Clause 21 - Scope of emergency regulations

Part of Civil Contingencies Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 4:30 pm on 5 February 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Fiona Mactaggart Fiona Mactaggart Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Home Office) 4:30, 5 February 2004

But the hon. Gentleman must recognise that in a democratic society things must be done in the necessary way. There are a number of caveats that operate and things that we would expect the Government to conform to. There may be cases—I will come to them—in which the public interest, exceptionally, suggests that it is more sensible that compensation should not be paid.

The hon. Gentleman also raised questions about insurance. Those need to be answered. Whether the emergency arrangements would impede existing insurance arrangements would depend on the terms of the insurance contract. It is true that some policies have exclusions relating to war and emergency, and the Government will take that into account when dealing with compensation schemes. It is worth recalling that in every civil contingency in which the 1920 legislation has been used, compensation has been paid. The Government's habit is to pay compensation. Our desire is to do that, because in our experience it lubricates the management of an emergency. It secures good will, which is necessary if things are to work. On the Pool Re arrangements, any extension of Pool Re would obviously depend on the circumstances of the emergency and would need to be dealt with in that way.

The killer point is: can we envisage circumstances, in an emergency, when this Bill is required, in which it might be inappropriate to pay compensation? Examples have always been helpful to me in confronting some of the difficult issues that we are dealing with, so it might help if I offer the Committee two or three. In an emergency, it might be necessary for the police or others to requisition for a short time a piece of heavy lifting equipment or a tractor that is not being used to clear a path or move something. In those circumstances, it might not be necessary to have an extensive compensation arrangement.

My second example is more likely in the kind of circumstances that we are talking about. Action might be taken that affects a large number of people equally. For example, the water supply could be cut off, or, if there were a complex virus, the internet could be suspended. In those circumstances, somebody might have just sent off their novel and might have a case for substantial compensation for their intellectual property, which it might not be appropriate for the Government to deal with at that point.

My third example could be more common. It could be necessary to take action that prevented a far larger catastrophe, but involved unavoidable harm, such as making a fire-break. In all the examples that I have given, it might be necessary to proceed without compensation, although I am not saying that it

would be. I reiterate that we intend to operate the powers in conformity with the Human Rights Act 1998. All the clause does is make proceeding without compensation possible and legal; it does not make it more likely.