For 18 months, the government has held power over us as never before in peacetime. The emergency powers granted by parliament in March last year can cancel our events, separate families and send us back into our homes. The argument for giving politicians this kind of control was that leaders needed to make huge decisions at short notice because an invisible enemy was surging through Britain and posed a deadly threat to our elderly and vulnerable. There was no time for proper democratic debate or scrutiny.
That emergency has passed, but the government wishes to keep the powers. What’s the case for doing so? Vaccines have significantly weakened the link between Covid infections and severe illness. Hospital occupancy remains on track with or even below the most optimistic Sage scenarios. In these circumstances, the government should need a very good reason if it is to be allowed to extend these powers, which would pave the way for more school closures, restrictions and even further lockdowns.
Have scientific advisers told ministers something they have not shared with the rest of us, perhaps about a new variant or about the fading efficacy of vaccines? Or is it simply that the government has grown used to pushing things through without debate in the cabinet, let alone parliament?
It is dangerous to give politicians a taste of power without the usual democratic restraints
The vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi warned this week that he couldn’t rule out further Covid restrictions, such as closing schools for a two-week half-term ‘firebreak’ — though he added that it would be the ‘worst thing we can do for the economy and people’s livelihoods’. What he didn’t do was explain what exactly would make such a step necessary. The point of democratic scrutiny is to force governments to make their case. It improves the quality of decision-making and reduces the risk of unintended consequences.
If vaccine immunity is waning, Britain has the option of offering booster jabs, which could be adjusted to cope with new strains of the virus — something Simon Clarke advocates in his article.

Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in