Written evidence from the Mason Institute for Medicine Life Sciences and the Law, the university of Edinburgh, School of Law (COV0115)

 

The Mason Institute is an interdisciplinary network at the University of Edinburgh. The Institute investigates the ethical, legal, social and political issues at the interface between medicine, life sciences and the law. The MI provides internationally recognised academic and policy leadership in the socio-legal, medical and life science governance, and bioethics fields.

 

This submission is provided in response to UK Parliament’s Human Rights Committee call for evidence on the human rights implications of the Government’s response to COVID-19.  We note that the Committee is seeking views on the following three questions, which we address in turn below:

 

  1. What steps need to be taken to ensure that measures taken by the Government to address the COVID-19 pandemic are human rights compliant?
  2. What will the impact of specific measures taken by Government to address the COVID-19 pandemic be on human rights in the UK?
  3. Which groups will be disproportionately affected by measures taken by the Government to address the COVID-19 pandemic?

 

1)      What steps need to be taken to ensure that measures taken by the Government to address the COVID-19 pandemic are human rights compliant?

 

Measures taken by the Government must comply with the Human Rights Act 1998 as well as all international human rights instruments to which the UK is a signatory.[1] To comply, the Government must not only refrain from instituting measures that infringe human rights, but also ensure effective protections against infringements by state and private actors, and provide effective remedies where rights are infringed.

 

We recommend that the Government conduct and publish transparent human rights impact assessments of all COVID-19 legislative and policy measures.[2] In doing so they should work closely with the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and civil society (particularly those groups who may be disproportionately affected by these measures - see Q3 below) to ensure compliance and help build trust.

We agree with the Scottish Human Rights Commission that human rights impact assessments “can set legal ‘red lines’ below which state actions must not fall” and protect against disproportionate impacts on the those who face most disadvantage.[3] Nevertheless, the Government’s legal and ethical obligations are not exhausted by compliance with human rights law: all measures must also be compliant with other legislation that may be implicated in COVID-19-related measures, inter alia, the Equality Act 2010, The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003, and the Data Protection Act 2018; and be defensible with respect to their impacts on human health and wellbeing and the principles of justice.

 

2)      What will the impact of specific measures taken by Government to address the COVID-19 pandemic be on human rights in the UK?

 

(i)            Decision-making in delivery of critical and end of life care

 

(ii)            Provision of personal protective equipment (PPE) and testing for health and social care professionals

 

(iii)            Access to non-COVID-related healthcare

 

(iv)            Processing of sensitive personal data (including the introduction of government-sanctioned apps for contact-tracing and the establishment of new data initiatives).

 

(v)            Lockdown

 

 

(vi)            Changes to asylum and resettlement policy and practice

 

3)      Which groups will be disproportionately affected by measures taken by the Government to address the COVID-19 pandemic?

 

Many of the measures implemented and proposed by the UK Government raise considerable ethical and social justice concerns and are likely to exacerbate existing social and structural inequalities. There are also likely to be significant long-term physical and mental health impacts across all the groups listed below. Going forward, all proposed models and public health measures should incorporate an analysis of how they might affect particular segments of the population, supported by data collection (segregated by social and economic factors) to track differential and potentially discriminatory effects. Below we highlight issues affecting specific groups, which require urgent attention.

Women  

 

BAME groups and immigrant minorities

 

Children and young people

 

People with existing conditions and disabilities

 

People living in poverty

 

People with insecure immigration status, migrant workers, refugees and asylum seekers

 

Digital divide 

 

26/05/2020

7

 


[1] These include the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); the European Social Charter; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR); the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (UNCEDAW); the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (UNCERD); and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

[2] Human rights impact assessments have proven to be an important mechanism for building human rights and equality into the development of policies and practices across the public sector in Scotland (see www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/equality-and-human-rights-impact-assessment-project).

[3] Scottish Human Rights Commission, ‘Human  Rights Impact Assessment’ https://www.scottishhumanrights.com/economic-social-cultural-rights/impact-assessment/#impact-assessment-5309(accessed 22/05/20).

[4] Bradbury‐Jones, C., & Isham, L. (2020). The pandemic paradox: the consequences of COVID‐19 on domestic violence. Journal of clinical nursing.

[5] The Refugee Council, ‘Changes to Asylum & Resettlement policy and practice in response to Covid-19’ (18 May 2020) https://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/latest/news/changes-to-home-office-asylum-resettlement-policy-and-practice-in-response-to-covid-19/ (accessed 22/05/2020)

[6] Marie Stopes International,Our Response to the COVID-19 Crisis https://www.mariestopes.org/covid-19 (accessed 22/05/20)

[7] Bradbury‐Jones, C., & Isham, L. (2020). The pandemic paradox: the consequences of COVID‐19 on domestic violence. Journal of clinical nursing.

[8] Tony Kirby. (2020) ‘Evidence mounts on the disproportionate effect of Covid-19 on ethnic minorities’, The Lancet

[9] Derrick Bryson Taylor, ‘For Black Men, Fear that Masks will Invite Racial Profiling’, New York Times, 14 April 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/us/coronavirus-masks-racism-african-americans.html (accessed 22/05/20).

[10] For example, this age group makes up around 29,000 of 700,000 carers in Scotland (see, https://www.gov.scot/policies/social-care/unpaid-carers/).

[11] Office of National Statistics ‘Statistical Bulletin 1 May 2020: Deaths involving COVID-19 by local area and socioeconomic deprivation: deaths occurring between 1 March and 17 April 2020’.

[12] Leah Rodriguez, ‘5 Reasons COVID-19 Will Impact the Fight to End Extreme Poverty’ (Global Citizen, 7 April 2020) https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/how-covid-19-impacts-fight-to-end-extreme-poverty/ (accessed 22/05/20).

[13] The Food Foundation ‘COVID-19: latest impact on food, March 2020. https://foodfoundation.org.uk/covid-19-latest-impact-on-food-2/ (accessed 22/05/20).

[14] Institute for Public Policy Research,Briefing: Migrant workers and coronavirus: risks and responses’, 25 March 2020. https://www.ippr.org/blog/migrant-workers-and-coronavirus (accessed 22/05/20).