NOTES ON THE HOUSE OF LORDS 2ND READING 5th July 2004:
by our Westminster correspondent.

The debate started (late) at around 8.30 pm and finished at 11.41 pm

Baroness Scotland of Asthal, the Minister of State, Home Office introduced the Bill.

Lord McNally (Lib Dem) spoke on the rushed nature of this particular legislation. He said that the other place (House of Commons) "seems incapable" of really scrutinising legislation. He quoted Richard Allan MP: "Our concern is the risk of abuse of these sweeping powers by a future Government" (col 610).

He stated his concerns regarding human rights.

Lord Jopling (Con) stated that the Bill does not "address the real problems which confront us" e.g. the possibilities of major terrorist attacks. He said the "Government's unpreparedness would be shown to be wickedly negligent" (col 613) He then went on to say that emergency workers need to be vaccinated but that he was not too concerned about the human rights aspects and the Bill.

He said that the Government's approach to terrorist attacks is "shrouded in complacency" (col 616). His attitude seemed to be very scathing of the Government.

The Lord Bishop of Coventry spoke of the voluntary services and the need to take their views on board (col 618).

Lord Archer of Sandwell (Lab) said "We are prepared to cash in some of our liberties in exchange for the right of survival" and did not concur with Lord Joplin. He stated that Part 2 is the "more controversial part of the Bill where the trade off between liberty and survival becomes more acute" He called the Government "mealy mouthed" when it came to the "powers that they are really seeking in Part 2". (col 620)

Baroness Richardson of Calow (Cross Bench) - wanted "community leaders" added in - including the leaders of faith communities.

Lord Rosser (Lab, maiden speech) stated that the Bill did not "bury its head in the sands" (col 623). He stated the need for the Bill to be "thorough" and that "It seems to me that if we cannot have some degree of trust in government, of whatever political colour, not to misuse or seek to misuse powers given under the Bill, then the prospects of all pulling together to address an emergency that might arise must be reduced." (col 623).

Lord Condon (Cross Bench) - he agreed with the need for involvement of the voluntary sector. He stated his concerns of the "inter-connected issues of resource implications and audit management" (col 625). He stated that there was scope to "enhance significantly the provision of resources ... without the need to create a massive homeland security department" (col 625). But overall he thought it a necessary and fundamentally good Bill.

Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab, maiden speech) he said that planning "is an inclusive process bringing together the expertise from all responders in any particular scenario" - he said it was a "good and necessary Bill but that it would only be of use if it is "backed by contingency plans of the highest possible standard." (col 627).

CONCERN OVER DEMOCRACY

Lord Lucas (Con) stated that he hoped that the Chief Whip will "allow the Committee stage to be taken on the Floor of the House. I really believe that this Bill will not benefit from being tucked away in Grand Committee. The issues are too wide and of too much interest to too many people". (col 627) He said the Government appeared to "want a role of issuing diktats" (col 628).

He stated his concerns about Part 2 "Are we opening up our system to the equivalent of what happened in Germany in 1933 where it became possible for an extreme party legitimately to hijack a democracy and turn it into something totalitarian?" (col 629).

He talked of the possibilities of "creating an emergency". He then asked "at what point do we recover our democracy?" (col 629).

Lord Garden (Lib Dem) welcomed this 'long-awaited Bill'.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab) welcomed the Bill and said that it was necessary.

Baroness Masham of Ilton (Cross Bench) she talked of voluntary services and the need for this section to be in the Bill.

Lord Kimball (Con) stated "the Bill gives Ministers more power to do whatever they want to do by declaring a state of emergency. They can suspend the normal workings of Government and act without parliamentary approval." (col 636). He also asked for the Bill to be taken on the Floor of the House. "We cannot allow this Bill to be used to restrict the right of people to a decent and proper protest". He noted a "mysterious clause" .. about using emergency powers over "...the destruction of plant and animal life." (col 636)

Baroness Emerton (Cross Bench) - again called for voluntary sector involvement (col 636 onwards)

Baroness Hamwee (Lib Dem) said that the local authority budgets would need attention - she seemed concerned at the "negligible expenditure impact" in the Explanatory Memorandum with the Bill (col 639). She stated that "it is largely the definition of "emergency" and whether the Government can use their powers at a time for "something that is less than a catastrophe" and the need to have a "balance between security and accountability" (col 641).

NEED FOR REVISION

Baroness Buscombe (Con) said there was a need to revise current civil contingencies legislation. She wanted to know why progress of the Bill had been repeatedly delayed but that the period of time "allocated for parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill has been entirely inadequate". ... and that the Government had failed to consider six new clauses, one new schedule and 87 amendments. Again she mentioned voluntary sector and the need for their involvement.

She said she agreed with Liberty regarding the "emergency could be activated in relatively innocuous circumstances." (col 643). She was concerned on the subjectivity and that a minister "thinks there is an urgent need to make a provision" (col 643).

She said she found it "extraordinary that this legislation effectively allows the government of the day significantly to compromise the rights of an individual but not those of a trade union. .. why does the Bill protect the right to industrial action but not an individual's basic liberties?" (col 644)

"...neither the Bill nor the draft regulations make any explicit commitment to the funding of these new functions within local authorities" [e.g. £92 million Source: LGA]. (col 646)

Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) - he did not subscribe to the doomsday scenario of Lord Jopling (col 648) nor of Lord Lucas. He thought it was an excellent opportunity to build on the effectiveness of civil protection ... He challenged the accusation that the Government are complacent.- the police were at the core of response to emergencies as a Category 1 responder.

He outlined funding "the public consultation and beneficial pre-legislative scrutiny have made a real difference to the Bill... The Bill will make the UK more resilient." (col 651)..He agreed the points by Lord Condon.

Lord Archer of Sandwell (Lab) - interrupted with a question regarding Clause 22 and its powers to make the regulations stating "surely the person making the regulations must know for what purpose he is making them"

Lord Bassam - said he'd answer that during later debates. He agreed the "comforting role of volunteers" and those involved in religious organisations and to have the setting up of such groups at a local level (col 653)

Baroness Buscombe stated her question again regarding Clause 23 (compromising the rights of individuals) and asked for a written answer

Lord Bassam agreed that he would do so, and also all for the other questions that had been put.

© Parliament 2004