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)).
Peter Edge's Law Blog. 