Civil Defence to Civil Contingencies, frm people to business

[xmasdale]

The following has been sent to us from Mike Stagman, an apparently experienced campaigner in Swansea. You may feel it is not central to the 9/11 issue, or that you dislike some of the implications in his comments, but treat it however you feel moved to.

The act can now be used to prevent us all from exercising our democratic rights.



Myron (Mike) Stagman, PhD www.MyronStagman.com

Dear Newsmedia,

Please write about this. The Fourth estate virtually ignored the Civil Contingencies Bill. I fear the Government is building up to invoking this horrendous, unconstitutional Act. If they do, the lights go out on what was once a democracy and home of guaranteed freedoms. -- M.S.


REPEAL the extremely dangerous, dictatorial CIVIL CONTINGENCIES ACT (enacted 18th November 2004)

Scaremongering, and using other unethical tactics which severely limited Parliamentary debate, the New Labour Government -- with the connivance of the hierarchies of the other major Parties -- pushed through perhaps the most dangerous Bill in the history of Britain.

Strikingly reminiscent of Adolf Hitler's Enabling Act which allowed him to legally set up a dictatorship, the Civil Contingencies Act is a flat-out Dictatorship Act.

MPs did nothing to protect British democracy and civil rights. Many Peers denounced the "absolute power" granted by the Bill, but did nothing. Lord Lucas even warned, "We are signing our death warrant as a democracy", but he did next to nothing.

The unconscionable Civil Contingencies Act, believe it or not:

* allows the Government ministers to call for a State of Emergency for almost any reason under the sun [Clauses 19 and 20]

* allows the Government, under the Emergency, to make, amend or repeal Acts of Parliament as if It were Parliament and Crown --- the powers of an absolute dictatorship

[Hitler's Enabling Act, article 2: "Laws decided by the Government of the Reich may deviate from the provisions of the constitution." Blair's Enabling Act, clause 22 (3): "Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by exercise of the Royal Prerogative."; and may (clause 22, 3, j) "disapply or modify an enactment or a provision made under or by virtue of an enactment".]

--- would therefore allow by decree the surrender of the British nation to the European Union empire; approval for GM food and crops; privatisation of pensions and the NHS, unlimited immigration, etc.

* allows the ordering of any individual to do, or not do, almost anything demanded by the Government [22 , 3, (k), (i), (p), (q)]

* allows the confiscation or destruction of property without compensation (including farm animals and pets, bank accounts and stock, anything you own ("property") [22, 3 (b) and (c)]

* allows the banning of people meeting together (based on other legislation, this may mean a gathering of more than 2 persons) [22, 3 (f)]

* allows the prohibition of movement, or can compel movement (can keep you confined to your house, or force you out of it) [22, 3 (d), (e) and (g)]

* allows the setting up of special tribunals [22, 3 (n)]

* provides a catch-all: may "prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, other specified activities [22, 3 (h)]

* allows a prison sentence for "failing to comply" with any order (and do not forget here the confiscation-of-property-without-compensation threat) [22, 3 (i)i and 23, 4 (c)]

* allows the deployment of the Army [22 (3) l]

As the Earl of Onslow said in Parliament, this legislation is unnecessary, for emergencies can be handled with current laws. No-one dreamt of such a Hitlerian Bill during World War I, World War II, and the Northern Ireland Troubles. Only the New Labour Government (that persistently lied about Iraq and waged a war of aggression there) has done it.

There has been a corrosion of the moral fabric of British government -- MPs, Peers, Judiciary.

The Citizens of Great Britain must become informed, and politically activated, to understand and devotedly oppose the immense dangers the United Kingdom faces from Without (the EU empire) and from Within.

[TonyGosling]

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES ACT 2004
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2004/en/ukpgaen_20040036_en_1
Section 1: Meaning of "emergency"

13. Subsection (1) defines "emergency" for the purposes of Part 1. Events such as a terrorist attack, disruption of fuel supplies, contamination of land with a chemical matter and an epidemic could satisfy the definition, should they reach the required level of seriousness.

14. Subsections (2) and (3) specify exhaustively the kinds of event or situation which may threaten damage to human welfare or the environment. In order to satisfy the definition of "emergency", the event or situation must also threaten serious damage to human welfare in, or the environment of, a place in the United Kingdom. This definition differs from the definition of "emergency" for the purposes of Part 2 of the Act in that, for the purposes of Part 2, the situation must threaten serious damage to human welfare in, or the environment of, the United Kingdom or in a Part or region (rather than a place in the United Kingdom).

15. Subsection (4) enables a Minister of the Crown (or, in Scotland, the Scottish Ministers) to provide by order that a particular event or situation (or class of event or situation) is to be treated as falling within (or outside) the definition of emergency. This subsection also enables a Minister of the Crown to amend the list of events or situations which may threaten damage to human welfare by providing that in so far as an event or situation involves or causes disruption of a specified supply, system, facility or service, it is (or is not) to be treated as threatening damage to human welfare. This power is designed to ensure that should a new supply, system, facility or service become so essential that the civil protection duties of Category 1 responders should apply in relation to disruption of that supply, system, facility or service, the Act can be amended accordingly. Any orders under subsection (4) are subject to the affirmative procedure.

[TonyGosling]

UK
Civil Contingencies Bill: Britain's Patriot Act - revised, and just as dangerous as before

- some clauses dropped but overall powers remain a great danger to democracy
- government, not head of state, to declare "state of emergency"
- powers to ban protests and travel unchanged
- powers to control or withdraw e-mails and websites services added
On 7 January the government published their response to a highly critical report by the parliamentary Joint Committee on the Civil Contingencies Bill. Douglas Alexander, Cabinet Office Minister, appeared on TV news broadcasts saying that the government had "listened to concerns about civil liberties". Lewis Moonie MP, chair of the Joint Committee, said the changes were: "better than I feared and as much as I'd hoped for". The overall message was that the government had listened to criticisms that the Bill might give governments draconian powers and amended it accordingly (eg: "MPs welcome rethink on anti-terror plans", Guardian, 8.1.03). The government's approach was also praised as a good example of pre-legislative scrutiny.


The draft Civil Contingencies Bill and Explanatory Notes had been published in June 2003 and the Joint Committee reported on 28 November 2003. The proposal would replace the 1920 Emergency Powers Act.

The government's response to the Committee's report and the formal Civil Contingencies Bill came out on 7 January.

The new Bill meets a number of the concerns raised by the parliamentary Committee and civil liberties groups. The scope of the Bill now no longer covers: "the political, administrative or economic stability of the United Kingdom" and the controversial Clause 25 which could have excluded judicial review is gone too. The term "human welfare" applies in both Parts of the Bill, regulations made under an emergency should not be allowed to change criminal procedures and the creation or use of Tribunals is set out.

On the face of it the new Bill was presented, and widely accepted in the media, as having been significantly changed to respond to criticisms that it could be misused by a right-wing/authoritarian government in the future. But was it?

Tony Bunyan, Statewatch editor, comments:

"The draft Bill would have allowed the imposition of an authoritarian state. The new Bill is only better in that it paves the road to an authoritarian state. The government is really naive if it thinks people will not read the fine print of the new Bill and realise that it has preserved nearly all the powers it originally proposed - albeit in a different form - and added new contentious provisions which were not in the first draft"
The Bill has two Parts, Part 1 covers "local arrangements for civil protection" and Part 2 is an entirely new proposal which would protect the state, government, financial companies in times of crisis/emergency and give exceptional and extensive powers to the government and state.


The Emergency Powers Act 1920 is concerned solely with:

"the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life"

This new Bill, like its predecessor, extends power to as to protect the government, state agencies and financial institutions.

The definition of an emergency - Clause 18

The "meaning of "emergency"" (Clause 1 is defined as "an event or situation" which "threatens serious damage" to:

(a) human welfare,
(b) the environment or
(c) the security of the United Kingdom.

Under all three headings this may affect the whole UK, part of it, or a region.

The clause 18 now excludes "the political, administrative or economic stability of the United Kingdom" which was defined in the first draft as covering the "activities of Her Majesty's government", "the performance of public functions" and "the activities of banks and other financial institutions" (however, see below).

Clause 18.2.e, where an event or situation affects "human welfare" has been changed to:

"disruption of a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel"

The word "money" has been added and is the first of three changes concerning "the activities of banks and other financial institutions" in the new Bill.

The "security of the UK" is defined in 18.4 as:

"(a) war or armed conflict, and

(b) terrorism, within the meaning given by section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000".

The inclusion of S.1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is a major extension in the concept of emergency powers (see S.1 text below). This Act is intended for use in everyday policing and should be outside of "emergency" situations.

Government to declare emergencies rather than head of state - Clause 18
A new section has been inserted in clause 18 on the meaning of an "emergency" which at first sight seems strange. A "Secretary of State" (a government minister) can by "order" lay down that:


"a specified event or situation, or class of event or situation"

is to be treated as triggering an "emergency" under one of the three headings in 18.1. - human welfare, the environment or the security of the UK.

The mystery as to this new power is solved when it is realised that clause 18 in the draft Bill, which said that a "Royal proclamation" would declare a state of "emergency" has or is about to occur has been deleted.

The government's response to the Joint Committee report (Cm 6078) simply makes the statement - without any reasoning or rationale - that:

"the government has decided that it is inappropriate to retain the requirement for a declaration of emergency" (page 6)

A key provision in the EPA 1920, the proclamation of a state of emergency, is to be removed.

Wade and Phillips commented that:

"The power to govern by regulation under the Act arises only when a state of emergency has been declared by royal proclamation" ("Constitutional and administrative law" (9th edition)

Both in terms of constitutional propriety and legitimacy the removal of the step of a declaration of a state of emergency within which certain powers are exercised is highly dangerous. The declaration of a "state of emergency" signals not just to parliament but to the people that an exceptional peacetime situation exists within which "regulations" may be made law for limited periods.

It places in the hands of politicians, the government of the day, a power previously exercised by the head of state (the monarch).

The issuing of a "royal proclamation" by the head of state that a "state of emergency" exists implies a gravity and constitutional importance that is not evident in the new Bill.

The issuing of an "order" that a "situation" or "event" exists or is about to occur is not the same as a "declaration of a state of emergency".

It would allow governments enormous discretion and allow them to mix ongoing business in normal times with powers that are intended to deal with a peacetime emergencies.

This new "normality" could see parts of cities of whole towns subject to exceptional laws and controls in the same way that emergency laws have been in place in Northern Ireland for more than thirty years.

Moreover, whereas a proclamation of a state of emergency under the EPA 1920 could only be in force for one month without being renewed, the issuing of an order by the government has no such limit set out and appears to be indefinite until revoked.

Thus a Secretary of State (a government Minister, probably the Home Secretary) could under 18.5.a make an order applying to any or all of the main headings - human welfare, environment or security of the UK - in a part or region of the country. The "order" has to be "approved by resolution of each House of Parliament" ("Approved" by the House of Commons and House of Lords is not here defined as being "negative" or "affirmative").

Clause 18.5.b allows the government to re-define the clause on "human welfare" (18.2) as a means of triggering emergency powers to be extended to cover an "event" or "situation":

"involving or causing disruption of a specified supply, system, facility or service" (emphasis added)

The use of the term "disruption" was rightly criticised by the Joint Committee report.

Finally, clause 18.7 says that the "event or situation" that may trigger an "emergency":

"may occur or be inside or outside the UK"

This is not in EPA 1920.

"Power to make emergency regulations" - Clause 19 - and "Conditions" - Clause 20
The primary power to make Regulations will be by Her Majesty through "Order in Council" (that is by the Privy Council nodding measures through - these Orders stand unless negated or amended by parliament). The monarch (or a Minister is they are unavailable) must make a statement specifying the nature of the emergency and satisfy themselves that the conditions in clause 20 are met (namely that an emergency has occurred or is about to occur, is necessary and urgent and existing legislation "cannot be relied upon" or "might be insufficiently effective").

Scope of emergency regulations - Clause 21
Clause 21 sets out the "Scope of emergency regulations" and by use of the term "in particular" indicates that the controversial list of purposes is not intended to be exclusive and could be added to.


In Clause 21.2.d. the word "money" has again been inserted in "protecting or restoring a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel".

A new clause 21.2.h. has been inserted for:

"protecting or restoring the activities of banks and other financial institutions"

Clause 21.2.l. allows Regulations to be made for:

"protecting or restoring activities of Her Majesty's government"

and clause 21.2.n. for:

"protecting or restoring the performance of public functions"

Thus although "political, administrative or economic stability of the United Kingdom" as a ground for declaring an emergency has been removed Regulations can be made in order to enforce these objectives. "Public functions" are defined in clause 30 as:

"(a) functions conferred or imposed by virtue of an enactment,
(b) functions of Ministers of the Crown (or their departments),
(c) functions of persons holding office under the Crown"

Thus by "protecting" or "restoring" the "performance" (surely a subjective term) the continuance government and state is ensured. The term: "persons holding office under the Crown" include the military and police forces.

Taken together, clauses 21.2 (h), (l) and (n) with the definition of "public functions" in clause 30 would allow a government to introduce regulations to cover the deletion of the "political, administrative or economic stability of the United Kingdom". This intent is specifically set out in the government's response to the Joint Committee report (page 8, point where it says that:

"The government continues to consider that, should a situation or event pose such a threat to human welfare, the environment or security that the making of emergency regulations is appropriate, it should be possible for those emergency regulations to contain provision which is designed to protect or restore the activities of Her Majesty's government, the activities of parliament or the legislatures of the devolved administrations, the activities of banks or other financial institutions or the performance of public functions."

Clause 21.3 says:

"Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, in particular, regulations may..."

The Joint Committee was extremely concerned about this provision. Indeed so concerned were they that they listed twenty-two fundamental constitutional laws which should not, under any circumstances, be amended or removed (eg: the Magna Carta 1297 and the Bill of Rights 1688). Their report commented that this clause as set out in 21.3.j:

"allows regulations to disapply any Act of Parliament. In the wrong hands, this could be used to remove all past legislation which makes up the statutory patchwork of the British Constitution".

The government's response was to reject the need for a list of constitutional laws that should be protected from amendment or revocation under this Bill. Their rejection simply relies on a convoluted argument from Parliamentary Counsel namely that:

"each proposed exercise of such a power must be assessed by reference to whether or not it is within the class of action that Parliament must have contemplated when conferring the power"

The Parliamentary Counsel goes on to advise that "in the unlikely event of needing to use this power Parliament will not permit interference either with a general presumption or with a "constitutional" enactment". This leads the government to conclude:

"we cannot presently envisage circumstances in which this power would lawfully enable us to make a substantial amendment to a constitutional enactment".

The Joint Committee argued that if the government wished to even have the possibility of such a sweeping power then it should be subject to separate legislation. The government refusal to remove this clause leaves a hostage to fortune. As the Joint Committee observed:

"In the wrong hands, it could be used to undermine or even remove legislation underpinning the British Constitution and infringe human rights"

In addition regulations could confer on a government Minister or "other specified person" a "discretionary function" and the power "to give directions or orders (whether written or oral)" (21.3.a).

Property can be requisitioned or confiscated (property can be taken to apply both to building and personal possessions) (21.3.b) and the destruction of "property, animal like or plant life" is covered by 21.3.c, both "with or without compensation".

Clause 21.3. allows for Regulations to be made in order to:

"(d) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, movement to or from a specified place;

(e) require, or enable the requirement of, movement to or from a specified place;

(f) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, assemblies of specified kinds, at specified places or at specified times;

(g) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, travel at specified times;

(h) prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, other specified activities (emphasis added)

(i) create an offences of:

(i) failing to comply with a provision of the regulations;

(ii) failing to comply with a direction or order given or made under the regulations;

(iii) obstructing a person in the performance of a function under or by virtue of the regulations"

Under 22.4.c new offences can be created allowing for imprisonment for up to three months or a fine.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/jan/12uk-civil-contingencies-bill- revised.htm

[TonyGosling]

Letter: Emergency planning role in peacetime
From MR S. J. TURNEY Wednesday 24 February 19930 comments
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letter-emergency-planning-role-in- peacetime-1474863.html

Sir: Paul Gosling rightly concludes 'Emergency planning is too important to be a matter of dispute or confusion . . .' It is also too important to wither on the vine. Yet the Home Office is setting out to do just that by cutting local authority grants.
Of course civil defence has had to carry its share of the peace dividend. Between 1993-94 and 1994- 95, the Home Office civil defence budget will reduce from pounds 42.5m to pounds 37.5m. Local government grants also go down pounds 5m from within the same budget. Thus town and county halls have to carry 100 per cent of the cuts or find the balance.

I do have an axe to grind because grants pay my salary. I also believe the jobs my 600-plus colleagues do up and down the country are valid for what we give to public safety and social purpose.

Yours faithfully,

SIMON TURNEY

Chief Emergency Planning

Officers' Society

Barnsley,

South Yorkshire

22 February