Niqabs / burqas

[Clitheroekid]

DAK whether a woman wearing a niqab / burqa would be legally obliged to wear a face mask when in shops / on public transport? It would seem rather pointless.

[swill453]

DAK whether a woman wearing a niqab / burqa would be legally obliged to wear a face mask when in shops / on public transport? It would seem rather pointless.

The requirement is specifically for a "face covering", not a "mask". So I'd imagine anything more would not be required.

Scott.

[UncleEbenezer]

The requirement is specifically for a "face covering", not a "mask". So I'd imagine anything more would not be required.

Scott.

Now there's a thought. Never expected to need a helmet with visor since I got rid of the motorbike. Would that count, if one could find a visor that didn't just instantly steam up when used indoors without the wind in ones face?

[swill453]

Now there's a thought. Never expected to need a helmet with visor since I got rid of the motorbike. Would that count, if one could find a visor that didn't just instantly steam up when used indoors without the wind in ones face?

I haven't seen the English rule, but the Scottish one is:

What is a face covering?
A face covering can be any covering of the mouth and nose that is made of cloth or other textiles and through which you can breathe.

Religious face coverings that cover the mouth and the nose count as face coverings for these purposes.

You may also use, if you prefer, a face visor but it must cover your nose and mouth completely.

So ... probably.

EDIT: reference https://www.gov.scot/publications/coron ... coverings/

Scott.

[pochisoldi]

I haven't seen the English rule,

Based on recent experience, nobody will see it until 10pm on the 23rd (i.e. the very last minute)
Look under "UK Statutory Instruments" at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/new to keep tabs.

Some might say that there's a conspiracy to keep the details of the rules from the public, I personally doubt that the government possesses the requisite skills to off a conspiracy, which therefore points to cockup/incompetence.

[dealtn]

I haven't seen the English rule,

Based on recent experience, nobody will see it until 10pm on the 23rd (i.e. the very last minute)
Look under "UK Statutory Instruments" at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/new to keep tabs.

Some might say that there's a conspiracy to keep the details of the rules from the public, I personally doubt that the government possesses the requisite skills to off a conspiracy, which therefore points to cockup/incompetence.

Well if is to be a rule, as opposed to a "guideline" then it needs to go through that inconvenient process of becoming law. So it's hardly surprising the English rule hasn't been seen yet. It hasn't been processed, debated, rubber stamped, passed or whatever by parliament. It's not conspiracy/cockup/incompetence it's just process.

[AF62]

DAK whether a woman wearing a niqab / burqa would be legally obliged to wear a face mask when in shops / on public transport? It would seem rather pointless.

It would seem that in Wales they probably would need to wear a mask as well as the First Minister has said they will be mandating for three layer face masks on public transport and a niqab / burqa probably isn’t - http://www.wrexham.com/news/three-layer ... 89515.html

However I think asking someone to remove their niqab / burqa to check might make the news.

[didds]

Well if is to be a rule, as opposed to a "guideline" then it needs to go through that inconvenient process of becoming law. So it's hardly surprising the English rule hasn't been seen yet. It hasn't been processed, debated, rubber stamped, passed or whatever by parliament. It's not conspiracy/cockup/incompetence it's just process.

do these come under "minsterial rules" which dont need an Act of parliament? Merely asking - i dunno

[johnhemming]

Ministerial Orders are normally a statutory instrument or secondary legislation which sort of goes through parliament.

[servodude]

I haven't seen the English rule,

Based on recent experience, nobody will see it until 10pm on the 23rd (i.e. the very last minute)
Look under "UK Statutory Instruments" at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/new to keep tabs.

Some might say that there's a conspiracy to keep the details of the rules from the public, I personally doubt that the government possesses the requisite skills to off a conspiracy, which therefore points to cockup/incompetence.

Well if is to be a rule, as opposed to a "guideline" then it needs to go through that inconvenient process of becoming law. So it's hardly surprising the English rule hasn't been seen yet. It hasn't been processed, debated, rubber stamped, passed or whatever by parliament. It's not conspiracy/cockup/incompetence it's just process.

Hard to believe that it requires 10 days to process, stamp and pass the requisite legislation prior to implementation?
(I omitted debate as surely the u-turn implies they've done that)

If it really is a result of process and it's not just down to incompetence/cockup/intransigence/"or it doesn't really matter and we're only doing this under duress" then it doesn't bode well for being able to dynamically react to any crises.

DAK how long it took in Scotland for example?

-sd

[swill453]

DAK how long it took in Scotland for example?

I believe we were told on 2nd July that it would take effect on 10th July. So, less of a gap than England but not hugely so.

Scott.

[Arborbridge]

DAK whether a woman wearing a niqab / burqa would be legally obliged to wear a face mask when in shops / on public transport? It would seem rather pointless.

I'd ask Clitheroekid - he will know

[dionaeamuscipula]

Ministerial Orders are normally a statutory instrument or secondary legislation which sort of goes through parliament.

Example:

"The Secretary of State makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 45C(1), (3)(c), (4)(d), 45F(2) and 45P of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984(1).

These Regulations are made in response to the serious and imminent threat to public health which is posed by the incidence and spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in England.

The Secretary of State considers that the restrictions and requirements imposed by these Regulations are proportionate to what they seek to achieve, which is a public health response to that threat.

In accordance with section 45R of that Act the Secretary of State is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make this instrument without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made

Current legislation is still being issued on the same basis.

DM

[johnhemming]

There may be an urgency thing, but there normally is a facility for parliament to vote down an SI rather than necessarily have the requirement that parliament votes through an SI. However, I am not going to check this to get it 100% right. There are different types of SI. However, if parliament has the ability to vote down an SI, but does not exercise its right to have a vote then arguably it still "sort of" goes through parliament.

[servodude]

DAK how long it took in Scotland for example?

I believe we were told on 2nd July that it would take effect on 10th July. So, less of a gap than England but not hugely so.

Scott.

Thanks.
That also seems torpidly slow; just as well there was nothing urgent required.

-sd

[johnhemming]

The UK parliament can get a bill through both houses in a day. I personally don't think the masks are necessary. Hence I would not say they are urgent.

[dionaeamuscipula]

There may be an urgency thing, but there normally is a facility for parliament to vote down an SI rather than necessarily have the requirement that parliament votes through an SI. However, I am not going to check this to get it 100% right. There are different types of SI. However, if parliament has the ability to vote down an SI, but does not exercise its right to have a vote then arguably it still "sort of" goes through parliament.

My understanding is that by invoking emergency powers, the Government is by-passing all parliamentary scrutiny. A side effect of this is that the regulations are frequently being issued very late in the day. It is perhaps surprising that the Government is continuing to use the urgency argument, but that is even more OT.

DM

[johnhemming]

I don't know. I can find out if you would like me to do. I used to have a lot to do with SIs etc.