|
Mr. Allan: That was an extremely helpful response. We are interested in the point at which the statement comes forward. The Government have fully accepted the principle of a statement coming forward and the Minister's response that they will consider introducing a provision requiring a statement to be made at this stage is precisely what we are looking for, so it would be only sensible to withdraw the amendment as graciously as the Minister responded to it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Allan: There is an outstanding question to which the Under-Secretary did not respond earlier. I do not want to detain the Committee and this question may be one for a note. The Under-Secretary was asked about the Lords Commissioners, and I am not entirely satisfied as to whom we are talking about in subsection (3). That has not yet been resolved, but a note from the Minister would be acceptable instead of her having to respond to the question now.
Fiona Mactaggart: There are seven Lords Commissioners of the Treasury: my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, and my hon. Friends the Members for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire, for Enfield, North, for Halton, for Eastwood and for Nottingham, East.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 192 Clause 20
Conditions for making emergency regulations
Mr. Carmichael: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in
clause 20, page 13, line 23, leave out paragraph (b).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 99, in
clause 20, page 13, line 31, leave out paragraph (b).
Mr. Carmichael: These two amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam would delete paragraph (b) in subsection (5) and paragraph (b) in subsection (6). The clause as a whole helpfully leaves out the circumstances in which emergency regulations may be made under clause 19. We seek to probe the provision of the extraordinary power in subsections (5)(b) and (6)(b). It is proper and unexceptional that the power should not be exercised unless the existing legislation cannot be relied on without the risk of serious delay. That strikes at the heart of urgency and emergency. Likewise, one can have no objection to the provision that the existing legislation might be insufficiently effective. However, the middle provision, that
''it is not possible without the risk of serious delay to ascertain whether the existing legislation can be relied upon''
is curious.
As I understand it—perhaps the Under-Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—it is referring to there being no time to find out. I should have thought that the number of lawyers in the Government's ranks, never mind those whom they employ, would have made that unnecessary—I shall not go so far as to say otiose. [Hon. Members: ''Go on.''] I am a moderate man and a cautious lawyer.
That strikes at the heart of the matter. I am all for giving the Government powers that are necessary, but I simply do not see any need to encourage laziness.
Mr. Llwyd: In rising to support the hon. Gentleman, I want to say that I think it is quite remarkable that the paragraph has been included. We have a provision that states:
''the existing legislation cannot be relied upon without the risk of serious delay'',
and then there is the provision that states:
''existing legislation might be insufficiently effective.''
I really cannot see the excuse for paragraph (b). If it is to stand, and the Government say, ''We can't be bothered to use the Library over there to find out whether there is a provision to help us. We'll carry on regardless, and find out some day that we've brought in legislation that wasn't necessary,'' that is an astonishing state of affairs.
Fiona Mactaggart: The Government cannot support the amendment, but it might help hon. Members if they listened to—I am sorry, that sounds as though I am telling hon. Members off, and I did not mean it that way. The provision covers what would happen if it were not possible to discover for certain whether an existing piece of legislation could be relied on quickly enough in an emergency situation. We are
Column Number: 193
talking about extraordinary situations. It is possible that legislation that had been designed for one purpose could properly be used in an emergency situation, but it would not have been used in those circumstances before, because emergencies are emergencies, so there would not be experience of such a use.
The law is often complex and relevant provisions might be in relatively obscure legislation. The meaning and intent might be subject to differences of interpretation and it might be necessary to seek counsel's opinion to see whether a particular power is sufficient and appropriate to be used in the emergency. In such situations, when lives might be at risk and it is not possible to ascertain with complete certainty whether a piece of legislation will be effective, and when there is not time to seek the views of a higher legal authority, the measure represents an assurance that it is not ultra vires to make a provision that due consideration reveals could have been made under existing legislation. Such measures would not be taken because a Minister was lazy, but because circumstances were extraordinary, and the legislative power in question perhaps had not been used in that way before.
The provision ensures that when regulations are made, they are made properly. We may find ourselves in those circumstances, and this is a proper provision to make.
Mr. Carmichael: I have listened carefully to the Under-Secretary's explanation, and I do not think that the situation is any better than it was when I raised my probing amendment. When I made my living from being a lawyer, and sat in my wee office in Macduff, or occasionally in Buckie, and I came across a legal problem that I did not know the answer to, sometimes it was a day or two before I could get back to a client. The Under-Secretary and her colleagues in Government have rather more substantial resources at their disposal than I ever had in my wee office in Macduff or Buckie. I cannot believe that the ranks of Government lawyers who will be employed in the drafting of the emergency regulation could not apply their mind for a second or two to whether the existing legislation was fit for purpose. It seems that the real point at issue is ensuring that the Minister's back is covered and that, as a result, we risk having duplication of effort and legislation, which ultimately would be undesirable.
I said initially that this is a probing amendment. Our probing has not elicited any great comfort, but I reserve the right to return to the matter at a later stage and, accordingly, do not intend to press it to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Patrick Mercer: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in
clause 20, page 13, line 34, at end add—
Column Number: 194
'(7) The fourth condition is that subject to the conditions appertaining at that time the public be informed at the earliest possible opportunity of the type of emergency, the steps taken to mitigate its effect and its likely duration and the area affected by the emergency.'.
The amendment seeks to include a practical element alongside the other conditions for making an emergency regulation that are specified in clause 20. It makes it clear that we are looking for a fourth condition. It is intended purely and simply to probe the Government about how far they intend to take clause 20, with a view to making their actions not secretive but completely open and to align them with making information public before, during and after an incident.
Let me give an illustration. The powers in the Bill are predicated on the worst possible event, which, as we have already heard, could be some form of traumatic assault, be it by disease, weapon or natural disaster. Clearly, all of those would cause conditions such as have probably never been experienced in this country.
The amendment seeks to ensure that people understand precisely what has happened. What would be the benefits of that? If, for instance, there were a dirty bomb in Cornwall, which is a reasonably discrete part of the British isles, how much sense would there be in broadcasting the fact that that attack had occurred?
Mr. Allan: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is party politically motivated. His dirty bombs always go off in Liberal Democrat areas. It was Liverpool last time, and now it is Cornwall.
Patrick Mercer: I shall try in future to be a little more generous in deciding where my dirty bombs are likely to explode. I used Cornwall for the obvious reason that it is discrete from the rest of the UK.
In the event of a device exploding in Cornwall, to what temptations might the Government be open? It is possible that they might wish to be secretive about the event and not inform the rest of the nation about what had happened. They might hope that by keeping the event reasonably secret, by keeping to a level of security, they might avoid panic spreading to the rest of the country.
The Minister and, in the past, her colleagues have made the point clearly that Government strategy rests on not doing the terrorists' job for them by scaring the pants off the public, by showing the whole gamut of horror that might result from such an attack. I do not agree with that position, but I understand it. There is a certain sense in it. If one wishes to live in a free society and to try to make terrorism less effective, there is an argument for not broadcasting what the terrorist can do to people should because it will alarm them unnecessarily.
5 pm
I do not believe that argument; the contrary argument is that knowledge and understanding dispel fear. In a particular event, the public should be told as soon as reasonably possible. They should be told, provided that they have been alerted to the dangers beforehand and, to refer to what was said in an earlier sitting, they have been trained in how to deal with the
Column Number: 195
particular exigencies. If that does not happen, I can begin to understand why the Government might wish to be less open about the event.
The Government must understand that it is highly likely—as we saw after the events of 11 September—that other attacks would follow hard on the heels of the first. After 11 September, one attack was quickly followed by another. A series of attacks then occurred around the world, which have been less well publicised. In particular, there was an attack on a French chemical plant in Toulouse on 13 September. It was not widely acknowledged as an al-Qaeda attack, but it was part of the series of attacks that had been planned, starting in America and spreading worldwide.
Were we to agree to the amendment, it would be clear to the public that had an explosion occurred in one or another part of the country—Orpington, let us say—
|
