header-logo header-logo

01 April 2020 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7881 / Categories: Features , Covid-19 , Public
printer mail-detail

The Coronavirus Act 2020

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll