New coronavirus measures will ‘significantly curtail’ freedoms but legally justifiable, human rights committee says
‘Emergency disease outbreak will often be adequate justification for taking exceptional measures,’ MPs say
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Enhanced measures to curb the coronavirus outbreak will “significantly curtail” fundamental freedoms in Britain – but can be legally justified, MPs have said.
Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights said it would be thoroughly scrutinising new laws and action taken by authorities.
“Some measures could significantly curtail individual rights,” MPs wrote in a briefing paper issued on Thursday.
“There are other practical and economic impacts on individuals who cannot work due to self-isolating, or due to sickness – some of these measures will affect certain groups more significantly than others.
“There may be difficulties in ensuring access to essential services and supplies. However, the positive obligations in Article 2 [of the] European Convention on Human Rights [the right to life] also arguably require the government to take reasonable steps to minimise the risk to life posed by this outbreak.”
It came as the government formally announced details of an Emergency Coronavirus Bill setting out measures aimed at slowing the spread and supporting the NHS and workers.
Police have already been given new powers to detain anyone with suspected symptoms and force them to undergo testing or be quarantined, although senior officers insisted they would “not be used willy nilly”.
Amid rumours of a nationwide “lockdown”, Gavin Williamson, the education secretary, said the government was ready to take “incredibly tough decisions” but had no immediate plans to shut down restaurants or force people off the streets.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights said any action must comply with both international law and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) but added: “An emergency disease outbreak will often be an adequate justification for taking exceptional measures provided that such measures are justified and proportionate in the circumstances.”
It said the government can legally derogate from the ECHR if there is a “public emergency threatening the life of the nation” and already has extensive legal powers under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 and Civil Contingencies Act 2004.
Harriet Harman, chair of the JCHR, said: “Times of national crisis call for strong and decisive leadership.
“However, at this time, it is also vitally important that checks and balances are in place to ensure that human rights are not disregarded, and that people remain fully protected under the law.
“The committee will be thoroughly scrutinising the measures taken and any proposed legislation. The government needs to protect the right to life and at the same time consider the impact on human rights as it strives to protect the country in this unprecedented time.”
The committee said quarantine and self-isolation had an impact on the right to liberty and right to life, while a potential ban on public gatherings affected freedom of assembly and association, and school closures hit the right to education.
Restricting people’s ability to work has a “disproportionate impact” on the self-employed and other groups, while the impact on small businesses engages the “right to peaceful enjoyment of one’s possessions”.
The committee said that any future moves to prioritise or ration healthcare must be “justifiable and non-discriminatory”, and that the prevention of timely funerals could violate freedom of religion.
Members said the government must consider the wellbeing of people held in prisons, immigration detention centres and mental health units, as well as the right to justice – after new trials of more than three days were stopped.
The committee warned that homeless people and those in temporary accommodation will find it difficult to comply with any formal instruction to self-isolate.
It called for evidence to be submitted on the steps taken to ensure the government’s plans comply with human rights and to address the impact on groups that will be disproportionately affected by emergency measures.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments