A HART supporter working in Northern Ireland recently sent us a link to a consultation on Policy Proposals to inform the development of a new Public Health Bill for Northern Ireland.

There is a consultation in progress, closing on 27th September.  Perhaps the most concerning thing is that no-one in the MSM is talking about this at all. 

The main document opens with the self-evident statement that “Current DoH public health legislation, the Public Health Act (Northern Ireland) 19673 (“the 1967 Act”), is over 56 years old.” It then discusses the setting up of a review team, stating, “A sole focus on health protection matters allows the Bill to progress at pace. Widening the scope to incorporate other public health issues which may be contentious, risks holding up the passage of the Bill while these issues are considered. Without a new health protection legislative framework, Northern Ireland (NI) remains vulnerable to other 21st century public health emergencies, in terms of a legislative response, and therefore a new health protection legislative framework is urgently required. 

In summary, it is proposed that the new Bill will: 

• Widen the scope of the current public health legislation to create permanent powers to enable NI to respond to public health scenarios on an ‘all hazards’ basis
• be based on the all-hazards approach, in alignment with other UK jurisdictions, for the protection of people from known or yet to be discovered hazards [eg the dreaded Disease X?], infections or contamination; 
• update certain powers around restrictions on employment, quarantine, isolation and medical examination;”

Another cheery paragraph reads, 

“The aim and objectives of a draft Bill will be: 

• to update outdated public health legislation to make it fit for purpose in order to better manage 21st century public health emergencies; 
• to align with UK jurisdictions, where appropriate, and to better comply with IHR 2005 [at least not yet for International Health Regulations 2024], Human Rights and Data Protection legislation; and 
• to widen the scope of current public health legislation to create permanent powers to enable Northern Ireland to respond to public health scenarios on an ‘all-hazards’ basis.”

The contents page is (deliberately?) sparse with the meat of the document running from page 6 to page 70 but below are a few extracts to whet your appetite or alternatively cause you to put your hands over your eyes. The document starts with a list of notifiable diseases which of course, for most medics, seems like a reasonable situation – eg a patient with salmonella gastroenteritis who is taken off work in food handling until they have 3 clear stool samples.  But somehow in the covid era of false positive PCRs and draconian population lockdowns, it has a very different feel.

Powers of Entry (para 57) 

“It is proposed to enhance these powers of entry and investigations by supplementing them with a wide range of powers such as applying for a warrant in specified circumstances, using reasonable force when necessary, directing that premises be left undisturbed, taking measurements or photographs, making recordings, requiring a person to answer questions, or dismantling any article or substance.” 

Given Public Health officials already had powers to enter premises such as restaurants or food outlets etc, it is not clear why “enhanced” powers are needed.

Offence of wilful obstruction (para 63)

It is proposed to include an offence of wilful obstruction to the effect that a person commits an offence if the person wilfully obstructs any person acting in execution of the above provisions or of a warrant made or issued. A person guilty of an offence liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (£5000). 

Health measures in relation to persons (para 72)

“The PHA will have the power to serve a notice on any person or groups of people requesting them to do, or refrain from doing, anything for the purpose of preventing, protecting against, controlling or providing a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection or contamination which presents or could present significant harm to human health.”

“A magistrates’ court may make an order imposing on a person one or more restrictions or requirements if the court is satisfied that: 

• a person is or may be infected or contaminated; 

• the infection or contamination is one which presents or could present significant harm to human health;”

The problem here seems to lie in the vagueness of persons who may be infected with a disease which could present significant harm. This definition would seem to extend as far as contacts of an infected person (in other words someone who may or equally may not be infected), with a virus which could be as mild as the common cold for most people.

And we thought covid restrictions were bad enough. But evidently those in authority thought their powers did not go far enough. 

As for what the PHA may request a (possibly) infected person to do or not do, the list includes (para 76) :

“The restrictions or requirements that may be imposed on a person by an order are that: 

• the person submit to medical examination;

• the person be removed to a hospital or other suitable establishment; 

• the person be detained in a hospital or other suitable establishment; 

• the person be kept in isolation or quarantine; 

• the person be disinfected or decontaminated; 

• the person wear protective clothing; etc  

So bad luck if you thought the death toll in hospital might have been higher than staying at home with your family to mop your fevered brow.

Health measures in relation to things (para 87)

“The restrictions or requirements that may be imposed by an order are: 

• that the thing be seized or retained;

Sorry to tell you, but “the definition of ‘thing’ will include a reference to (a) human tissue, (b) a dead body or human remains, (c) animals (para 88)  so you can say goodbye to your pet dog or cat now (anyway they are meat eaters and CO2 emitters, so definitely a bad thing!).

But it gets worse.

Restrictions/ emergency powers (para 143)

In relation to a person, the regulations may impose a ‘special restriction or requirement’ such as: 

• require a person to [be] vaccinated or to receive other prophylactic treatment; 

International Travel Regulations (para 176)

It is good to know that: 

“Regulations made under this suite of provisions (international travel) may not include provision requiring a person to undergo medical treatment…

Regulations that include provision requiring persons to be vaccinated or to receive other prophylactic treatment must:

• provide for exemptions from that requirement; and

• include provision about how a person who is entitled to an exemption is to evidence that entitlement.

Woe betide anyone who thinks that bodily autonomy constitutes an exemption.

Please do consider responding to the consultation via the link here – closing date 27th September