Public Health Bill: What could Stormont’s disputed proposals actually change?

Emergency powers to deal with threats against public health in Northern Ireland have not been updated since 1967. After the collective experience of the pandemic, it’s unsurprising that the Department of Health wants to update the current measures in place.

But the suggestions for a Public Health Bill - based around a 2016 review by the Chief Medical Officer Sir Michael McBride - have generated a backlash in recent months, particularly around the question of mandatory vaccinations or forced quarantines.

Unusually for a public consultation, the Health Minister Mike Nesbitt had to intervene to counter “misunderstandings” about what the bill will involve.

Extending the consultation until October 14, he stated that he was against mandatory vaccinations, and the point of a consultation was to gauge public attitudes to different scenarios - all of which would need approval from the Assembly and the Executive to become law.

Masked and armed men carried out invasion of home of Conor McGregor accuser Nikita Hand

Conor McGregor rents luxury lough front house in Rostrevor as trial plays out in Dublin

Northern Ireland’s two largest political parties, the DUP and Sinn Féin, are now openly opposing the bill in its current form while a protest group recently staged a protest at Belfast City Hall attended by hundreds.

Others like the British Medical Association are more measured in their response, stating the main purpose of the bill is not about vaccination but the reality of facing serious threats to public health.

As well as the options of forced vaccination and quarantine, the consultation also covers the issue of power of entry - leading to questions about when officers could force their way into a private home.

The 1967 Public Health Act already allows officers permission to enter “any premises at all” to confirm if there has been “any breach of the rules” under the act, but requires them to give 24 hours notice before entering any public dwelling.

It is proposed this would be enhanced with powers such as applying for a warrant in certain circumstances, using reasonable force when necessary and taking photographs.

This does not apply to private homes and the Public Health Agency (PHA) would still need to gain a court warrant if they wanted to access and search a private home.

Another section proposes the PHA have the power to keep children with an infectious disease away from school, while head teachers would be expected to provide contact details of any infected pupil that has been on school grounds - or face a £200 fine.

Setting out his next steps for the bill on Wednesday, Mr Nesbitt acknowledged it had been “controversial” and it had “aggravated the scars left by both the Covid-19 pandemic and the measures adopted to combat it”.

Stating that another pandemic and new threats to public health were inevitable, he said the existing legislation did not cover “21st century hazards”.

He repeated that the bill would not contain mandatory vaccination powers - but he was obliged to include all options in the consultation.

For the first time, he said any emergency public health regulations would be subject “to a clear and time-limited triple lock”.

This means he would need to agree to them and be accountable to the Assembly and Executive.

If powers needed to be “introduced at rapid speed” to counter a new threat, retrospective Assembly approval would be required within 14 days.

Thirdly, he said that “significant safeguards to protect individual rights” would be in place, including the requirement for court orders for actions including entering a private dwelling, requiring a person to undergo a medical examination, be kept in isolation or limiting where a person goes.

He added that existing legislation already allows authorities to seek a court order to remove someone with an infectious disease to hospital or detained as well as restricting their movements.

At present, entry to a dwelling can be demanded with 24 hours notice and without the oversight of the courts.

Acknowledging the “legitimate concerns” around the consultation, he continued: “Public health interventions in relation to households, businesses and schools are only used on very rare occasions. But the legal options must be there, unless we are to seriously argue that individuals have the right to knowingly or unknowingly cause biological, chemical and radiological contamination or otherwise put the health and lives of others at risk.”