Emergency coronavirus laws are needed – but the government’s new powers require harsh scrutiny

Editorial: Boris Johnson hopes that a civilised nation such as Britain will not need such heavy-handed action as the Coronavirus Bill envisages, but the reality may well be different

The prime minister’s news conference yesterday (Getty)

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary powers. The Bank of England, backed by HM Treasury, has launched a further £200bn programme aimed at providing ready finance to banks and businesses at a time of stress – and is slashing interest rates to the lowest level. At least for now, it seems to have assuaged nervousness among investors about a new “credit crunch”.

The government too is applying the emergency powers approach to the public health crisis. At such a moment there is a natural tendency to permit the government to restrict civil liberties in a way not seen since the last world war. It is a sign of the times that parliament and public seem content to bestow such unfettered executive power on Boris Johnson and his ministers. After all, they have shown themselves in the past to be no respecters of constitutional conventions. In some respects, they are being gifted too many powers with too few checks and balances.

It is not entirely clear, for example, why the emergency powers in the Coronavirus Bill have a two-year time horizon. Either the government knows something disturbing about controlling Covid-19 that it is not sharing; or maybe it fancies wielding these new powers long after the epidemic should have been brought under control in about a year’s time (possibly to be used in some post-no-deal Brexit chaos).

The opposition’s call for a formal six-monthly renewal of the legislation is completely justified and should be inserted in the bill by the Commons or the Lords. The bill suggests that the life of the powers can be adjusted by six months either way by ministers, but that is simply a further emergency power. Turning the powers on and off must be a decision for parliament as a whole. Democratic assent is essential if such a law is going to be respected.

The one-day Commons debate devoted to the new law is also inadequate for such a portentous piece of lawmaking. Even under its current constraints, parliament has a duty to scrutinise such far-reaching measures. Lindsay Hoyle, the new speaker, needs to defend the rights of the Commons, just as his predecessor did.

It is also difficult to understand what the new surveillance or “snooping” powers have to do with a public health emergency.

There are many draconian measures in the new bill that can be justified in the current emergency because they will save lives. If someone is infected with Covid-19 they should not be allowed, in effect, to attack their fellow citizens by entering public areas and spreading this highly transmittable potentially lethal disease. The power to shut down public venues is essential, especially when so many people seem intent on ignoring the official advice to avoid them, including the prime minister’s father. Action to free business to respond to the challenges is also welcome. If ports and airports need to be closed then they must be – but again there needs to be some parliamentary accountability, especially in the planned long recesses. This might be achieved via the select committee system.

The prime minister hopes that a civilised nation such as Britain will not need such heavy-handed action as the Coronavirus Bill envisages. It partially suspends habeas corpus and is alien to the national tradition of freedom of movement. No one would, say, want to see Stanley Johnson questioned by the police as he leads an expedition of fellow free-born Britons to the local tavern, but, as the slogan goes, “whatever it takes”.