Starting in 2002, the Isle of Man began to enter into international agreements under specific, delegated, authority from the UK (Agreement Between the Government of the Isle of Man and Government of the United states of America for the Exchange of Information Relating to Taxes, 3 October 2002)

I am aware of only one pair of linked twentieth century examples of the Isle of Man being given authority by the UK to enter into negotiations on its own behalf In 1952 the Irish Republic and the Isle of Man had entered into a reciprocal agreement in relation to social security. The Manx had accepted a single document for this agreement, which referred to “Ireland” throughout. The UK policy was to use twin texts, the British text referring to “Eire”, in order to recognise the position of Northern Ireland.

This reference to “Ireland”, in an international agreement made by the UK, was controversial at the time. The UK government took a low view of the Manx side of negotiations, privately describing the process as one in which the Manx had “been hoodwinked” by the Irish. When the agreement came to be renewed in 1954, the Manx government were unwilling to do this, instead wishing a single document referring to the “Republic of Ireland”. Morley of the Commonwealth Relations Office, although accepting that this insistence was contrary to the UK practice, explained to the Irish Authorities that the Governor had responsibility for this area, with the advice and consent of a Board of Tynwald, and that he had decided to hold to the decision.

Two new GCs later on the 23 March, all changes concerning moving home.

GC 2021/0064 deals with restrictions on movement. There are a number of changes to particular reasons justifying leaving home, all based on moving home.

Firstly, voluntary moves. It will be recalled that the justification based on a contractual obligation to move house was, with one very specific change of date, only applicable where a contractual obligation existed before lockdown 3 began. This has now been changed. The ground now covers moving to a new home (freehold or leasehold) “where that move is reasonably necessary to avoid financial detriment to the person for failing to comply with a contractual obligation or a term of a mortgage offer” (para.5(1)(l)). So a person may enter into a voluntary contractual obligation during the lockdown, which will then expose them to a financial detriment, that detriment then justifying leaving home to move house. This is the only financial detriment incurred since the start of the lock-down which operates in itself as a justification for leaving home – although we might argue that other grounds which do not refer to financial loss would result in financial loss if not recognised, the link is nowhere near as straightforward. For instance a tradesperson may carry out (paid) work at the home of another person, but only if essential for the safety of the property or the health and wellbeing of the residents (para.5(1)(ff)). Being able to move home having committed to doing so since the start of a lock down is not new (it was the case in January for instance). Previous iterations did not require that moving house would avoid a financial detriment (see for instance GC 2021/0018 para.3(1)(l)) The explicit recognition of financial detriment (which can include loss of profit as well as loss) as the basis for an exception may be controversial.

Secondly, involuntary moves. These are covered by para.5(1)(t), which is unchanged, and allows amongst other things people who reasonably believe themselves at risk of domestic abuse to move to other accommodation. For involuntary moves only meeting a landlord or agent at a rental premises to which the person is considering moving is now justified for both the mover and the landlord/agent (para.5(1)(u) and (v)). It is noteworthy that this section does not require that the premises to be viewed should be vacant.

GC 2021/0065 covers gatherings. The section dealing with support bubbles is tidied slightly (e.g. para 13.1.2). The new ground in the movement GC allowing viewing of properties by involuntary movers is recognising as a justification for meeting, but only in “a vacant dwelling” (para.24). The interaction of this with the new sections discussed just above make me think that an involuntary mover and a landlord may meet outside an occupied dwelling, but may enter a vacant dwelling together.

GC 2021/0063 makes changes to the gathering rules, but only in relation to “gathering for the purposes of support” (a.k.a. support bubbles).

The odd reference to “within their own, or one other household” is removed. A person covered by paragraph 13 may gather “with one other household” (para.12), so long as most of the Part 4 conditions are complied with (discussed in my earlier note), but also subject to specific conditions laid out in paragraph 13.

Paragraph 13 is partly clarificatory, but also makes some substantial changes. In terms of clarification, it now defines X households (being lone adult households entitled to use these provisions), and Y households (being one other household of any size, “provided that every member is usually resident in the Y household”). This “usually resident” is a limit on Y households, not X households. Other rules concerning leaving the house etc should mean that in most cases, every member of a household is usually resident – so what does this limit? One possibility is that households where a separated parent may on occasion have a child (as envisaged by para.5(1)(h) and (i) of the movement GCs)  are not eligible to act as a Y household because one member (the child) is not “usually” resident there.

If right, this does raise an odd outcome. The X household is a single adult with 2 children. The Y household is a larger family consisting of the other parent of the 2 children, and one set of their grandparents. The children can pass between the two households. The X household is entitled to bubble with a *different* household (so long as it does not have anyone who is not normally resident), but not with the household containing one parent and their grandparents.  

The lack of reciprocity I criticised earlier has been addressed – X can gather in the home of Y, for instance, but also “vice versa” (para.13.3). A car share as “necessary” for the gathering to occur is permissible – a useful addition allowing for instance X households to be collected by a member of Y household to be taken to the Y home (para.13.5). The exclusive nature of the X/Y relationship is made clear, but there remains no mechanism for discontinuing an X/Y relationship and starting another one at a later date (para.13.6).

Additionally, the focus on the homes of X and Y is diluted slightly. A gathering “may be within the home of either X household or Y household or outdoors” (para.13.4). So for the purposes of the gathering, the group of X+Y may meet outdoors. The restrictions on movement, however, do not generally allow a person to leave their home just to be outdoors – the nearest is the right to exercise. This has not been amended and it remains “to undertake exercise alone or with other members of his household” (para.5(1)(d); and a linked household is not part of your own household). The support bubble reason for leaving home is also unchanged, and refers explicitly to leaving “in order to visit a person within their own, or one other household for the purposes of support, as provided in paragraphs 12 and 13 [of the gatherings direction]” (para.5(1)(kk)).

It would have been better to amend para.5(1)(kk) to read “to visit a person outdoors, or within their own or one other household …”; but the explicit cross-reference in (kk) to paragraph 12 and 13 may be useful here. We could argue that the paragraph is intended to give effect to the rules in paragraph 12 and 13, and so should be read against their clear textual meaning to do so. If that is right, then a meeting outside between X and Y households is permitted even if mobile. 

Five new GCs made, covering key aspecta of the internal response to the pandemic. Each GC extends until 6 April.

GC 2021/0057 concerns closure of educational institutions. There has been no change since GC 2021/0052, made on the 12^th of March. In particular, there has been no restoration of limited school opening for, inter alia, children of essential workers.

GC 2021/0058 concerns closure of child care service providers. There has been no change since GC 2021/0054, made on the 15^th of March. In particular, all child care service providers remain closed except childminders who may open their premises to an essential worker permitted to leave their home (para.2(c)). One might have expected to see provision for the opening of premises for provision of childcare to the children of DHSC workers covered here, but there is no mention of this, which is dealt with exclusively in GC 2021/0059.

GC 2021/0059 concerns closure of premises. The existing Schedule, detailing affected premises, is retitled Part 1, but is essentially reproduced from the earlier version. The only change is in relation to the provision of childcare. Government premises can remain open where there is a requirement for attendance of on-Island essential workers and maintance of essential operations”; but added in this iteration is “in the case of a premises designated by the Department of Education, Sport and Culture a requirement confirmed by the Department of Health and Social Care for the purposes of provision of child care care as set out in Part 2 of this Schedule”.

The new Part 2 then sets out, at much more length than for the other premises discussed in Part 1, what may be open and under what conditions. Key to this is the creation of a new category – “a DHSC worker”. It will be recalled that “essential worker” is a well-established term, appearing in this GC, but also in relation to childcare. DHSC workers are largely a subset of essential worker, being “an employee, contractor, agent or other person working for or on behalf of or carrying out any function or duty for the Department of Health and Social Care” .

Children of DHSC workers may attend designated premises “in order to enable those DHSC workers to perform their duties for the DHSC”.  The only designated premises are “the Childcare Hub”, aka the National Sports Centre. The Childcare Hub may be open subject to risk mitigation measures applicable to all open premises, but also to further conditions. To recap – the general risk mitigation measures require staff to maintain appropriate social distancing, staff to as far as possible ensure others do so; and “ensure that adequate hygiene measures including face coverings or other PPE are put in place and used at all times where reasonably practicable”. The Childcare Hub has a further constraint – children are to be separated into Childcare Groups of no more than eight children, where possible made up of as few households as possible and placing siblings within the same group (note these are different rules). “A Childcare Group may not mix with another Childcare Group”.

One of the features of the GCs in the PHR lockdowns has been the attention which has been given to communicating clearly to the public. A provision purely to do with childcare for DHSC Workers may have been better in the specialist childcare GC. In particular, the interaction of the two could get fiddly if they are ever read as in tension. The new iteration of both GCs was signed at 18.17 on the 19^th of March, so one cannot even easily prioritise the later in time. One way to deal with this tension is to recognise that the childcare GC is dealing with normal childcare services, and this is a special, emergency, service, so that the specific provision in this GC should always take precedence. This interpretation is, perhaps fortuitously, helped by a very slight difference in the language of the GCs – the Childcare Hub is allowed to open for “the provision of child care”; the child care GC governs “child care services” meaning “the services provided at a child care day centre (e.g. a nursery) or by a childminder”.

GC 2021/0060 deals with restrictions on movement. The only substantial change is a new ground permitting a person not in self-isolation to leave their house. Para 5(1)(kk) allows you to leave home “in order to visit a person within their own, or one other household for the purposes of support, as provided for in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the direction notice made under Part 7A of the Regulations in relation to events and gatherings”. I  will return to this in a moment, but it is odd that you can leave home to visit a person not within their own household – given that the term used is “purposes of support”, and not to provide support, I am not sure what would be lost by removing “or one other household” from this section.

So this brings us to GC 2021/0061, dealing with events and gatherings. There are some minor grammatical corrections and clarifications, and two substantial changes, both tying in with changes noted above.

In relation to childcare, it is made clear that “a person may gather at an indoor place at which education or childcare is being provided” (para.17). This was probably not needed, given that this line of GCs has provided for some time that “a person who is a customer or service recipient may attend a shop or business premises not required to close under any other direction notice” (para.10); but it is a useful restatement.

The other change links to the new ground for leaving home for the purposes of support. Single adults living alone, and lone parents (I would take as a necessary implication parents or guardians) and their non-adult children, “may gather within their own, or one other household, for the purposes of support” (para.13). They need comply with only some of the general conditions in part 4 of the GC (para.12). Part 4 usually requires that persons permitted to gather comply with any special restrictions specified in a GC or PHR, “taking appropriate measures to mitigate the risk of transmission of infection with Coronavirus are adhered to, which shall include any protective wear, face coverings, social distancing or other public health guidance published on www.gov.im”. This category of gathering is, however, specifically exempt from the need to wear protective wear or face coverings or to observe social distance.

Unfortunately, this drafting does not really take account of the fact that it takes two to gather. A person covered by para.13 may gather within their own household – with whom? The GC does not address the position of a person who is not covered by para.13. They may also gather within “one other household” – what of the duty of the householders with whom they gather not to form gatherings? It also blurs the idea of a physical house with a social household – I can gather in a house, or with a household, but “within a household” feels something of a strange mix.

These provisions are intended, I think, to implement part of the idea of a linked household, comparatively long-established in the English Regulations. Linked households are much more organic to the English regime however, in particular for many purposes treating the linked households as single household. The GC does not take that approach, so for instance members of a supported household may not exercise outside the house with their supporting household. It may be worth considering whether redefining household to include a linked household across different parts of the PHRs/GCs would work.

The English approach also deals specifically with changing linkages between households. There is no provision for that in the Manx GC. One possible reading is that “one household” means one at a time, so there is no need for provision for separation. Given this would allow a person qualifying as entitled to support to gain it from an unlimited number of households in rapid succession, this seems unlikely on policy grounds; it would also make the reference to “one other household” entirely unnecessary (bi-location aside). More likely the right under para.13 is intended to be exercised only with a single other household for the duration of the GC, or perhaps the GC and its successors. This would match my earlier interpretation of “one household where a household member will look after the child” in the restriction of movement  regs (para. 5(1)(z)(iiii)). The focus on the single-adult household permitted to link, rather than the relationship, also means that the position of a household linked to by two different single-adult households is not considered explicitly. Again, policy would suggest this should be read as an exclusive relationship: no more than two households may be linked.

Two GCs, which between them make important changes to childcare arrangements for essential workers.

GC 2021/0054 deals with child care service providers, and replaces its predecessor. The only substantive change is to paragraph 2, which is notably clearer than the earlier version. The new provision makes it clear that premises providing child care services, while generally closed, may be entered by residents, and by persons required for essential maintenance of essential operations (para.2(a),(b)). Childminders, and childminders only, may also be open to a person who performs an essential service and who is permitted to leave his or her home (para.2(c)). Read literally, this would not allow a child of such a person to be taken to the premises, which would rather defeat the point – so despite the plain words of the paragraph, I think it should be read as including the child of such a person. If that is the case, we need to look to the movement GC to see when a child may be taken to a child minder. So this provision opens childminders for children of essential workers.

GC 2021/0055 deals with restrictions on movement, and replaces its predecessor. The only substantive changes involve childcare and education. Para 5(1)(z) allows a person, in order to attend an open work place, to take a child to and from child-care – note that this requires that the person does so in order to attend a work place not simply to work, so an essential worker who works from home will not be covered. There is an odd bit of drafting in relation to children. Given that para 5(1)(z) is addressed at workers, not their children, it would have been useful to make it clear that children may travel; but what has been added is the right of the parent or guardian, and the person who will care for the child, to accompany the child between (para.5(1)(z)(vi)(a)). The latter is new, and sensible, the former is already in the provision, and might be usefully replaced by an explicit recognition that the child will be travelling to where they will be cared for. Another useful addition to travel is the right of an unaccompanied child to make the journey themselves, “where appropriate” (para.5(1)(z)(vi)(b)).

In relation to the conditions for childcare, it is useful to distinguish between professional education and childcare, and more informal arrangements.

The person can take the child to open education or childcare premises, at the moment (because of GC2021/0054), allowing them to take advantage of a childminder. There is no restriction on household mixing in relation to childminders. So if a childminder is otherwise legally permitted to take two children from different households at the same time, they can continue to do so. Given this is the case, it is obvious they could take children from different households on different days. This is quite a contrast with informal arrangements.

Turning to informal arrangements, the person can take the child to the residence of a family member who will care for the child; or “one household where a household member will look after that child”. The last is a variant of an earlier provision which talked about households where the household member “would normally look after the child”. The new drafting might seem to make redundant the explicit discussion of family members, which formerly allowed family members who were not the usual childcare option to step in. One possibility, however, is that different family members households may care for a child at different times, while there can be only “one” non-family household. “One” has been introduced in favour of the more general “A” in the predecessor, so I think this is probably the right reading. For both informal options, the only other children who can attend that resident or household “at any time” are children who ordinarily reside there (para.5(1)(z)(iv)). The words “at any time” have been added to this version, which I think changes the law – not only may an informal carer not import children from two households at once, but now they may only import children from one household at any time.

GC 2021/0052 covers educational institutions. It does not repeal it’s predecessor, but is intended to come into effect on the 15th of March, when that predecessor expires. It makes no changes.

GC 2021/0053 covers child care institutions. It does not repeal it’s predecessor, but is intended to come into effect on the 15th of March, when that predecessor expires. It makes no changes.

Signed at 21.30 on 10 March, the PHR (Amendment) (no.10) 2021 makes changes to the right to exercise for self-isolating persons which had been created by the PHR (Amendment) (no.9) 2021, signed at 17.40 on 10 March. So my comment on no.9 is accurate for a period of a little less than four hours, and was inaccurate when written (because no.10 had already come into force before it was publicly available).

This PHR adds to all three rights to leave self-isolation to exercise a requirement that no person in the household is infected (new reg.15(5), 20(5B), 21(5AA)). This is described as a clarification, but it is actually a change. The 17.40 amendment specifically stated that a person could exercise in company with a member of their household who is not infected – a limit on the company for exercise, not the right to exercise, which did however consider the position of a person in a household with an infected person. It is a sensible, and clear, change.

This PHR also adds to the category B right to exercise an explicit requirement to wear a face covering and keep a distance of 2m from any person not a member of the household (reg.15(6)). In doing so it brings category B exercise in line with category C – clearly the drafters were influenced by my suggesting this some 10 hours after they had made this change. It is a sensible, and clear, change.

An amendment to the PHR (comparatively unusual in the last two lockdowns, where changes to GCs have tended to make the detailed changes) published overnight. The PHR (Amendment) (no.9) Regulations 2021 makes a number of important changes, as well as some minor changes to phrasing.

Firstly, in relation to contact tracing. Formerly, a person who the Director of Health reasonably suspects might be contaminated could be required to provide the Director with contact tracing information. This amendment extends the power to anyone else who the Director reasonably believes “may hold information which is relevant to contact tracing in relation to” that person (new reg.9(1A)).  Under the existing, generally applicable, sections of the PHR failing without reasonable excuse to comply with the PHR is an offence (reg.36(1)(a)), as is “knowingly or recklessly [providing] false or misleading information” (reg.36(2)(a)). Both offences are punishable by up to 3 months in prison, or a fine of £40,000. Alternatively, constables may offer a fixed penalty notice for failure to disclose the information requested (reg.37). So there is a legal requirement, backed by serious sanctions, for schools, employers, operators of hospitality venues, and private individuals to provide accurate information relevant to contact tracing.

Secondly, in relation to self-isolation, there is now a limited right to exercise for some self-isolating persons. A category B person (i.e contact traced) whose first test has shown that they are not infected may exercise for one period of up to one hour each day, either alone or with a member of their household who is not infected (reg.15(4)). Contrary to the statement in the guidance note, unlike category C persons exercise, which is discussed in the next paragraph, there are no specific rules about mask use and social distancing – slightly odd given that the majority of the persons discussed in the paragraph below derive their status from this category B person. It will be recalled, however, that all exceptions to the restrictions of movement – including the ability to exercise – are subject to overarching limits including taking “all reasonable steps to mitigate any risk associated with leaving the person’s home” (GC 2021/0050, para.4). A person exercising under this part of the PHR would be very well advised to follow the restrictions discussed in the paragraph below. A revision might usefully apply them explicitly to this section, particularly as the guidance note states to be the case already.  

A category C person (i.e. cohabitee with a category A or category B person) who is living with a category A person may do the same, provided that the category A person has been shown in two tests not to be infected (reg.20(5A)). Unlike reg.15(4), there is no explicit limit on exercising with an infected member of your household, but as they are not permitted to leave the house, it is not necessary in either provision. When doing so, they must wear a face covering and maintain a distance of at least two metres from any non-household member (reg.20(8)(a)). The right, and the limit, is largely replicated for a category C person who is living with a category B person, but in this case the category B person need only to have been shown in one case not to be infected (reg.21(5A), 21(6)(a)). It does not, however, apply to a category C person living with a category B person who the Director of Public Health reasonably suspects may be infected (reg.21(5B)). So if your household is self-isolating because of contact tracing, and the contact in your household has tested negative, the right to exercise applies.

GC 2021/0050 deals with restrictions on movement, and repeals its predecessor.

The most substantial change refers to people who are required to be in self-isolation (whether Category A, B, or C) rather than the general public. Such persons were formerly only permitted to leave home in accordance with the Regulations, or conditions of their direction notice. To this is now added as covered by “paragraph 5(1)(t) subject to complying with the conditions in subparagraphs 5(1)(t)(v) and (vi)”. This is an unfortunate departure from the emphasis GCs have given so far on being as straightforward as possible given the need for the public to understand the new restrictions which apply to them as quickly as possible. It might have been better to have stated explicitly what was added to the instances when a self-isolating person could leave home, even at the risk of repetition.

So to be explicit, what has changed is that a self-isolating person who reasonably believes themselves to be at risk of domestic abuse, or is no longer entitled to remain at their home and is required to leave, or reasonably believes that a medical condition means their home is no longer somewhere they can live safely, or where “the situation is an emergency and it is necessary to move” may move to other accommodation, or in case of the last emergency ground “temporarily wait outside their accommodation until the emergency is resolved” (para.5(1)(t)). When doing so, as well as comply with the general conditions in para.4, they must wear a face mask and maintain a distance of 2m from anyone who is not a member of their household (para.5(1)(t)(v)); and if they move to accommodation shared with others, those others become Category C persons (para.5(1)(t)(vi)) (although I am not sure the last point is properly described as a “condition” of the person leaving their home).

In relation to the general public:

Some rights are expanded to incorporate dog walking. The right to undertake exercise alone or with members of your household is amended: “including a pet dog” (para.5(1)(d)) – bearing in mind the general requirement that “it is not reasonably practicable to achieve the purpose from the person’s home” (para.4(a)). Caring for a vulnerable person similarly has added “(including exercising the vulnerable person’s pet dog)” (para.5(1)(f)(i)).  There have not, however, been any changes to the gathering rules about breaching another person’s self-isolation.

Thinking about dogs owned by people in self isolation, there are a range of problems in applying this new ground to exercising their pets. The boundary issue remains for a dog left outside a house (now in GC 2021/0034, rather than the GC I first identified the problem for); and the gathering GC allowing breach of another person’s self-isolation to care for a vulnerable person has not been amended to include exercising a vulnerable person’s pet dog, nor dropping the urgency of the breach below “preserving life or property”. Nor is every self-isolating person a vulnerable person (this is given a specific definition in para.5(3), which requires that the person be less able “to protect himself or herself”). As a result, I think this change is not as wide as was trailed in media reports – it does not apply to exercising the dog of a person in self-isolation.

It looks like there should be guidance on dog walking on the IOMG website suggesting ways to exercise a dog for a self-isolating person (but I cannot find a live link to the detail at the moment). My view is that IOMG guidance can only put conditions on the rights in the GC, not create new ones. To give effect to what appears to be IOMG policy on walking dogs in self-isolating households, the gathering GC would need amending.

The right of a child to go to the home of parent of guardian is, on the other hand, restricted. The child may only do this when the only other children who attend that home are children who ordinarily reside there (para.5(1)(i)). Aimed at preventing household mixing, a narrow reading of this new restriction is that a parent may not bring two households of children into their house at the same time, rather than requiring the parent to choose for the duration of the lockdown (had the paragraph been worded as “ordinarily attend” I would have read this more widely; and the different wording in para.5(1)(z) I think supports this).

The right of a person to move to other accommodation in circumstances of, amongst other things, domestic abuse, is rephrased and expanded. I have already discussed it in relation to self-isolating persons. The broadest ground, an emergency where it is necessary to move, now allows a person to wait outside their accommodation until the emergency is resolved (para.5(1)(t)). There is now a specific condition covering every ground covered by this right – that the person wear a suitable face covering and maintains a distance of at least two metres from anyone who is not a member of their household (para.5(1)(t)(v)).

Three new GCs on the 8^th of March, and published overnight. None of them expressly revoke their predecessors, but all three of these predecessors stated their expire at the moment its replacement is stated as beginning. There is thus, no need to rely upon implied repeal to explain the relationship between the earlier and the later GCs.

GC 2021/0047 deals with educational institutions. Apart from one minor punctuation correction, there are no changes.

GC 2021/0048 deals with child care service providers. There are no changes. I am still finding it very difficult to understand paragraph 2, which provides (in full): “All premises providing child care services shall be closed in accordance with this Closure Direction to all persons save for those with a responsible body residing on the premises or whose presence is required for essential maintenance of essential operations”.

GC 2021/0049 deals with restriction of movement. There is one useful clarification in para.3, making it explicit that a category A-C person may leave their house in accordance with the Regulations as well as with a direction notice, and some minor tidying.

There is an important addition in relation to childcare. The provisions allowing an essential worker whose work place is not closed to take their child to be cared for formerly applied to children who would be cared for at a family member’s home, or a household where they were normally cared for. Taking a child to “the premises of a person providing education or childcare to whom paragraph 2 of the Schedule applies” (para.5(1)(z)(i)), last seen in GC 2021/0033) has been restored. The conditions for care in a household remain the same – so only overnight care for essential workers by a grandparent, and there is a requirement that “no other children attend that residence or household, other than children who normally reside there”. These conditions do not apply to the premises under para.5(1)(z)(i) – opening up the possibility of caring for children from multiple households. The right of a student to leave home to attend educational premises,  is restored, again with a reference to para 2 of the Schedule (para.5(1)(aa), again last seen in GC 2021/0033).

So paragraph 2 of the Schedule is doing some significant work. Unfortunately, it is not quite the work it was originally drafted to do – an issue that has been in the GCs for some time and which I had not picked up before this restoration. The Schedule is the list of essential services, cross-referenced to para.5(1)(b) which states that a person may leave home “to perform the duties of his or her office or employment in the provision of an essential service as defined in Part 3 of this Prohibition Notice”; which then defines “essential service” in part to mean “a service or business described in the Schedule” (para.6(a)). So para.2 of the Schedule is one of the essential services which justify a person leaving home to deliver. It covers:

“Persons providing childcare, and essential education support, teachers and educational social workers and other associated professionals whose work is essential in order to support children who need it during the period that this Prohibition Notice remains in force but only to the extent permitted and in accordance with any Closure Directions made under the Regulations in relation to educational institutions and child care service providers”.

So para 2 does not apply to particular premises, but to persons delivering particular services – which of course may be delivered separately from a particular premises. The best way to resolve this is to read the reference in the GC to premises at which these persons typically deliver these particular services.

This *does not* reopen child care and educational institutions. It is intended to mean that when they reopen for particular purposes and under particular restrictions, the restriction on movement GC will not need amending to allow children of workers to go to the newly open institutions. All workers whose workplace is not closed may take their children to the premises, family member or usual household where they are cared for under para.5(1)(z); students may “attend the premises of a person providing education to whom paragraph 2 of the Schedule applies” (para.5(1)(aa)); and “the child of a person who provides an essential service” may leave home “to go to a place to be cared for (para.5(1)(g)). What of children of non-essential workers? If childcare settings opened for those children, and we did not read student and education as including recipients of childcare as well as education (and remember, both are covered by paragraph 2 of the Schedule), it is difficult to see an explicit ground allowing that child to leave home to go to childcare (as opposed to their parent, who may leave home to take them there). So the best reading is that para (aa) covers both sets of provision.