House of Lords written question – answered at on 8 September 2003.
asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is a precedent for Clause 25 of the draft Civil Contingencies Bill, which stipulates that emergency regulations should be treated as primary legislation so as to avoid their being suspended or struck down by the courts because the regulations have been made in excess of Ministers' powers; and
Whether they consider Clause 25 of the draft Civil Contingencies Bill to be compatible with British constitutional principles of government under the rule of law.
The Government consider that emergency regulations of the kind proposed constitute a special case and may require special treatment in relation to certain procedures under the Human Rights Act. No other case has required special treatment of that kind since the Human Rights Act came into full effect, on
The Government consider that Clause 25 of the draft Civil Contingencies Bill is compatible with British constitutional principles of government under the rule of law for three reasons. First, legal challenges to emergency regulations on grounds of incompatibility with the Convention rights are possible, leading to declarations of incompatibility. The mechanism for challenging the compatibility of emergency regulations, which must be approved by Parliament, is the same as that applied to Acts of Parliament. Second, legal challenges to actions under emergency regulations, as opposed to the regulations themselves, on grounds of incompatibility with Convention rights, leading to suspension and/or striking down, are possible. Third, legal challenges to emergency regulations on grounds other than incompatibility with Convention rights, leading to suspension and/or striking down, are possible.
Yes1 person thinks so
No0 people think not
Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.