DOCSLIB.ORG

Written Evidence from S.J. Groenewegen BEM (RCC20)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Written Evidence from S.J. Groenewegen BEM (RCC20) Written evidence from S.J. Groenewegen BEM (RCC20) Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee Responding to Covid-19 and the Coronavirus Act 2020 inquiry I am providing evidence as a private citizen who is currently self-employed as a freelance author, but who has 25 years of experience in the public administration arena. I was employed as a Civil Servant from January 2005 to September 2019, specifically at the National Crime Squad of England and Wales, the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), the National Crime Agency (NCA), and HM Prison and Probation Service (England and Wales). I worked in a variety of roles at practitioner and middle management levels. Prior to migrating to the UK in 2004, I worked in the Australian public service as a government policy officer in the areas of occupational health and safety, and then policing and national security. My concerns about how the UK Government responded stem from my experience in risk assessment and management, national security and public safety as they relate to the criminal justice system. My evidence draws on my broad experience in these fields but does not refer to any specific example. In my capacity as a private citizen, I am responding to the additional questions on the nature of an inquiry and not the original set of questions posed about the legislative framework. What form is the most appropriate for an inquiry into the UK response to the Coronavirus pandemic? Should it be a statutory inquiry and, if not, what form of non- statutory inquiry should be held? Statutory, under the Inquiries Act 2005. This is for it to be able to compel witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced with criminal sanctions for non-compliance, to make it a statutory duty to take steps to secure public access to documents, and to ensure Maxwellisation takes place. I am concerned that a non-statutory inquiry runs the risk of relevant documents and witnesses not being produced. The inquiry should opt by default for public engagement as far as it is able to. Trust in the British government, public institutions and the mass media has eroded over the last decade or so and the inquiry being transparent would reduce accusations of ‘cover-up’. The politicisation of elements of the Government’s response to COVID-19 means there is also a risk individuals and organisations may be unfairly criticised in public; having Maxwellisation procedures in place will mitigate that risk. How should the balance between comprehensiveness and timeliness be managed? Can a single inquiry be both comprehensive and timely? I believe that a single inquiry can be comprehensive and timely if it is adequately resourced and if the political will is there to support such scrutiny. However, there are indications that the current government does not have that will to welcome scrutiny of its decision-making. There is an urgency to conduct an inquiry into the immediate legislative and public administrative response by the UK Government driven by the fact that we are in the midst of a pandemic with no vaccine (despite promising advances) and current resurgences in many parts of the world. While impossible to predict, it is more likely than not that the UK will see a resurgence of COVID-19 infections. An urgent question would be whether or not the legislative and public administrative response is able to adjust quickly to changing circumstances. There is also a need for a comprehensive inquiry into the UK Government’s overall handling of the COVID-19 pandemic as it has progressed. This would be better served by a separate inquiry, or series of inquiries into specific elements. Should the purpose of the inquiry be on accountability or more forward-looking, focussed on lesson learning and improving policy? Lessons can and should always be learned, but in this case the purpose of the inquiry should focus on ministerial accountability because of the key decisions made by Cabinet Ministers in relation to the Coronavirus Act 2020 and beyond it. Key questions about the UK government’s decisions made in its response to the COVID- 19 pandemic include: o Current UK government information and procedures on a variety of national security issues are publicly available on gov.uk, which for all their brevity are comprehensive and included components highly applicable to guide the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, it seemed that these were not referred to, or if they were, they were not uniformly applied. An obvious public administration question for an inquiry to answer is why. The key document I refer to is the UK National Risk Register, last published in September 2017, which included a section on Human Diseases that covered flu pandemics and other respiratory diseases. It linked to the UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy – including devolved plans – and noted the policy to engage in international collaboration with the World Health Organisation (WHO).1 o There is also an obvious public administration question about why the UK Government seemed to de-prioritise WHO guidance and advice from January and continuing through July, particularly in terms of adopting fundamental and well-established public health measures to find, isolate, test and treat cases, and to trace and quarantine contacts. Matching the timelines of WHO guidance2 with that of the UK government’s response in terms of policy, guidance, and legislation, will show numerous examples of divergence. The reason for the departure from these basic public health measures needs to be scrutinised, especially as those countries that followed WHO advice on COVID-19 have suffered far lower illness and death rates than the UK. o Evidence-based public policy and administration needs data from which to make decisions. In a pandemic situation, an effective as possible testing regime becomes paramount in order to understand transmission rates and geographic spread to inform decisions to contain infections. The testing regime in the UK remains alarmingly poor even allowing for improvements over the course of the pandemic to date. There are multiple questions as to 1 I was not involved with the development of the National Risk Register but was aware of it while I was employed as a Civil Servant. I do not draw on any special knowledge of it. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644968/UK_ National_Risk_Register_2017.pdf - accessed 8 July 2020. 2 See https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/29-06-2020-covidtimeline - accessed 8 July 2020. I have no connection with WHO, either now or in the past. why, but also detailed questions arising from the lack of transparency in both the selection and operations of the companies involved. These provisions were not included in the Coronavirus Act 2020, but perhaps this could be considered in future to mitigate the risks of confusion and potential for corruption. o Issues more generally to do with fast-time government procurement and outsourcing need to be scrutinised if only to address public concerns about a lack of transparency. I note the concerns raised by both Good Law Project and Every Doctor about PPE provision.3 Note that need for adequate supplies of PPE in case of a pandemic was identified in the 2017 National Risk Register. Provisions for this type of government procurement were also not included in the Coronavirus Act 2020, but perhaps this could be considered in future to mitigate the risks of confusion and potential for corruption. Note that WHO Member States have agreed to an independent and comprehensive evaluation of lessons learned from the international response to the COVID-19 pandemic. How wide should the inquiry range? Should it include the devolved administrations? The focus should be on the UK Government response but it would be instructive to examine where this affected the devolved administrations. There are also lessons to be learned from the devolved administrations where their performance was poorer than, the same as, or in line with established UK and international methods to limit spread of the virus. It would also be of use to see where there were differences of interpretation of the legislation, and also whether the Coronavirus Act helped or hindered the devolved administrations (and local authorities) to act in the interests of their people. Anecdotally, the devolved administrations’ communication strategies appeared more coherent than the UK government’s through ‘lockdown’. Again anecdotally, the UK Government often spoke to the UK but meant England. What experience and qualities should the Chair have? A good strategic understanding of the range of areas covered in the provisions of the Coronavirus Act and related legislation, and national emergency policies of the last five to ten years. An understanding of the National Risk Register and national security processes would be advantageous, as would an understanding of international mechanisms to respond to such pandemics. They should be as inclusive as possible of the UK’s diverse population, and have an understanding of the devolved administrations and their interaction with the UK government. Trust is vital in this role. They need to be politically independent, not a donor to political parties, and appointed through a transparent mechanism. They should not be appointed by the Prime Minister. Should the Chair be supported by a panel? If so, what knowledge and experience must the panel include? Yes. The Coronavirus Act and related legislation cover a broad range of areas. At least one of the panel members would need to have a good understanding of viruses 3 I have no connection with the Good Law Project and Every Doctor, either now or in the past. https://goodlawproject.org/news/the-ppe-fiasco/ - accessed 9 July 2020.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Affront to Dignity, Inclusion and Equality: Coronavirus and the Impact of Law, Policy and Practice on People with Disabilities in the United Kingdom
    Report Recommendations - An Affront to Dignity, Inclusion and Equality: Coronavirus and the impact of law, policy and practice on people with disabilities in the United Kingdom In the following areas our Report urges the government to: On reforming the Coronavirus Act 2020, disability rights and mitigating effects of the pandemic 1. Undertake an immediate review of legislation passed during the coronavirus crisis and communication thereof. In doing so, we ask that the government change this legislation and all related policymaking to meet its duties under the Equality Act 2010, and commitments to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and take steps to avoid or mitigate any potential disadvantage for disabled people. 2. Implement recommendations made by the 2016 House of Lords Select Committee Report on the Equality Act 2010 and Disability, and by the Women and Equalities Committee, on enhancing the enforcement of the Equality Act 2010, both by removing deterrents to individuals bringing disability discrimination cases; and by measures which embed the monitoring and enforcement of relevant duties in the work of regulatory and inspection bodies. 3. Undertake an inquiry on the impact of COVID-19 on disabled people to examine why this group has carried such a heavy burden for the pandemic, including the scale of Covid-19 related deaths. 4. Establish a Covid-19 Disability Inclusive Response and Recovery Group, of experts by experience with disabilities and Disabled People’s Organisations, to ensure disabled people are central to decision-making on the economic and social recovery to the pandemic and guidance. 5.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 and the Use and Scrutiny of Emergency Powers
    HOUSE OF LORDS Select Committee on the Constitution 3rd Report of Session 2021–22 COVID-19 and the use and scrutiny of emergency powers Ordered to be printed 2 June 2021 and published 10 June 2021 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords HL Paper 15 Select Committee on the Constitution The Constitution Committee is appointed by the House of Lords in each session “to examine the constitutional implications of public bills coming before the House; and to keep under review the operation of the constitution and constitutional aspects of devolution.” Membership The Members of the Constitution Committee are: Baroness Corston Baroness Fookes Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury Baroness Doocey Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield Baroness Suttie Baroness Drake Lord Hope of Craighead Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Chair) Lord Dunlop Lord Howarth of Newport Lord Faulks Lord Howell of Guildford Declarations of interests A full list of Members’ interests can be found in the Register of Lords’ Interests: https://members.parliament.uk/members/lords/interests/register-of-lords-interests/ Publications All publications of the committee are available at: https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/172/constitution-committee/ Parliament Live Live coverage of debates and public sessions of the committee’s meetings are available at: http://www.parliamentlive.tv Further information Further information about the House of Lords and its committees, including guidance to witnesses, details of current inquiries and forthcoming meetings is available at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords Committee staff The current staff of the committee are Michael Torrance (Clerk), Ava Mayer (Policy Analyst) and Dan Weedon (Committee Assistant).
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19: Implementation of Easements
    COVID-19: Implementation of Easements This resource has been prepared for tri.x customers. Its purpose is to support practitioners and managers on the frontline when the local authority has decided to implement some or all of the easements to the Care Act 2014 set out in sections 14 and 15 of the Coronavirus Act 2020. It provides information about carrying out revised adult care and support duties and functions, and which procedures this is likely to have an impact upon. Use the Contents list on the following page to find the information you are looking for. Updated 13.10.20 NOTE: If your local authority is managing to sustain all duties under the Care Act this guidance does not apply. Key decision makers should see Care Act easements: guidance for local authorities for guidance on deciding whether/when to apply the easements. Contents 1. Making Decisions-key section to be read by all 2. General Responsibilities of the Care Act 3. Safeguarding and Risk Assessment 4. Referrals and Assessment 5. Eligibility 6. Meeting Needs 7. Review/Revision of Plans 8. Transition 9. Financial Assessment & Charging 10. NHS Continuing Healthcare 11. Hospital Discharge 12. Continuity of Care Arrangements 13. Protecting Moveable Property and Belongings 14. End of Life 15. No Recourse to Public Funds 16. AHMP Appendix 1: Government Guidance Links 1. Making Decisions Local authorities will still be expected to do as much as they can to comply with their powers to meet needs during any period of easement and the duty of care they have towards an individual’s risk of serious neglect or harm still remains.
    [Show full text]
  • William Wragg MP Chairman Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee House of Commons 26 August 2020
    Edward Argar MP Minister of State for Health 39 Victoria Street London SW1H 0EU 020 7210 4850 William Wragg MP Chairman Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee House of Commons 26 August 2020 Dear William, Thank you for your letter of 16 July with some follow-up questions, further to the appearance of the Paymaster General and myself, along with senior officials from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Cabinet Office before your committee on 14 July. May I apologise for the delay in responding to your letter, however, there were a number of detailed questions within it, and we have used the time to give you answers which are as detailed as possible. I have provided a response to your further points below, covering the matters for which my Department are responsible. I understand The Paymaster General has replied separately. Ministerial responsibilities I know that Paymaster General has responded to your question about ministerial responsibilities across government as a whole. In addition to the strategic direction provided by the Secretary of State, I have attached a list of DHSC ministers’ Covid and non-Covid ministerial responsibilities at Annex A. Exercise Cygnus Question 103 was about Exercise Cygnus which as the committee will be aware was conducted in 2016, with its findings circulated to relevant Ministers in 2017. The release of the Exercise Cygnus report is currently under review and Ministers will be making a decision shortly – for this reason, I am not currently able to share a copy with the committee. I can, however, confirm that Government accepted the lessons identified by Exercise Cygnus which, along with learning from previous pandemics, infectious disease outbreaks and incidents, and other preparedness exercises, continue to inform work undertaken by Government and a range of stakeholders, including expert advisory groups and local emergency planners.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the Pandemic on Disabled People
    Prynhawn da - Good afternoon!1 The impact of the pandemic on disabled people So much more than Covid-19 Ann N.James 2 Crossing the Rubicon(1) ➢ 30th January 2020 WHO declares Public Health Emergency of International Concern ➢ 3rd March 2020 Covid Plan published by UK Government and Devolved adminsitrations (1) Increasingly apparent – UK Nations are not equipped for a pandemic ➢ Weak Public Health Services - Decimated by austerity and organisational changes - Essential Equipement for a Respiratory Virus not available - Depleted NHS workforce - Fragmented Social Care workforce 3 Crossing the Rubicon(2) “We prepared for the wrong pandemic”(2) Jeremy Hunt Former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, UK. 4 Crossing the Rubicon(3) Welsh Government in lockstep with UK Government Divergence limited by devolution settlement and geography Consequently, Covid-19 impact similar across the nations of the UK Highest death rates per 100,000 5 Crossing the Rubicon(4) UK Strategy one of containment and delay not suppression Strategy exacerbated by indecisiveness Results in catastrophic loss of life and illness Death rates from SE Asia, New Zealand and Australia tell us this was not inevitable 6 Legislating for Coronavirus Coronavirus Act 2020 receives Royal Assent on the 25th March Four nations suspend a raft of legilslative duties and powers Described as the ‘most draconian legislation in peace time’(3) In relation to social care, it allows for the relaxing of duties and powers relating to assessment, and meeting needs for care and
    [Show full text]
  • The Time the Children Didn't Go to School
    THE TIME THE CHILDREN DIDN’T GO TO SCHOOL ANNABELLE HAYES FOREWORD ......................................................... 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................. 4 APRIL 2020 ............................................................ 5 MAY, 2020 ............................................................ 33 JUNE, 2020 .......................................................... 63 JULY, 2020 ......................................................... 102 AUGUST, 2020 .................................................... 110 SEPTEMBER, 2020 ............................................ 114 OCTOBER, 2020 ............................................... 129 NOVEMBER, 2020 ........................................... 152 DECEMBER, 2020 ............................................ 166 JANUARY, 2021 ................................................. 176 FEBRUARY, 2021 .............................................. 202 MARCH, 2021 .................................................... 223 AFTERWORD ................................................... 230 2 FOREWORD In March 2020, schools, nurseries and colleges in the United Kingdom were shut down in response to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. By 20 March, all schools in the UK had closed to all children except those of key workers and children considered vulnerable. After a month of numbness at having all the children home, I started these diaries to document the unprecedented time when the children didn’t go to school. When the world stopped, the children didn’t – this records their
    [Show full text]
  • Written Evidence from James Tudor-White1 (RCC 07)
    Written evidence from James Tudor-White1 (RCC 07) Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee Responding to Covid-19 and the Coronavirus Act inquiry SUMMARISATION The Covid-19 pandemic caught the world by surprise in early 2020, and we are still by no means close to having found a solution to the pandemic. While the "situation in Europe is improving, globally it is worsening" (World Health Organisation, 2020, p.1). The Coronavirus Act 2020 was implemented to provide the government with the powers necessary to be able to tackle and handle the pandemic. In April, the government outlined its 5 tests for determining when lockdown measures could and should be lifted. These measures will also play an important determinant on whether to end the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act of 2020. The ultimate goal is that Covid-19 will no longer pose a threat to the population of the United Kingdom. Once this is the case, there would be no reason for the government to possess any of the temporary powers it was given as a result of this piece of legislation. Each test the government laid out will have its own advantages and caveats when determining the duration of the lockdown and when the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 can be repealed. The National Health Service being overwhelmed by the coronavirus outbreak was a major concern, and still is a concern for any future planning. This test is a good benchmark for determining whether the United Kingdom could handle another significant outbreak of Covid-19. It is widely accepted that this is likely to be the case, and it should be viewed as a case of when, not if.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government's Handling of Covid-19
    House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Government’s handling of Covid-19 Fourth Report of Session 2019–21 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 8 September 2020 HC 377 Published on 10 September 2020 by authority of the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner for England, which are laid before this House, and matters in connection therewith; to consider matters relating to the quality and standards of administration provided by civil service departments, and other matters relating to the civil service; and to consider constitutional affairs. Current membership Mr William Wragg MP (Conservative MP, Hazel Grove) (Chair) Ronnie Cowan MP (Scottish National Party, Inverclyde) Jackie Doyle-Price MP (Thurrock) Chris Evans MP (Labour (Co-op), Islwyn) Rachel Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton South) Mr David Jones MP (Conservative, Clwyd West) David Mundell MP (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) Tom Randall MP (Conservative, Gedling) Lloyd Russell-Moyle MP (Labour (Co-op) Brighton, Kemptown) Karin Smyth MP (Labour, Bristol South) John Stevenson MP (Conservative, Carlisle) Powers The committee is a select committee, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 146. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2019. This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament Licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Emergency Powers and Civil Liberties Report AUG-SEPT 2020
    AUG-SEPT 2020 @BIGBROTHERWATCH – EMERGENCY POWERS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES REPORT [AUG - SEPT 2020] – bigbrotherwatch.org.uk @BigBrotherWatch About Big Brother Watch Big Brother Watch is a civil liberties and privacy campaigning organisation, fighting for a free future. We’re determined to reclaim our privacy and defend freedoms at this time of enormous change. We’re a fiercely independent, non-partisan and non-profit group who work to roll back the surveillance state and protect rights in parliament, the media or the courts if we have to. We publish unique investigations and pursue powerful public campaigns. We work relentlessly to inform, amplify and empower the public voice so we can collectively reclaim our privacy, defend our civil liberties and protect freedoms for the future. Contact Silkie Carlo Director Email: [email protected] Madeleine Stone Legal and Policy Officer Email: [email protected] Emergency Powers & Civil Liberties Report: August - September 2020 Published: 19th October 2020 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 6 EMERGENCY LAWS ..................................................................................................... 10 HEALTH PROTECTION REGULATIONS ......................................................................... 11 The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions
    [Show full text]
  • Renewing Parts of the Coronavirus Act, New Public Health Regulations and Parliamentary Proceedings
    BRIEFING PAPER Number CBP 9180, 24 March 2021 Renewing parts of the By Sarah Barber Jennifer Brown Coronavirus Act, new Graeme Cowie David Hirst public health regulations Sarah Priddy Richard Kelly and parliamentary Daniel Ferguson proceedings Summary There will be a debate in the Commons Chamber on 25 March on four motions on coronavirus legislation and parliamentary proceedings during the pandemic. The Commons will consider whether to implement new restrictions to enable the Government’s ‘roadmap’ out of lockdown, renew parts of the Coronavirus Act, continue using virtual proceedings and other ways of working due to the pandemic, and debate the Coronavirus Act one-year status report. 1 A motion on regulations relating to public health This motion is to approve new regulations implementing coronavirus restrictions in England: the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Steps) (England) Regulations 2021. These implement coronavirus restrictions in different 'steps’, the Government has referred to these as the “Roadmap Regulations”. The regulations would provide legislation for the measures in Government’s roadmap out of lockdown, published on 22 February 2021. There is no requirement to stay at home in the regulations but there are now explicit restrictions on international travel leaving the UK, from England. This means that, in the absence of the previous order to stay at home, restrictions on leaving the UK will remain. A motion on the renewal of temporary provisions under the Coronavirus Act 2020 Under Section 98 of the Coronavirus
    [Show full text]
  • DLA Piper's Global Industry Guide to Resuming Production Post-Pandemic
    DLA Piper’s global industry guide to resuming production post-pandemic COVID-19 ALERTS DLA PIPER’S GLOBAL INDUSTRY GUIDE TO RESUMING PRODUCTION POST-PANDEMIC Contents Introduction ................................................................................................03 Australia ......................................................................................................04 China ............................................................................................................09 Denmark ......................................................................................................13 Germany ......................................................................................................18 Hong Kong ...................................................................................................22 Hungary .......................................................................................................26 Italy .............................................................................................................30 Nigeria .........................................................................................................34 Singapore .....................................................................................................40 Spain ............................................................................................................48 Sweden .........................................................................................................51 United Arab Emirates
    [Show full text]
  • Covid-19 Under Democracy and Autocracy
    © Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (New Brunswick) This publication is the work of the Spring 2021 Capstone class of the United Nations and Global Policy Studies Master of Arts program (UNMA), Political Science Department, Rutgers University (New Brunswick) June 2021 Application for permission to reproduce or translate all or any part of this publication should be made to: UNMA Secretariat Hickman Hall 89 George Street New Brunswick, NJ 08901 Email: [email protected] Title: Covid-19 Under Democracy and Autocracy Editor: Dr. Roland Rich Cover Design: Ian DeFalco Layout: Camilla Bober ISBN 978-0-578-92527-1 CONTENTS Contributors 1 Chapter 1 A Project is Born 4 Roland Rich Chapter 2 Australia’s Covid-19 Response: 10 The Achilles Heel Shahinaz Abdelhamid Chapter 3 Brazil: Negligence and Populism during 34 a Global Health Crisis Gabriela Casco Chapter 4 Cuba’s Vaunted Medical System Faces Covid-19 54 Javier Nino Chapter 5 Federalism, the EU, and Human Rights 68 in Germany under COVID-19 Camilla Bober Chapter 6 Russia: A Contest between Science and Denial 94 Amar Wason Chapter 7 South Africa Faces Covid-19 116 Delaney Charydczak Chapter 8 Taiwan: A Near Perfect Response 128 to the Coronavirus Pandemic Ryan Prieto Chapter 9 The Impact of Covid-19 on Elections 148 in Uganda Susan Ombwayo Chapter 10 The United Kingdom: Covid-19 162 and the Decay of Democracy Arsanious Hanna Chapter 11 Vietnam: Looking beyond Regime Type 182 Daphnée A.M. Fleurant Chapter 12 Conclusions, Constatations and Concerns 196 Roland Rich Bibliography 224 1 CONTRIBUTORS Shahinaz Abdelhamid received her B.S.
    [Show full text]