header-logo header-logo

The Coronavirus Act 2020

01 April 2020 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7881 / Categories: Features , Covid-19 , Public
printer mail-detail
18643
Neil Parpworth considers the Schedule 21 powers relating to potentially infectious individuals

The Coronavirus Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 19 March 2020. In its original form, the Bill consisted of 87 clauses and 27 schedules. Following an expedited passage through Parliament this had increased to 102 sections and 29 Schedules by the date of Royal Assent (25 March 2020).

The Act provides for a raft of powers and duties that are regarded as being necessary in order to tackle the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. They relate to matters such as the emergency registration of health professionals, the registration of deaths and still-births, as well as food supply and inquests.

For present purposes, however, attention will focus on the powers relating to people who are potentially infectious. These are to be found in s 51 and Schedule 21 to the Act. Section 51 rather innocuously provides that: ‘Schedule 21 confers powers relating to potentially infectious persons and makes related provision.’

Turn to Schedule 21, however, and the reader

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

NEWS
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
Early determination is no longer a novelty in arbitration. In NLJ this week, Gustavo Moser, arbitration specialist lawyer at Lexis+, charts the global embrace of summary disposal powers, now embedded in the Arbitration Act 1996 and mirrored worldwide. Tribunals may swiftly dismiss claims with ‘no real prospect of succeeding’, but only if fairness is preserved
back-to-top-scroll