Playing “whack-a-mole” with coronavirus is not a good enough local lockdown strategy

Most of England will “come out of hibernation” this Saturday. After Matt Hancock’s statement to the House of Commons last night, it is now clear that Leicester will not. The health secretary announced that the city will have to wait at least another fortnight for its awakening. In fact it will be taken into a deeper sleep: non-essential retail will close this week, as will schools (for most children). The reason for that is a sombre one: a spike in Covid-19 infections, with 866 new cases reported in Leicester in the two weeks to 23 June.

Yet it is baffling that there was so much confusion, in the days and hours leading up to the government’s announcement, about whether Leicester would need a local lockdown, who was responsible for making that decision, and how it would work. Ministers have been talking about local lockdowns for a month now, so had ample opportunity to devise a strategy for their “whack-a-mole” local lockdowns and communicate it clearly to local authorities. They now need to make up for lost time.

The government has appeared confused about who is responsible for imposing local restrictions

The government did not seem to have any idea what it meant, on Monday this week, by “local lockdown”.

The prime minister at one point seemed to use that phrase to refer to very limited interventions, when he said there had been a local lockdown Weston-super-Mare, where a hospital closed temporarily due to an outbreak.

His spokesman later seemed to envisage more expansive lockdowns, when he said that local authorities and Public Heath England have “a range of powers themselves to allow them to contain local outbreaks” – but again implied that local lockdowns were to be enacted by local leaders.

At the same time, the government began to talk about its plan of extending national restrictions in Leicester beyond July 4 – a move which can only be made by ministers in the UK government. When Matt Hancock gave a statement to the House of Commons, he confirmed that the government would do this by statutory instrument, the same way it has given effect to all lockdown restrictions thus far.

Pity the residents, businesspeople and leaders of Leicester, who have enough to worry about without trying to decipher the government’s statements.

The allocation of responsibilities for future local lockdowns must be clearer

Contrary to some of the government’s briefing, local authorities do not currently have significant powers to restrict residents’ and businesses’ activity. They can apply to the Magistrates’ Court for orders to restrict people’s movements or close premises, but on their own they can keep children home from school, enforce health and safety legislation on businesses, place restrictions on those who have tested positive for the virus, and make non-binding requests for people to take measure for the protection of public health.

If the government thinks that those powers are inadequate for responding to local flare-ups, then it has two options for future local lockdowns. Either it can pass new legislation which gives local authorities powers, in general, to take more stringent measures like closing schools and businesses or restricting gatherings. Or, it can enact a new set of lockdown regulations in Westminster for each local lockdown, as it has done for Leicester. It should explain whether it plans to carry the Leicester approach forward, so councils are not left in the dark.

The government needs to explain what will trigger local lockdowns

Local lockdowns will be far more controversial than the national one was. There is inevitably a greater risk of unfairness, or perceived unfairness, if those in one part of the country have liberties that others do not. The Leicester lockdown has already stoked frustration in the local community, with the mayor arguing that it will not make any difference and raising worries that the geographic boundary of the lockdown is unclear.

The government therefore needs to explain not only who will bring in local restrictions, but why and when. Just as the government had “five tests” for relaxing national lockdown restrictions, it should have some framework for the introduction, by ministers or councils, of local measures – whether that is based on the local infection rate, number of cases, hospital capacity or some combination.

Not only would that help to avoid the unfairness of different parts of the country being subject to massively different restrictions in their liberties that were not justified by different levels of risk. It would also increase the predictability and certainty of the law for citizens and businesses. It would reduce the risk of rows with local councils, too, as restrictions could not be perceived as the results of ministers’ whims. It would further encourage the government to set out – and so to understand and interrogate – the evidence for its decisions.

The prime minister has said that local lockdowns are going to become a feature of national life. The next ones ought to be smoother. A whack-a-mole strategy is not much good if nobody knows what to whack with or who is doing the whacking.