Yet another milestone in the passage of the controversial Civil Contingencies Bill has been passed, with the most contentious clauses to do with Emergency Powers and Regulations having been debated in Committee of the House of Lords.
Our concerns and worries about the Emergency Powers aspects of the Bill still remain.
Unfortunately, despite learned and eloquent opposition by various Lords and Ladies, the unlimited powers that the Government of the day could use this legislation to grant itself under the pretext a real or imagined national emergency have not been delayed or struck out or amended in Committee.
Read the debates for yourselves, since the national press and media seem to be ignoring this incredibly important legislation.
- Amendments debated in Committee - almost no substantive amendments have been passed nor any of the most controversial clauses have been removed from Part 2 of the BIll.
- Tuesday 19th October 2004 House of Lords Civil Contingencies Bill Committee Stage debate on the controversial Clause 19
- Thursday 22nd October 2004 House of Lords Civil Contingencies Bill Committee Stage debates in the morning and in the afternoon
It looks as if the Government's ability to modify any legislation without any or with minimal reference to Parliament, by means of Emergency Regulations and Orders, which do not even need to be written down, is still in place.
Nobody apart from constitutional lawyers can understand if and when the so called "triple lock" protections might come into force, as they are deliberately not spelled out clearly within one clause of the Bill, but refer to various bits and pieces, some of which are not even written into the Bill, like the assumption that "Ministers will always act reasonably" will simply not be believed by the general public. The dubious reason for having no test of "reasonablness" is that other bits of legislation do not have this safeguard - well perhaps it is high time that they did have !
The debate on why the Commisioners of the Treasury can declare an Emergency was interesting, but the Government yet again prevailed. To expect the Government Whips i.e. the governing party's aparatchnikls who impose voting discipline on backbench Members of Parliament to declare an Emergency, along with the Prime Minister or the senior Cabinet Ministers, but not to allow junior Ministers or deputies in say the Home Office or Department of Health to do so, is ridiculous. If by the Commissioners of the Treasury they really mean the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, then why is it so difficult to name these two offices only (especially as the office of Prime Minister is specifically mentioned separately) or to exclude the Whips ?
The unamended power of various clauses to allow the Government to re-define the language and definitions of terms to be included in under the legislation, or to act "in good faith" on dubious "45 minute claim" style intelligence, there will , in practice be no effective contitutional barrier to a future elected dictatorship.
If anybody in Government or the Civil Service or the Emergency Planning teams thinks that this Bill is worded in the language that is simple, clearly understood and unambiguous i.e. suitable for an Emergency crisis, then they are deluding themselves and they have already failed in their public duty to the British people.
In practice, there is going to be inertia and backside covering by commercial companies and civil servants. Would you really begin the evacuation of a major city simply because of an unwritten, unauthenticated oral order from one of the Government Whips ? How many people even know their names ? How can you be sure that such an order is not in fact a terrorist hoax ?
Thankyou for keeping tabs on the progress of this odious legislation. Suppose the Lords were to oppose the bill, but the Commons were to support it. Can the government use the Parliament Act to force it through?
Also do you know when the Lords will actually get to vote on the bill?
Civil Contingencies Bill 2004 as amended in Committee on 21st October 2004:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldbills/120/2004120.htm
The defintiton of what contitutes an Emergency has changed slightly, but the power of the Government to re-define, by order, the legal definitions of what is classed as an emergency remains without limit:
"(4) The Secretary of State may by order?
(a) provide that a specified event or situation, or class of event or situation,
is to be treated as falling, or as not falling, within any of paragraphs (a)
to (c) of subsection (1);"
In computer science terms, this is "self modifying code", and renders worthless the alleged "triple lock" protections against abuse.
Emergency Regulations can still amend or suspend or repeal *any* Act of Parliament, and exercise the Royal Prerogative, without the need for a vote in Parliament.
Some Lords argued against this, but these "Henry VIII" dictatorial powers are *still* on the face of the Bill.
All of these Emergency Orders and Regulations can still be brought into force *orally*, although now, the Government has "conceded" that
"5) Where a Minister gives an oral direction (or further direction) under this section he shall confirm it in writing as soon as is reasonably practicable."
Since it is up to the Minister to decide what in his "opinion" he "thinks" or "believes" about an Emergency or the Intelligence on which he is making life and death decsions, it is also up to him to decide how long "reasonably practicable" written notifications might take.
There are *still no criminal sanctions* against either terrorist or other hoaxers awho falsely declare an Emergency, nor any sanctions or against Ministers or petty officials who *abuse their powers* under Emergency Regulations.
Incredibly, whether or not the Civil Contingencies Bill get completed before the Queen's Speech at the end of November, depends partly on any delays with the the obviously far more politically important and Hunting with Dogs Bill !
There is only the Report stage in the Lords left, and then back to the Coommons to be rubber stamped, in virtually the draconian form that it is now.