Emergency Powers Plan Published

Emergency powers plan published


Sweeping new powers to tackle major terror attacks and other emergencies, have been proposed by ministers.
The Civil Contingency Bill will update emergency laws dating back 80 years.

Ministers insist new powers are needed to cope with modern threats ranging from terrorism to foot-and-mouth disease to an attack on the internet.

But an influential parliamentary committee and civil rights groups have already warned that some of planned measures threaten human rights.

MPs and Peers on the parliamentary scrutiny committee set up to look at an earlier draft of the plans said they had "potentially dangerous flaws".

The draft plans allowed the government to effectively bypass Parliament at times of emergency, with authorities having new powers to declare a regional state of emergency.
http://www.ukresilience.info/ccbill/joint_committee.pdf (1.5 mB)

First report here


Seriousness of "a threat"

55. As the Bill currently reads, the existence of an emergency is judged according to the seriousness of a "threat", rather than the seriousness of a potential outcome: "it attempts to define the causes rather than the effects of the emergency".[42]

56. This seems to be at odds with the approach in other legislation. The definition of 'terrorism' in the Terrorism Act 2000 requires a threat of action involving serious harm, rather than a serious threat of action involving harm.[43] Slightly to our surprise, the Cabinet Office told us that parliamentary counsel has advised "quite clearly that the natural meaning of the term serious threat to human welfare is a credible threat with serious consequences".[44]

57. In the interests of clarity, we recommend that the Bill makes explicit that the test of the existence of an emergency is judged according to the seriousness of its potential or actual consequences to human welfare.

I'm sure this isn't as scary as it looks at first glance. Is it? 8O
it isn't scarey, the ccrf's are all up and running, fully manned and trained - aren't they? or is everybody in or about to go to iraq?
My concern, apart from whether the CCRF is ready or not 8O Quiller, is what level of situation would require Bluppet to effectively suspend the democratic process?
my apologies for being flippant.

probably at the same time when bush uses his patriot and patriot 2 laws to suspend the similar democratic use of law in the u.s. so, would it be when there is an actual emergency, or when there is a "credible" threat of such, and if when a threat is high, then conceivably anytime.
Or in the run up to a General Election perhaps?

Sorry, getting older has made me more cynical :evil:


PartTimePongo said:
Emergency powers plan published

I'm sure this isn't as scary as it looks at first glance. Is it? 8O
You are not the only one to be concerned ....

Press Release

Response to Government's Civil Contingencies Bill
7 Jan 2004

In reaction to the the publication of the Civil Contingencies Bill today, Liberty's Director Shami Chakrabarti said:

"The government has taken a step in the right direction. Their initial proposals were quite terrifying. But these present proposals remain worrisome. There needs to absolute clarity about the definition of an emergency. Sweeping, draconian powers should not be exercised unless there is a serious and immediate threat to life and limb. Whenever the authorities try and vote themselves greater powers, there is a need to be cautious and sceptical. By reinstating the courts' powers to consider human right abuses under these laws, the government has made an important concession. I very much hope that further compromises will be possible when the Bill is debated in Parliament."
Link to the source:-


It will be interesting to see what happens when the Bill is debated ....
Quite why anyone other than criminals, asylum-seekers and illegal immigrants should bother with the flaccid Shami Chakrabati and Liberty is beyond me. Bunch of squawking pinko lefties whose main purpose appears to be keeping legal aid lawyers in business and the above-mentioned scum on the streets.
Personally I think it's scary. This is a Government whose policies allow unfettered access to the UK for any potential terrorist. We have a Prime Minister whose immediate circle, especially his wife, make their living from promoting the interests of terrorists, so called asylum seekers, paedophiles et al.
The only people regarded by the government and it's hangers on as a 'threat' are those whose political views differ from their own.
Osama and his followers can still expect free accomodation, 21 inch colour TV and the whole plethora of benefits they are 'entitled' to.
Viro Bono can expect the knock at the door any moment now....
Not only do this government allow terrorists unrestricted access, even those they have themselves determined to be undesirable are allowed to stay with no restriction on their activities - look at Abu Hamza (the imam with the hooks), or the various unsavoury members of Al-Mujahiroun.

Closer to home they have released convicted terrorist murderers on to the streets whilst paying (with our money), for inquiries which it seems will only end when the terrorists have the verdict they want. Known terrorists are even given government jobs.

Why do the Whitehall clowns think they need ever more, and further reaching legislation when they have proved themselves utterly incapable of enforcing that which already exists?
As long as we are going to stay within and use the law as a means to defend ourselves, and our lands, then the terrorists of all persuasions are just going to keep laughing at us, so we had better learn to live with the constant threat........................or :evil:

Similar threads

Latest Threads