Clause 7 - Urgency
Civil Contingencies Bill
4:15 pm
Mr Richard Allan (Shadow Spokesperson for the Cabinet Office, Cabinet Office; Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)
I am glad to have the opportunity to debate the urgency provisions, and I thank the hon. Member for Newark for his introduction because there is an important test to consider.
We seem to have tiered provisions throughout this part of the Bill. Ordinary regulations may be made under clause 2, and clause 5 provides for orders. Then, if the Government cannot use those, they can fall back
on the urgency provisions in clause 7. They would be the least desirable from the point of view of anyone who had to respond to an emergency, as it is clearly better for things to be done in an orderly fashion.
It is important to test the threshold at which we invoke the urgency provisions. The phrase ''thinks'' appears to be a lower threshold than what has been sensibly proposed by the hon. Member for Newark, which could be tested more robustly. That is the safeguard that we are looking for. We do not want the urgency provisions to kick in unless the situation is genuinely urgent, so the threshold over which the Minister must leap is relevant.
I hope that the Minister can put some flesh on the bones of the phrasing and explain the circumstances that would satisfy what is required by his wording and allow the urgency provisions to be triggered. I believe that there will be a lot of interest outside the House in things being done in an orderly fashion through the normal regulation and order-making process, rather than the last resort process in clause 7.