That prompts the question of what is the point of MPs standing in elections when they can act like the Government anyway? I shall endeavour to answer the hon. Gentleman's rather elliptical introduction to the new Clause.

The Government agree with the sentiments underlying the Amendment, but perhaps unsurprisingly in the context of our discussions this afternoon, we are unable to accept it. We have discussed at length the checks and balances that limit the exercise of powers conferred by part 2, and particularly how the triple lock and the Human Rights Act 1998 will operate to restrict the exercise of emergency powers. It is not clear what the additional restrictions suggested by the new clause, which says that the powers must be exercised only when that is

''essential in the national interest''

would add to the safeguards. I will be intrigued to hear the hon. Gentleman's contribution.

Concerns have been raised about the ability of the courts to review the exercise of emergency powers. Access to the courts is a fundamental principle of the United Kingdom's constitution. Even in an emergency, a person should be able to challenge the legality of an action that adversely affects them. However, there is nothing in the Bill to limit that. The fact that the Bill does not expressly require the powers conferred by the Bill to be exercised reasonably, as I sought to describe earlier, is not an attempt to oust the courts' jurisdictions. Modern case law makes it categorically clear that the courts will require any power of that nature to be exercised reasonably, regardless of the terms on which the power is conferred.

If the Government thought that there could be any doubt about the ability of the courts to review any unreasonable action undertaken under the Bill, they would expressly require the powers to be used in a reasonable fashion, but there is no doubt on that point.