| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Blears: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but "human welfare" is a broad term that can encompass physical welfare, but which may have an impact on people's emotional, mental and psychological well-being. The definition was subjected to a lot of debate during pre-legislative scrutiny. Indeed, one thing that Members across the House are pleased about is the fact that the reference in the original definition to a threat to economic, administrative and political stability was taken out because people felt it could perhaps be misused under a particularly ill-inclined Government.
David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend write to me on this matter?
Ms Blears: I shall take advice on the breadth of the definition. My instinct is that it could cover the circumstances outlined by my hon. Friend, but I am happy to write to him.
We are conscious of the difficult balance to be struck and we recognise the sincere and heartfelt concerns of many in the House about the need to ensure that robust safeguards are in place to prevent misuse of emergency powers. We have made important changes to the Bill to meet those concerns as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny and during consideration in Committee and on Report, and especially in relation to parliamentary scrutiny and the operation of the Bill alongside the Human Rights Act 1998.
Members were concerned about whether it would be possible to use the Bill to amend the Human Rights Act, but my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office made his statement of compatibility with that Act when he signed off the Bill and when he referred to this in Committee. I hope that Members will accept that assurance.
Hon. Members have also taken the opportunity to use the debates to air other points of concern, both about the specifics of the Bill and the Government's wider civil contingencies and counter-terrorism work. We have had some useful discussions, and I hope that we have offered full explanations of our position. We tried to provide as much information as possible during the debates, and I hope that hon. Members have found that helpful in informing our deliberations.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con):
But can the hon. Lady assure us that in all the training that will be necessary for the public, institutions and organisations, the resources will not be wanting? I am talking specifically about local authorities, which will want to take lead roles, as they will be required to do under the
24 May 2004 : Column 1400
Bill as enacted. Can she assure the House that they will get the resources necessary to ensure that the training takes place?
Ms Blears: If the hon. Gentleman had been present during the previous consideration—I make no criticism of him for that—he would have heard that we had a robust discussion about the funding position for responders. Clearly, I made the point that in the last seven years, the civil defence grant has increased by 31 per cent., whereas in the last seven years of the previous Administration, it decreased by 42 per cent. I entirely acknowledge that local government has concerns about additional pressures. That is why we are in discussions with it now. I have said clearly that there must be a proper business case, properly set out, for any increase, but clearly, we will try to consider those matters properly within the spending review settlement for 2004. I also ask Members to take into account the fact that local government has received substantial real terms increases over the past few years in its basic revenue support grant settlements. In that overall funding context, I take on board the idea that we need to try to resolve any genuine issues so that people can do the job properly that we ask them to do.
Mr. Heath: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Blears: Not unless it is on a similar point.
I want to return to the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about the Human Rights Act 1998. As I understand it, section 6 clearly states that should Her Majesty or a Minister make regulations that are incompatible with the convention rights, that would be unlawful, so it is not necessary to provide for that in the Bill.
Mr. Heald: I have already quoted from the eighth report of the Joint Committee. The hon. Lady has acknowledged that there is a point in amendment No. 93—which, unfortunately, we did not reach—meaning that the Minister must make a statement before making regulations that they are compatible with section 1 of the Human Rights Act.
Ms Blears: Yes, I suppose that it could be a belt and braces provision. There is merit in requiring the maker of the regulations to give a clear statement that the regulations are compatible, because given the exceptional nature of emergency regulations, it is appropriate to make exceptional provision. The Human Rights Act does not require a statement of compatibility in relation to secondary legislation, but such emergency legislation is likely to include provisions that at non-emergency times would be included in primary rather than secondary legislation.
Mr. Heath: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Blears: I am anxious for other Members to be able to make a contribution to this debate. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall press on. I have given way a great deal.
I hope that we have developed the Bill in an open and consultative way. I want to pay tribute to the organisations that have made that possible by getting
24 May 2004 : Column 1401
involved with the consultation. Practitioners such as chief officers of police, fire and local government, the Emergency Planning Society and pressure groups such as Liberty and Justice have helped us to develop the Bill in a proper fashion. We have benefited from the active engagement of thousands of individual civil protection professionals, and I hope that they have helped us to develop a Bill that is both principled and practicable.
The process of pre-legislative scrutiny helped to ensure that the Bill that was introduced in January was much stronger than it would otherwise have been. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) for his work in chairing that committee, and for the contribution from Members of all parties. We have not, I am sure, resolved every issue, but we have a Bill that delivers our aim, and that has stood up to parliamentary scrutiny thus far. We are sending this Bill to the other place in good shape, although their lordships will doubtless wish to review many of the issues that we have discussed. In particular, we can look forward to their experience being brought to bear on some of the technical aspects of the Bill, as well as on fundamental questions about the balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the community.
This is important legislation. The Acts that we are replacing are, in parts, more than 80 years old, and for us, as legislators and representatives, the safety and well-being of the people of the United Kingdom is the highest priority. I think the Bill is a substantial step towards progress in that direction, and I commend it to the House.
9.30 pm
Mr. Heald: I will not speak for long, because others wish to speak as well.
Let me begin by saying what a disgrace it is that we have lost the chance to debate six new clauses, one new schedule and 87 amendments. That really is not good enough. We voted against the programme motion; as a result of the Government's insistence on their programme, we have been unable to debate some very important matters. We have said from the outset that the Bill is overdue, and that our response to emergencies at local and national level should be provided for in a modern Bill. The measures in part 2 allow Ministers wide discretion to make emergency regulations, but protection for human rights is still inadequate.
I welcome amendment No. 93, which does at least ensure that the Minister must issue a certificate when making regulations stating that they are compatible with section 1 of the Human Rights Act. We argued for that in Committee, and I think we are entitled to take some credit for having moved the Minister on it. I note from its latest report that the Joint Committee on Human Rights welcomes it too, describing it as a step in the right direction.
Mr. Heald: A step, as my right hon. and learned Friend says. The Committee says:
"We welcome these moves, which serve significantly to improve the safeguards for Convention rights under the Bill."
"We remain concerned that clause 21(3) of the Civil Contingencies Bill may be interpreted as allowing regulations to be made which would relieve a public authority of its duty"
—to which the Minister has just referred—
"under section 6".
It is that concern that we continue to express.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |