Coronavirus act and contingencies fund act

[davesparks]

Yesterday at 5.30PM the following bills were given royal assent and enacted into law, they are now acts of Parliament.
-The Contingencies Fund Act
-The Coronavirus Act

Royal Assent - Wednesday 25 March 2020 - Hansard - UK Parliament

Hansard record of the item 'Royal Assent' on Wednesday 25 March 2020.

hansard.parliament.uk

These acts include the provisions for employed and self employed people receiving support, I haven't read them to find out the details to know if anything has changed since the extracts of the drafts that we've seen posted on the forum previously.
[automerge]1585236263[/automerge]
Starting to skim read it and there are of course a lot of necessary provisions in the coronavirus act, but some of them are slightly scary ones.

The changes to mental health laws for one, it now only requires one doctor to sign off on a person being detained under the mental health act whereas it would normally be two.
It's a perfectly logical change, but that rule was brought in for good reason!

 

[Risteard]

It's a perfectly logical change, but that rule was brought in for good reason!

In my view it's wholly unacceptable and dangerous.

We can't get rid of all checks and balances due to political expediency because there is a pandemic. I truly fear for where the world is heading (including most/all of Europe).

 

[davesparks]

In my view it's wholly unacceptable and dangerous.

I agree it is dangerous, but you can see why it has been done.

Thankfully the whole thing is time limited, but it's the precedents it sets that are more of a worry.

 

[snowhead]

There are lots of changes covered in those Acts that MAY BE used.
Not everything will be and no-one can predict in the near future what may be required.
It's been done to cover for the unknown.

So the powers also granted of the Police being able to detain someone refusing to self isolate and has obvious signs of Corona virus are also wholly unacceptable and dangerous.?
The reason for the mental health one is that there may not be 2 Doctors avaiable or requiring a second could be taking one away from saving many lives.

 

[Risteard]

So the powers also granted of the Police being able to detain someone refusing to self isolate and has obvious signs of Corona virus are also wholly unacceptable and dangerous.?

I don't wish to make things unduly political but I have little faith in police forces acting in a reasonable manner when they are given further powers. We can't have a situation where everything can be justified because there is a pandemic.

I also understand the reasoning behind the one doctor rule, but that doesn't make it safe or desirable. So I do not support these powers being granted.

 

[Baddegg]

I believe these bills get reviewed every 3 months....

 

[Risteard]

I believe these bills get reviewed every 3 months....

I don't believe there's a review for the two years its initially valid for.

 

[davesparks]

I believe these bills get reviewed every 3 months....

It's set at 6 months for this one

 

[Baddegg]

There definitely a review date I remember it being discussed by the opposition,

 

[Andy78]

For someone to be detained under the mental health act they must be a present danger to themselves or others. In these cases it is quite important to have the ability to remove that danger.

I would absolutely not support that as a permanent change though, but can see why it has been done.

 

[Baddegg]

I think most people can see certain things need doing differently in a time of national emergency but we also need the security that these things aren’t permanent measures....

 

[Risteard]

For someone to be detained under the mental health act they must be a present danger to themselves or others.

Yes, in theory. But the fact it's merely on the say so of one person leaves this very wide open to abuse.

 

[Andy78]

Yes, in theory. But the fact it's merely on the say so of one person leaves this very wide open to abuse.

I agree. This is a time where we have to try and put faith in each other and those with responsibilities though.
One would hope a second opinion would be forthcoming after the initial detention even if it couldn't be immediate.

 

[davesparks]

Yes, in theory. But the fact it's merely on the say so of one person leaves this very wide open to abuse.

Many years ago one doctor on their own could section a person, they often did so because a family would pay them to do this as a way to hide an embarrassing uncle or get rid of an unsuitable suitor for their daughter etc.
Thankfully the world has moved on from this, but I still dont like the idea of it being possible once again.

 

[Midwest]

In my experience, a doctor on their own would not make the decision to section someone, even less likely with two!

On a more serious note, some while since I was involved in this sort of thing, but sectioning someone doesn't just rely on a medical doctor, there were other health care professionals involved.

So it might just be a case, that now its one doctor and other health care professional.