Clause 21 - Scope of emergency regulations
Civil Contingencies Bill
2:30 pm
Mr Patrick Mercer (Newark, Conservative)
It is nice to see you back in your Chair, Sir John.
The two amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) impinge quite closely on the clause. Amendment No. 42 would strike out the phrase
''protecting or restoring the activities of banks or other financial institutions''.
I find that curious, for the simple reason that all the other provisions in subsection (2) seem to make eminently good sense and are fairly general, in that they deal with protecting life, treating human illness, protecting or restoring property or protecting or restoring a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel and so on. They are all essential in an emergency that may range from the relatively slow-moving spread of, say, foot and mouth disease, to a traumatic incident that is both sudden and unexpected. However, I do not fully understand why paragraph (n) is included when paragraph (d) refers to
''protecting or restoring a supply of money, food, water''{**ww**}
and so on. It seems to be iterative. I should be most grateful to the Under-Secretary for her clarity of vision and her insight into why two paragraphs should appear to deal with the same thing.
I can understand that the supply of money may be crucial for instant restoration in the sort of emergency that we are talking about, but banks or other financial institutions will not necessarily be immediately affected, nor is their protection crucial under emergency legislation. Current legislation is perfectly adequate to deal with banks and other financial institutions.
Perhaps I may probe the Minister further on what ''other financial institutions'' might include. We have already discussed one amendment relating to the Financial Services Authority, on which we probed the Minister, and I found the explanation for its suspension difficult to understand. However, I should be grateful for further illumination on amendment No. 42.
What concerns me even more is paragraph (n), the last paragraph in subsection (2), which refers to
''protecting or restoring the performance of public functions.''
Subsection (2) lists a series of comprehensive and logical conditions that need to be protected and restored—human life, the treating of human illness and property, the supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel, which I have already mentioned, electronic or other means of communication, facilities for transport and the provision of services relating to health.
Why do the Government feel it necessary to include provision for the protection or restoration of the performance of public functions? If the Minister can demonstrate what other public functions might be necessary, why are they not listed? Why has the Minister chosen a portmanteau provision that suggests that more can be added on the whim of those people making the regulations at the time of an emergency?
The provision is less than precise. It positively encourages a difficult situation, which would probably be unprecedented and—from what the Government have said—for which there are few or no contingencies in place. By including
''protecting or restoring the performance of public functions''
the Government would be allowed a huge amount of liberty and flexibility over matters that the other paragraphs in the subsection already deal with.
In summary, first, I would be extremely interested to know why
''banks or other financial institutions''
are signalled, despite the fact that we have already discussed restoring the supply of money? Secondly, at the end of what looks like an exhaustive and comprehensive list, why should we discuss other public functions that are not specified? It gives a huge amount of unnecessary and unwelcome latitude to the Government and the Secretary of State concerned.