Coronavirus Act 2020: Temporary Provisions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 28th September 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Robathan]

That this House regrets Her Majesty’s Government’s use of the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020, and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that Parliament has an opportunity to debate and approve any national restrictions introduced to address the COVID-19 pandemic before any such restrictions come into force.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate my noble friend on what I thought was a very good summary of the debate. I was almost persuaded.

I would just like to clarify with the House that there is some confusion about the Motion of Regret that I put down, because the Government Whips sent out the wrong Motion, which I put down to cock-up rather than to conspiracy. For clarity, my Motion calls on the Government

“to ensure that Parliament has an opportunity to debate and approve any national restrictions introduced to address the COVID-19 pandemic before any such restrictions come into force.”

I would be surprised if any parliamentarian does not agree, not least because we all understand that the gentleman in Whitehall does not know best. I hope that the Brady amendment in the Commons is agreed on Wednesday, or that the Government give way on that, but this House now has an opportunity to register its belief in greater parliamentary scrutiny. I wish to test the feeling of the House and divide the House.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I would like some clarification. The green sheets very clearly say that the House

“regrets Her Majesty’s Government’s use of the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act”

and goes on to call for those things. So there are two points in it, and I am seeking clarification that that is the case.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

I am sorry; that is correct. My point is that this is about parliamentary scrutiny; that is why I am calling a Division.