| Civil Contingencies Bill
|
|
Mr. Allan rose—
Fiona Mactaggart: For a final time I will give way. I am being generous. Mr. Allan: We are not seeking to banter, but we are trying to be helpful on a subsection that we do not like in its entirety.
Column Number: 170 My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) has a point in relation to the wording of the subsection. To us it is not clear. Part of our job in Committee is to look at lack of clarity in the wording as well as at the issues and principles. If the Bill stays as it is because the amendment falls, we want it to stand on the record that we believe that the wording could be improved.Fiona Mactaggart: I would be prepared to reconsider the drafting of the subsection. We disagree here about what we are seeking to achieve. The power in subsections (5) and (6) is a limited power that does not change the definition of an emergency, but allows us to retain the Bill's framework, which is to have a comprehensive definition of what represents a serious threat to human welfare. In my view, the power increases the clarity and accountability of the Bill. Mr. Llwyd: I can follow the Under-Secretary's argument. Considering subsection (6) and the need to place a draft resolution before Parliament, if an urgent need arises during a lengthy recess, does she envisage Parliament being recalled to consider such a measure? Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman is right in that the subsection (5) power could not be used if Parliament was not sitting. As I have tried to show, however, that power is designed not necessarily for use in an emergency, but to ensure that the definition can be kept up to date over time and that when one can envisage a situation requiring the use of emergency powers Parliament would have an opportunity to debate whether it fell within the definition of an emergency in subsections (1) to (3). Mr. Heald: I have become more concerned about the subsection as the debate has gone on. I understand the Under-Secretary's point about the millennium bug or some other possible major catastrophe, but I have thought about the matter a little more and I wonder whether the reason for subsection (5)(a) is that Ministers or their officials are concerned that some decisions might be controversial and that it might be hard to decide whether they fall either side of the line. If a decision was later found to be unreasonable, the consequences in terms of legal action and damages may be substantial. Is the purpose of subsection (5)(a) to enable a controversial decision to be ratified by Parliament so that it definitely falls within the framework of subsections (1) and (2)? In other words, is this a back-covering operation to enable Ministers to take difficult decisions? That is the first concern that has arisen in the debate. The second concern involves subsection (5)(b), which gives the Government carte blanche to add new categories of disruptions to systems, services and supplies. There is little justification for that. The Under-Secretary may rightly say that the structure here provides a list that clearly defines the services in respect of which disruption would cause harm to human welfare. In such circumstances, however, I do not think that the Government are entitled to have a catch-all and say, ''Oh well, in 30 years science may Column Number: 171 have changed.'' We pass so much legislation that surely we could find the time to consider a short two-clause Bill if it really were necessary to add a new category. As has been said, subsection 5(b) is a bung-it-in operation, while subsection 5(a) is a cover-the-Minister's-back job. I am therefore not at all satisfied on subsection 5(b).Subsection (6) allows primary legislation to be changed by order, which the House is always anxious to avoid because it gives away the power and sovereignty with which we are all entrusted. This is not a satisfactory situation, and we will want to reconsider it on Report. At least, I imagine that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone will be very keen to reconsider it, as he has taken such particular care over the issue. On the understanding that we want to return to the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. The Chairman: Members of the Committee now have the opportunity to discuss matters relating to amendment No. 84, although it has not been selected and cannot be voted on. Patrick Mercer: At the near-conclusion of our debates relating to the clause, and having examined the definition of a state of emergency in parts 1 and 2, I want to point out that clause 55 of the Fire and Rescue Services Bill provides a wholly different definition of ''emergency'', which members of the Committee can read for themselves. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not think that I am endeavouring to spoil or wreck in any way by producing this quibble; it is probably no more than that, but it is important. My question is simple: if ''emergency'' has been so defined for the Fire and Rescue Services Bill, is there such a great difference between the requirements of that Bill and those of this Bill? Why did we not give due consideration to the issue earlier, when we discussed part 1? If the definition of ''emergency'' under the Fire and Rescue Services Bill is perfectly adequate, why was that not taken into account during the drafting the of definition of ''emergency'' for this Bill? Fiona Mactaggart: As I have constantly said, our aim is to try to ensure that the drafting for the definition of ''emergency'' is comprehensive and clear. The reason for that is that the powers that we seek to create through the Bill are significant. It is therefore particularly important that Parliament be fully involved in defining as comprehensively as possible the definition of an emergency. The context for that definition is different from the context of the Fire and Rescue Services Bill, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. For example, countering terrorism is not a primary aim of firefighters. In those circumstances, while providing for these powers, we felt it proper to seek as much transparency as possible by making the definition of the circumstances in which they might be invoked as comprehensive as possible. Transparency and clarity have been our priorities. Our Column Number: 172 aim should be to give as full an indication as possible to Parliament and to the public of the situations in which the use of emergency powers might be necessary.Patrick Mercer: Transparency and clarity are—forgive the pun—extremely clear, but having two different definitions of ''emergency'' in two different Bills seems neither transparent nor clear. Does the Under-Secretary imagine that many other definitions of ''emergency'' exist in legislation, and if so how many? Does she foresee the introduction of other definitions in other Bills? Fiona Mactaggart: I have not done a word search for other definitions, so I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman how many there are, but I can tell him that there are good reasons for having definitions that are appropriate to the context. The context of the definition in question is the kind of emergency in which it might be appropriate to use emergency powers. There are other emergencies in which the appropriate reaction is to send an ambulance or a fire truck. The definition of those emergencies is quite different from that for the ones that we are discussing in relation to part 2. According to the context, it is necessary to have different definitions of ''emergency''. We have sought to provide as full and transparent a definition of ''emergency'' as possible because our judgment is that there is merit in seeking as comprehensive a definition as possible to make clear to Parliament and to the people all the circumstances in which it could envisaged, although it would not certainly happen, that the Government might use the emergency powers that the Bill provides for. That is the reason for taking such an approach. I am confident that it is the right approach and that it gives the appropriate power to Parliament as well as the appropriate understanding to people of the circumstances in which these powers might be used. Mr. Heald: Was there any consultation about the two different definitions among those giving instructions to parliamentary counsel, because there seems to be no reason for not using the definition in the clause in the Fire and Rescue Services Bill? Fiona Mactaggart: There has been consultation, of course, but our view, which I have just set out, is that different circumstances require different definitions. ''Emergency'' has a natural meaning and the definition required—for example, in providing for how one would deal with an ambulance or health services emergency—is different from the definition that might be required for the Bill. That is why we have given as clear and comprehensive a definition of ''emergency'' as we can. It seems to be the right way to go to be as transparent as possible about the circumstances in which we might use emergency powers. Mr. Allan: I apologise for not diving in before, but I was looking at the next group of amendments. This will not require a ministerial response, as it is more a comment on the clause than a question.
Column Number: 173 I simply wish to put it on the record that the Liberal Democrats remain concerned about the definitions in the clause. I am aware that we are only on lock 1 of what is supposed to be a triple lock and that we still have to make a great deal of progress. Having spent a lot of time considering the matter—we needed to do so—it seems that the first lock is not really much of a lock at all. I suspect that the other two will be more of a lock, but the definition is so broad and comprehensive that to call this a lock is a misnomer. We remain concerned about some words, which I am sure we will return to at later stages.Question put and agreed to. Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
3.30 pm
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 3 February 2004 |
