---

Health and Social Care Bill

moved Amendment No. 168: 168: Clause 123, page 70, line 19, after ““review”” insert ““by a magistrates’ court”” The noble Baroness said: This amendment addresses the question of the rights of review. In its report, the Joint Committee on Human Rights very much welcomed the right of appeal against the imposition of any special restrictions or requirements. The Bill also proposes that there will be a right of review in respect of the continuation of any special restrictions or requirements imposed as a result of the operation of health protection regulations. In our report, we expressed concern that there was very little detail in the Bill about how these rights would work in practice. The amendment would require a periodic review by a magistrates’ court in respect of any special restriction or requirement that continued under any health protection regulations. It is a probing amendment. The Government have explained that, without knowing the specific situations that regulations may be needed to address, it is difficult to provide appropriately for those safeguards in the Bill. For example, it is likely that it would be appropriate for a periodic review to be carried out by the same authority that placed the initial restriction or requirement on the individual. However, that will vary depending on the situation. In the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, many details relating to the operation of the review and appeals process are left to be determined by secondary legislation. Therefore, I am taking the opportunity provided by this amendment to ask the Minister how the Government envisage that this review process will operate in practice. Can she tell us, for example, whether the process will generally be independent of the procedures for appeal? Can she confirm that individuals subject to a special restriction or requirement will have an appeal directly against decisions made under health protection regulations and will not have to wait for the outcome of any periodic review? Would an individual or his or her representatives be invited to make representations to the review? Will there be a further appeal against the outcome of a periodic review? I hope that the Minister can provide some answers to these questions. Also in this group are Amendments Nos. 186, 187, 189 and 190, and I shall refer to Amendment No. 195, although it is in a later grouping. These amendments concern the duration of public health orders. They are also probing amendments to open up a debate on the proposals on the duration of public health orders made by JPs. Amendment No. 186 will reduce the current proposed maximum period for detention, isolation and quarantine from 28 days to 14 days. At present, there is no maximum period for any order relating to other restrictions or requirements, including requirements which may prevent an individual seeing other people or working or which may require an individual to attend training or that his health be monitored. The Bill provides for no maximum period for these orders, but leaves that to the discretion of the relevant Minister who may set a maximum. Can the Minister explain why that is appropriate? Amendment No. 187 provides that any public health order imposing a restriction or requirement may not last longer than 28 days. A further order may extend that. The Bill provides that the relevant Minister may set the maximum period for which a JP may renew or extend any order imposing restrictions or requirements. Amendments Nos. 188 and 190, suggested by the Joint Committee, would remove the power to set maximum periods for renewal of orders for detention, isolation and quarantine from the relevant Minister. That Minister would retain the power to set the maximum periods for renewal for restrictions and requirements. Amendment No. 190 would require any public health order involving detention, isolation or quarantine to be reviewed by a JP every seven days after the expiry of the initial period of the order. Amendment No. 195 would require any regulations setting maximum periods for public health orders or extensions to them to be subject to affirmative resolution. These amendments spring from the Joint Committee’s concern that, as drafted, the Bill could potentially subject individuals to detention on the basis of 28-day orders that could continually be extended or renewed by JPs. Can the Minister explain how the Government envisage that these orders will operate in practice and their likely duration in particular cases? Could she give examples where detention, isolation or quarantine will be necessary for longer than 28 days? Although the relevant Minister is empowered to set a maximum period for detention, isolation or quarantine, or for the imposition of other restrictions or requirements, the Minister is not required to do so. The Joint Committee’s concerns relate to the following questions. Why is a 28-day initial period appropriate for orders permitting detention, isolation and quarantine? Why is it appropriate to leave the maximum period for all other restrictions and requirements to administrative discretion? Why is it appropriate to leave the maximum period that a person may spend in detention, isolation or quarantine to administrative discretion, subject to the oversight of a JP? I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance on all those points. I beg to move.