Liberties and democracy at risk
01 November 2003
The Civil Contingencies Bill would give the government and state agencies draconian powers in any emergency
The draft Civil Contingencies Bill currently before parliament has been described in a Guardian editorial (20.6.03) as:
the greatest threat to civil liberty that any parliament is ever likely to consider
The parliamentary Joint Committee on the Bill concluded that:
In the wrong hands, it could be used to undermine or even remove legislation underpinning the British Constitution and infringe human rights
The Guardian and the Committee are rightly concerned about how the powers to be given to the state and government might be used at some distant, future, point. However, the Bill is itself indicative of how far the current government is prepared to go in re-modelling emergency powers to its liking - and of the depth of the now permanent "war on terrorism".
The Bill replaces the 1920 Emergency Powers Act which was adopted just after the First World War at a time of major political confrontations between trade unions and employers, working class organisations and those holding power and wealth. The purpose of the 1920 Act is the maintenance the "essentials of life" (like food, power, transport etc) for the people. The purpose of the current Bill is to protect the "essentials of life" for the people and to preserve the state, government and financial institutions. As the Joint Committee says in its report:
In protecting government, emergency powers could potentially be used against the civil population (emphasis in original)
In the Bill the power to make a proclamation of an "emergency" is given to the monarch (on the advice of government) but although parliament has to meet with seven days it is given no power to discuss and vote on the proclamation.
Under the 1920 Act all "Regulations" have to be put before parliament and passed by both the House of Commons and House of Lords. "Regulations" were expressly "not deemed to be statutory rules" and could be "added to, altered or revoked by resolution of both Houses of Parliament". Under the Bill Regulations will be made by statutory instruments which cannot be altered or amended, they can only be accepted or rejected. At the government's discretion there may or not be a debate or even a vote. The procedure laid in 1920 was more democratic than that now being proposed by the government.
The scope of Regulations (Clause 21) are sweeping, unlimited, and truly draconian. For example, Clause 21.3 allows for Regulations to "prohibit" assemblies, "prohibit" travel, and "prohibit.. other specified activities" (undefined). New criminal offences can be "created" for "failing to comply" bringing up to three months in prison. And whereas the 1920 Act said no regulation could alter existing criminal procedures (Section 2.2), the new Bill is silent.
Parliament’s Joint Comittee on Human Rights concluded that emergency powers could be used against:
political protests, computer hacking, a campaign against banking practices, interference with the statutory functions of any person or body, an outbreak of a communicable disease, or protests against genetically modified crops, among many others.
And the effect of Clause 25 of the Bill, referring to Human Rights Act 1998, would mean no judicial remedy would be available.
So broadly drawn is the definition of an "emergency", so great is the discretion given to Ministers (to make Regulations and give "directions"), and so lacking are any avenues for parliament or people to make informed interventions, that democracy could disappear overnight.
The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, and a swathe of EU measures and international agreements (instigated by the USA and supported by the UK government), signalled a new global era where the “war on terrorism” has replaced the “Cold War”. Within this ideology the Civil Contingencies Bill is a logical step for those in<