No one should constrain work on responding to coronavirus due to data protection laws.’
The act also enables retired healthcare workers to be called back into the National Health Service (NHS) and provide emergency service to cope with high demands. Many healthcare workers in this group may now be retired – older and more vulnerable to falling ill from the virus. Thus creating a moral dilemma of their duty of care verses self-protection.
Originally the Coronavirus Bill Act included wording to allow coronavirus victims’ bodies to be cremated without consent. Since 1961 this has been an illegal practice in the UK. Anticipating a high death toll, it is understandable why such a procedure may be devised however it has caused great anger in both the Muslim and Jewish communities. Cremation is strictly prohibited in both of these religions, but fortunately the voice of these communities was heard and it was removed from the Bill. This change is a huge relief that alludes that this document in its infancy, and we will still have to power to amend it in order to protect our rights. The Coronavirus Bill will impact us all, and while it was introduced by the UK Government to protect public health, it needs to be monitored to make sure it is not in violation of human rights or causing discrimination.
You can read the Coronavirus Bill here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-bill-summary-of-impacts/coronavirus-bill-summary-of-impacts
