Is it time emergency powers regulations are replaced with simple guidance on staying safe during the Covid crisis?

An emergency scrutiny session of the Public Accounts Committee grilled Chief Minister Howard Quayle, chief secretary Will Greenhow and two senior health officials about government plans to exit out of lockdown.

Committee chairman, Speaker Juan Watterson, suggested easing of restrictions had created confusion.

He said: ’People are still very much concerned about breaking the law. Is the reason we’ve not been able to make that leap from regulation to guidance because we can’t maintain border controls without emergency powers?’

Mr Greenhow replied: ’It would make it more difficult to have border controls, certainly.’

The Chief Minister said: ’Nobody wants to have emergency powers.

’We are reviewing now. We have asked our Attorney General to see if there is a different way forward.

’We need these powers because of the borders and gatherings. Without them we would be open to all sorts of legal challenges.

’Without emergency powers we would be in serious trouble of defending some of the actions we’ve been forced to take to protect the overall population.

’When we can we will seek to do away with them.’

Chris Robertshaw suggested government was continuing to ’micro-manage’. He said people were getting confused at the ’miasma’ of regulation and this should be replaced with guidance for individuals and businesses.

Last week, restrictions on gathering were relaxed to allow groups of 10 from multiple households to meet up outside while two from the same household can visit your home.

Committee member Rob Callister asked how the limit of two visitors was determined.

Director of public health Dr Henrietta Ewart (pictured) said it was ’purely pragmatic’ ’What drives risk for the spread of coronavirus is bringing together people from different households. This is about restricting the number of interactions.

’It would be risky to open the valve too wide too soon.’

The Speaker said he didn’t understand the difference in his parents visiting his family of four at his home but his family could not go round to visit them.

’One is legal and one is illegal,’ he said.

Dr Ewart said: ’The expansion of the household bubble should actually be fine. I’m not aware that it is illegal for reciprocal visits. If it is, it’s not something I’ve been advised on.’

Balance

Mr Callister asked why the island had not followed the Guernsey model where up to four households are allowed to meet up inside and outdoors.

The public health director said Guernsey had followed the New Zealand approach.

’All of those options were looked at.

’There’s always a balance between how many restrictions people will continue to put up with and how much you can relax.

’The evidence is very little transmission happens outdoors. It happens indoors and within household groups, mainly. So relaxing on outdoor gatherings is in line with the evidence we have.’

Dr Ewart insisted she didn’t prefer any one model over another because the evidence does not take you to one model or another.

Julie Edge asked why the minutes and recommendations from the clinical group can’t be published.

Interim chief executive of the Department of Health and Social Care, Kathryn Magson, replied: ’They are not public documents, they are internal documents. They are only part of the picture.’