Clause 7 - Urgency
Civil Contingencies Bill
4:45 pm
Mr Douglas Alexander (Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Cabinet Office; Paisley South, Labour)
I regret that the Government cannot accept the amendments. Clauses 7 and 8 are designed to enable action to be taken by a Minister of the Crown in cases of urgency and where there is insufficient time to make legislation. Amendments Nos. 22 and 29 would, in addition, provide that the direction ceases to have effect when
''the Minister accepts that the emergency . . . has ended''.
This misunderstands the purpose of clause 7. Directions may be given when there is no emergency–for example, there may be an outbreak of a disease overseas, which did not presently threaten the United Kingdom, but which could in future. All
the Minister would have to be satisfied of would be that there was an urgent need to make provision.
Clause 7 provides that the Minister may give another direction after the first one has lapsed. There is no limit on the number of further directions that may be given. Amendments Nos. 23 and 30 would limit the number of successive directions to two. The amendments are largely unnecessary. Before making a further direction, the Minister must be satisfied that there is insufficient time for legislation to be made. In the case of a direction that contains provisions, which could be made by way of a negative resolution instrument–that is provisions relating to planning business continuity management promotion and information sharing, which could be made under clauses 2, 4 or 6–it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which it would not be possible to prepare and make legislation before the first direction elapsed.
In the case of directions that contain further provision requiring a responder to exercise one of its functions, the relative legislation and order under clause 5 would be subject to affirmative resolution. It might not be possible to ensure that an affirmative procedure has been completed before the first direction lapses, but that should be possible by the time the second direction lapses.
On how long it would take to make the secondary legislation under the provisions mentioned here, regulations under clauses 2, 4 and 6 are subject to the negative procedure. They could be made, and in urgent cases brought into force immediately, even before they were laid before Parliament, but it would still take time to draft the legislation and, in an emergency, even an hour's delay could be dangerous. Orders under clause 5 may be made only if a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of the Houses of Parliament. It would be necessary to prepare a draft order and to hold a debate in each House. The timing of the debate would obviously depend on the availability of the parliamentary time and there would be particular problems during an Adjournment or Recess. Once the draft order had been approved by both Houses, it would be necessary to make a final order. Therefore, we do not believe it is necessary to support the amendments, and we do not believe it is necessary that the regulations should remain in force for only 21 days. Indeed, the Bill under clause 7(4)(b) requires the Minister
''to revoke the direction as soon as is reasonably practicable.''
On that basis I hope I have given sufficient comfort that the hon. Gentleman will feel little need of further amendments.