Clause 21 - Scope of emergency regulations

Part of Civil Contingencies Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 4:11 pm on 5 February 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Patrick Mercer Patrick Mercer Conservative, Newark 4:11, 5 February 2004

We have already trespassed on to the areas covered by some of the amendments, so the issues before us are reasonably clear. Whether rightly or not remains to be seen, but I hope that the forthcoming debate will make that clear.

If I may, I shall quote the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) on Second Reading. He said:

''I also believe that certain economic freedoms and property rights, which we perhaps take a little too much for granted, are under threat from the Bill, which provides for the

'requisition or confiscation of property (with or without compensation)'.

To read those words on any Bill before the House brings terror to my heart, because the notion of private property ownership is the single most important guarantee of many of the freedoms that we enjoy.''—[Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 146, c. 1171.]

Further to that, BT tells us:

''We are concerned that the Bill allows for the requisition, confiscation or destruction of property without compensation. We believe that compensation should be payable under the powers contained in the Bill.''

Amendment No. 46 upholds that, with the proviso that the property being confiscated is not being used to commit an offence. Clearly in certain instances an offence may have been or be about to be committed, but I do not understand how, in times of emergency, the Government can hope physically to implement the provision. It seems to make little sense.

I move on to amendments Nos. 79 and 80. As BT says in its briefing, they require compensation to be payable in the event of the requisition, confiscation or destruction of property under the powers contained in the Bill. Article 1 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights protects the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Although deprivation of possessions is permitted in the public interest, the European Court of Human Rights has stated that, in the absence of provision for compensation, the protection afforded by the convention would be largely illusory and therefore ineffective. It is surely not acceptable for the Bill to enshrine as a general rule that property may be requisitioned or destroyed without compensation, particularly as it is not clear what, if any, exceptional circumstances might, under the convention, justify the refusal of compensation. The general rule must be that compensation will be payable in all cases.

On amendment No. 60, it appears to me to be crucial that it be possible to claim compensation for damage to persons or property. My concern is that a malevolent Government might use the provision in some wholly improper way to make unprincipled expropriations, or perhaps to use the powers in such a way that those affected know that compensation will not be paid.

On amendment No. 83, again I quote BT, which makes the points much more clearly than I can. Its view is that the amendment seeks an obligation on Government so that, where organisations are required by emergency regulations to undertake activities, the Government cover costs over and above those arising from normal commercial activity. The funding of all activities associated with an emergency needs to be addressed. BT believes that the Bill should include a statutory duty on Government to fund relevant costs of organisations required, under the regulations, to exercise their functions.

Costs to be covered would include those incurred as a result of activities beyond individual, operational or ''business as usual'' costs in reacting to emergencies as defined by the Bill; the cost of providing a service where that was required; and reimbursement for any loss of revenues caused by those activities and contractual penalties arising from them. Funding is fundamental to the definition of ownership of roles and responsibilities and introduces a check on appointed officials exercising their powers.

Furthermore, most category 2 responders operate in the private sector. Commercial companies, which by the nature of their businesses are category 2 responders, should not incur financial burdens over and above those of other private sector companies as a result of requirements imposed by emergency regulations. Those costs should be met out of the public purse.

I remain to be convinced that the Bill deals fairly with those individuals who may be adversely affected by emergencies.