There is a very brief period, 00:01 on 17th April to 00:001 on the 19th of April, when modified restrictions on leaving the home and gatherings are put in place before the end of Lockdown 3 at 00:01 on the 19th of April.

Restrictions on movement.

GC 75 deals with restrictions on movement, but only for a short period. It came into effect at 00:01 on the 17^th of April, and will cease to be of effect at 00:01 on the 19^th of April. It makes comparatively minor changes to the restrictions on movement regime.

Most wide rangingly, previous incarnations of the movement GC allowed a person to leave their home for a range of reasons, but only when “it is not reasonably practicable to achieve the purpose from the person’s home”. This pervasive condition has now been removed – so long as you are leaving home for a recognised reason, it does not matter if it could have been achieved while staying home.

There is a change to the gathering justification for leaving home. This was most recently gathering in an outdoor place for exercise, recreation or leisure. That has been amended to gathering as permitted by the gathering GC, “provided that overnight staying (including but not limited to camping or overnight staying) is permitted” (para.5(1)(e)). Overnight staying is permitted under the new gathering GC; as we will see gathering for any purpose is also permitted.

Gatherings.

GC 78 deals with events or gatherings, again for only a short period. It came into effect at 00:01 on the 17^th of April, and will cease to be of effect on the 19^th of April.

The former ground allowing gathering with one’s own household for exercise has been deleted.

The support bubble ground has been amended slightly. Formerly, it was limited to two paired households, and once a pair had been created, the ability to form a support bubble disappeared. This provision has now been deleted – for this short period a succession of support bubbles may be formed, made use of, and then moved on from so long as each one is valid in itself.

The ground allowing up to 10 persons to gather outdoors for exercise, recreation or leisure has been substantially amended. It has been extended to indoor places, and there is no longer a requirement to keep socially distant from other households (or the exhortation to wear masks) (para.13). Significantly, it no longer has to be for exercise, leisure, or recreation: “For the avoidance of doubt, vehicle sharing, provision of care to another person, overnight staying and all other purposes for such gathering shall be permitted”. The important limit here is the number of persons who may gather – gatherings of more than 10 persons remain prohibited. Inadvertent gatherings of more than ten to deal with an emergency are permitted (para.14).

Tradespersons, delivery persons, and property professionals may still enter dwellings, but there is a new restriction – the total number of persons in the dwelling must not, except in the case of emergency, exceed 10 (para.23). I had earlier noted that dwelling was not defined for this ground – the definition applicable elsewhere in the GC has been extended to it (para.25).

From the 19th of April.

GC 78 will enjoy only a short life, and its successor, GC 79, has already been created. GC 79 comes into effect as GC 78 expires, and will remain in force until 00:01 on 25 June 2021. The only ongoing restriction on gatherings is gathering “in or on a dwelling (including the curtilage or garden of such  dwelling) where a person is in self-isolation” (para.6). Even this restriction has a number of exceptions: permission granted by other PHRs (para.7); self-contained apartments (para.9); to provide urgent emergency care for a child or vulnerable adult in the dwelling (para.10 – the bar is set high “required to enter the dwelling for the purposes of preserving life or property”) , . The reference to entering the dwelling to collect items not being permitted except for general refuse, which confused me in its earlier version, has been restored (para.8). I still think explicit discussion of deliveries to a self-isolating home would be useful.

The rest of the ending of lockdown is effected simply by letting a GC with an expiry date expire on that date. Closure of premises expires at 00:01 on 19^th April 2021, and the specific GCs on education and childcare had already been allowed to expire, as they were folded into this last closure of premises GC.

The external facing part of the response to the pandemic – border controls and associated self-isolation – remain in place.

GCs covering all the key internal aspects of the lockdown, including a GC that seems to have survived less than one minute before being repealed.

Gatherings.

GC 2021/0072 covers gatherings. It comes into effect on the 12^th of April, replacing GC 2021/0070 from that date. It makes two changes related to property.

Firstly, it will be recalled that earlier GCs allowed viewing of properties only in relation to emergency moves. This has now been changed – a person may enter a vacant dwelling for the purposes specified in para.5(1)(v) and of the restriction on movement GCs (para.25). I discuss this fully in relation to the restriction on movement GC.

Secondly, a number of tradespersons may enter dwellings for reasons related to their trade. These are “a tradesperson” to carry out work to the property, and a delivery person to take a delivery into the property (note there is no mention of a delivery person collecting from the dwelling) (para.27(1)); and a property professional including “a surveyor, estate agent or photographer” for purposes connected with the sale or letting of the property (para.27(2)). In both cases, the tradesperson must comply with the GCs dealing with closure of premises, as well as the normal conditions applicable to all lawful gatherings under para.28). The exact scope of this is not completely clear – the definition of dwelling applicable elsewhere is not applied to this section (para.29, which includes a definition of dwelling, remains applicable only to para.20-24); and the discussion of closure of premises suggests that dwelling should be read broadly – certainly that a business premises which is also a dwelling is included.

Restriction on movement.

GC 2021/0073 deals with restriction on movement; like the gathering GC coming into effect on the 12^th of April. A significant theme in the GC is the moving away from a requirement that leaving home to access a particular service is essential.

One change is in relation to the shopping ground – formerly limited to shopping for basic necessities, under the new GC, going shopping “at any retail premises which is not required to close” under the closure GC is permitted (para.5(1)(c)). There is a similar move away from essential in relation to tradespersons coming to your home. Permission for tradespersons to leave home to carry out work in the home of another is amended to remove the need for the work to be essential (para.5(1)(gg)). Similarly, the former ground allowing access to veterinary services and other critical animal welfare services is amended to include “grooming services provided that the person does not remain inside the premises while the services are being provided” (para.5(1)(kk)). It is not clear to me whether the need to wait outside applies to the services which were already permitted – if so, that is a new restriction on how an animal owner accesses veterinary services for instance.

Finally, we see the same theme in relation to viewing properties for sale or rent. The earlier GC limited this to possible renters who were permitted to make an emergency move; the new GC allows any person to meet an estate agent, landlord or letting agent a vacant property to which they are considering moving (para.5(1)(v)). In most ways this is a notable relaxation – the meeting may be for a non-emergency move, and may be for house purchase as well as house rental. The previous GC, however, did not require that the property be vacant (a problem I noted here). A matching permission for estate agents, landlords, or letting agents to meet prospective buyers or tenants at the property has been similarly extended to non-emergency rentals and purchases (para.5(1)(w)).

Closure of premises.

Turning to closure of premises, there is an oddity to the two GCs created to update this area. GC 2021/0074 was signed at 16:31 on the 9^th of April: exactly the same time, we are told in the signature line, as GC 2021/0071. It specifically revokes GC 2021/0071. GC 2021/0071, then, was good law for less than a minute. Given GC 2021/0071 would not have come into effect until the 12^th of April, it is unclear why it was created at all; unless perhaps the times in at least one of the signature lines are not accurate, and the error in GC 2021/0071 was spotted only after it had been created, requiring amendment.

GC 2021/0071 had replaced GC 2021/0066, making substantial changes to the closure of premises rules; as usual in the detailed Schedule. These important changes will be given effect by GC 2021/0074.

Outdoor leisure, exercise and recreation was formerly limited to outdoor places which were not enclosed, with play and other exercise equipment not be used. These limits are removed – if an outdoor place is not closed by any other PHR or GC, and “any specific guidance relating to organised activities and sport is adhered to”, it may be open. This opens up, for instance, tennis courts and outdoor play areas.

The rules permitting work inside an occupied premises formerly limited work to essential work; this limit is retained “where a person is shielding (including a person subject to a Direction given under the Regulations or clinical advice to self-isolate or is a vulnerable adult)” but not otherwise. The first two seem sensible enough, but it is less clear why (say) a household with an adult with a “physical or mental disability” (part of a fuller definition of vulnerable adult in para.8) should be unable to have non essential work carried out. Work in an occupied premises must still follow government guidance on mitigating of risk, but a specific reference to face coverings and social distancing has been removed.

Pet grooming services are permitted to reopen, but only for drop-off grooming and, matching the movement GC, owners may not remain on the premises. Libraries may offer not only online lending services, but may now provide “for the collection and delivery of books”’; not for browsing or reading.

Hardware stores are now to be treated the same way as garden centres; including any in-house café (if any reader can give me an example of a Manx hardware store with an in-house café I would be interested both for this blog, and to add to my growing list of must-do’s for when the borders open).

A novelty to this GC is the addition of educational institutions to the list. Formerly these have been dealt with under their own GC, but they are now referred to as premises; with fairly detailed discussion of when they may be accessed. The specific Educational Institution and Childcare GCs are not expressly revoked by this GC, but their current versions run out at 00:01 on 12^th April, when this GC commences. It will be interesting to see if they are replaced, or the fairly compact discussion of educational institutions and childcare in this GC is left to do all the work. A reference in this GC to DPH and DESC dealing with who may access both in directions makes me think that we will see these in due course.

GC2021/0074 is identical to GC 2021/0071 except that it fixes an error in GC 2021/0071 regarding work on work sites. GC 2021/0071 had – I assume inadvertently – removed permission for work carried out “wholly outdoors”. GC 2021/0074 restored it.

I am grateful to Daphne Caine MHK for letting me have the GCs signed on the 1^st of April, but not published on the normal website until 5th April. I have revised this blog to link to the documents there.

Closure of premises.

GC66 was made on the 1^st of April, but does not come into effect until the 6^th of April, when the previous GC dealing with closure of premises expires. The changes are all in the Schedule.

There is a change to the detail of the list of persons who a tourist premise may open for, with a former reference to persons described in Part 2 para4(r) and 4(t) in the Prohibition Notice on Movement being replaced with a reference to persons described in part 2, para5(1)(s) and (u) (see below for my comment on reordering in this paragraph). There is no substantial change.

The instances when construction work is permitted has expanded. The former GC stated that “Building and other trade sites which are worked on or occupied by more than two persons are closed”; this has now been deleted. Formerly, even outdoor construction work was limited to a maximum of two persons, and even then they were required to “work with full mitigations in place following clear risk assessments” – these limits have now been removed. Outdoor work is not limited to two workers at a location, and there is no need for a risk assessment or “full mitigations”. The general duties – applicable to all premises under para. 6  – to maintain social distancing and adequate hygiene, and to adopt any measures reasonably practicable to reduce the risk of infection remain. Indoor work, on the other hand, has a new restriction. Two persons may work together in a premises consisting of only one room (such to full mitigations etc), but if there is more than one room, only one person may work in each room. Thus, jobs requiring two persons to carry out are permitted if the premises is one (small) room, but not if it is two (large) rooms.

Garden Centres are given more flexibility, amounting to nearly complete opening. Formerly they were required to minimise public access to the premises. This limit is now gone, and although a garden centre café may not serve food or drink for consumption on the premises, it can sell it for consumption off site.  

I mentioned earlier that it was odd to have childcare rules in the premises GC, but the provision of the national Childcare Hub has been retained here, and the scope changed.

Formerly, Part 2 of the Schedule dealt with provision of childcare for DHSC workers only. Although deliberately not publicised, the Hub was at one point operated for DHSC workers only. This has now been amended to “critical workers”. This continues to include DHSC workers, but has been expanded to employees, contractors, or agents for the Department of Home Affairs – “including for the avoidance of doubt any person employed or stationed with the Isle of Man Constabulary”. Otherwise, the legal framework for provision of a national Childcare Hub at the NSC is unchanged.

Child care and education.

GC 67 was made on the 1^st of April, but does not come into effect until the 6^th of April, when the preceding GC dealing with child care service providers expires. There are no changes (the only change not concerned with dates is the addition of a full stop at the end of a paragraph).

GC 68 was made on the 1^st of April, but does not come into effect until the 6^th of April, when the preceding GC dealing with educational institutions expires. There are no changes (the only change not concerned with dates is the remove of an accurate, but not necessary, paragraph identifier).

Movement and gatherings.

GC 69 was made on the 1^st of April, and came into effect at 00:01 on 2^nd of April – some days before it was published to the general public required to abide by it. GC69 deals with restrictions on movement, and replaces GC 64, which would otherwise have run until the 6^th of April.

Category A,B, and C persons – the reference to permission to leave in accordance with para.5(1)(t) is changed to 5(1)(u), as part of a general renumbering required as noted below..

The existing right to leave home to exercise alone or with your household remains, but there is a new right “in order to gather in an outdoor place for exercise, recreation, or leisure” (new para.5(1)(e)). Because this was added to the middle of the list, this changes the numbering of later grounds (necessitating the two changes noted above). Additionally, an explicit right has been removed. Formerly, members of Tynwald could leave home “to undertake essential constituency duties”. This has now been deleted. Members of Tynwald remain, however, defined as “Key public services” in the Schedule, and so entitled to leave home “to perform the duties of his or her office or employment in the provision of an essential service” (para.5(1)(b)).

So this GC allows you to leave home to gather outdoors for exercise, recreation, or leisure. As might be expected, we have a new gathering GC, GC 70, made on the 1^st of April and taking effect at 00:01 on 2^nd of April – again some days before published to the general public required to abide by it. There are two significant changes.

Firstly, there is a new paragraph dealing with gathering in an outdoor place for exercise, recreation, or leisure. Under para.10 this gathering may consist of 10 persons or fewer, from an unlimited number of households, in an outdoor place “where other persons may be present” (para.14). The other persons referred to must be a reference to those not in the 10 person gathering (you could, for instance, exercise with your household where others were present already). So could 10 groups of 10 people lawfully gather on – for a wild hypothetical – a beach? The answer is not deliberately. If you agree for a group of 10 to gather on the beach, and there happen to be other groups of 10 that have had the same idea, then the separate gatherings of 10 people are lawful. If you have arranged with the other groups to all be there, that is a gathering of 100 people (not 10 gatherings of 10 people), and so unlawful.

This right is subject to some specific conditions. The outdoor place must not have been closed under the PHR (para.14.1), no person who is part of the gathering may be restricted by self-isolation requirements or other restrictions (para.14.2), the general conditions in part 4 must be complied with (para.14.3), and – in a striking piece of drafting – “social distancing (being no closer in proximity than two (2) metres to another person) is maintained at all times by all persons present other than members of the same household and the wearing of face coverings is strongly advised” (para.14.4).

The section in bold, surely, has no legal force. For guidance to have legal force under this GC it must, per Part 4, be “published on www.gov.im”. If the intention is for persons exercising this new right to be required to wear face coverings, that could be mandated in the law. If that is not the intention, it should not appear in the body of a  legal rule, violation of which can result in criminal prosecution and imprisonment. The section in bold should be deleted as soon as possible.

The other change is more straightforward. Construction sites will, from the 6^th of April, be able to operate with unlimited numbers of persons working outdoors. This GC has been amended by a new para.26 to allow them to gather at such sites.

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.