🚨Important changes to lockdown/self-isolation regulations from 5pm

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers and Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

£800 'house party' FPN & police can now access track & trace data

https://t.co/k9XCpVsXhC

“Large gathering offence”

As trailed by Home Secretary last week there is now a fixed penalty notice of £800 (or £400 if you pay within 14 days) for participating in an gathering of over 15 people in a private residence
Fixed Penalty Notices double for each subsequent “large gathering offence” up to £6,400

Compare:
- Ordinary fixed penalty notice is £200 or £100 if paid in 14 days
- Holding or being involved in the holding of a gathering of over 30 people is £10,000
Second big change:

Since September has been a legal requirement to sell-isolate if you test positive/notified by Track & Trace of exposure to someone else who tested positive

Police can now be given access to NHS Track & Trace data if for the purpose of enforcement/prosecution
This will make it easier for police to enforce people breaking self-isolation rules. Currently there has been practically no enforcement.

Data says only a small proportion of people meant to be self-isolating are fully doing so. https://t.co/LcwKfQ6PVx
But obviously this raises important human rights questions because police will be given access to information about our movements and social interactions.

They are only permitted to use that data for the purposes of Covid rules enforcement - but will they?
- Will data be kept safe and secure?
- Can police resist the temptation of using the data for other criminal enforcement purposes?
- Do we want the police having this information at all?
- Is enforcement going to make things better? Or make people less willing to share info?
As I said in the tweet quoted above, track & trace has mostly failed but we don't know if because police haven't been able to enforce. Could equally be lack of follow up, bad messaging, basic incompetence. As with all things Covid related, don't assume enforcement is the answer
Covid regulations table now updated https://t.co/5A0SJvCGWP
Important point made by @mikarv that the ability for the police to access Track & Trace data does *not* extend to data caught by the NHS phone app. See my thread on the self-isolation law https://t.co/Bn8WQJvMWn
I also made a YouTube video on the self-isolation law - nb. as the description says the self-isolation rules have subsequently been amended to reduce the isolation times down from 14 to 10 days in certain circumstances https://t.co/CxgnH6MekA
Good question. As far as I can tell (as usually you have to piece together two bits of law to figure it out) it is the contact details (including name, address), the notification of positive test/exposure, the period of isolation. So...
... should not include the details of who they came into contact with, however the police may be able to figure that out if they piece together multiple notifications given at the same time.
Don’t forget the police don’t necessarily want to be doing this either https://t.co/QUhfmMh03C

More from Adam Wagner

A short thread on why I am dubious that the government can lawfully impose charges on travellers entering the UK for quarantine and testing (proposed at £1,750 and £210)

1/

The UK has signed up to the International Health Regulations (IHA) 2005. These therefore create binding international legal obligations on the UK.

The IHA explicitly prevent charging for travellers' quarantine or medical examinations.

https://t.co/n4oWE8x5Vg /2


International law is not actionable in a UK court unless it has been implemented in law.

But it can be used as an aide to interpretation where a statute isn't clear as to what powers it grants.

See e.g. Lord Bingham in A v SSHD https://t.co/RXmib1qGYD

/3


The Quarantine regulations will, I assume, be made under section 45B of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984

https://t.co/54L4lHGMEr

/4


That gives pretty broad powers but I can't see any power to charge for quarantine. Perhaps it will be inferred from somewhere else in Part 2A?

But...

More from Health

@73inlancs @janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 1/ The 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 government decided pediatric gender care in England would be a monopoly contract (a Labour minister, in 2008), despite all other NHS patients officially being entitled to a choice of providers, & second opinions on diagnoses & treatment, & gave it to GIDS, which has…

@janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 2/…always advocated that trans minors & their families must have no alternative source of care, & subsequent Tory ministers have personally put their signature on renewals of it, and even personally rejected proposals for improvement that have been put forward by NHS England…

@janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 3/…as a result of wider & public consultation. They & their civil servants listen only to GIDS on trans minors - it was GIDS advised against <18s being allowed #GenderRecognition in 2004, & since, on the basis that no one under 18 can be certain of their gender identity, just…

@janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 4/…as many other staff at their trust wrote⬇️ to the press in 2002 (when the first instigator of this case, psychoanalyst Susan Evans was on staff too) that no trans people should be allowed that recognition but needed

@janethooton_ @ErinInTheMorn @fifi_EY 5/…to "cure" us instead. Yet GIDS proved incapable of defending its super-conservative protocol in court - no doubt because GIDS has always expected challenges to be from patients seeking care more like that elsewhere, arrogantly ignoring that services in countries where the…

You May Also Like