Re: Ministers to get dictators'' powers

Originally from: Mary Critchley
                        
It is the peers really who need to be contacted urgently

Mary

Please see warmwell inbox page http://www.warmwell.com/inboxnew.html

Sept 7 2004 ~ Parliament returns today. The Civil Contingencies Bill will be discussed in the House of Lords on Sept 15th. Please do read about this Bill, particularly Section 21 "Scope of Emergency Regulations" which sets out the powers it will give to a tiny group of ministers and "regional co-ordinators" in the event of an emergency being declared. If you too are sceptical about the government's motives in wanting to rush it through please pick up the phone or a pen – or send letters. Even emails to the peers – which take very little effort – are better than nothing. Let no one pretend that this bill is "for our safety", it is for the convenience of what HL Mencken called " the ruling quacks". As Sir Simon Jenkins wrote over a year ago: "What threatens the British way of life at present is not terrorism but the public response to it"

Sept 7 2004 ~ Anyone who has seen Fahrenheit 9/11 will remember that 55 of the 56 members of the United States Congress passed the Patriot Act, on which our own Civil Contingencies Bill appears to be modelled, without having read it. The excessive length of modern legislation is deliberate. Bills are designed not to be scrutinised. Michael Moore convincingly demonstrates that most people have been made fearful enough by a bombardment of spurious terrror threats to hand over their hard-won liberties without protest.

Originally from: Farmtalking
                        
The following is not good news so perhaps it's worth lobbying your MP before 15th September – (find his or her address here – http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm).

Sunday, September 05, 2004 Telegraph: Christopher Booker's Notebook (Filed: 05/09/2004)

 In 10 days' time the House of Lords will be debating one of the most extraordinary pieces of legislation ever placed before Parliament, the Civil Contingencies Bill. No one could disagree that a government should have contingency plans and powers to deal with a major public emergency. This Bill, sponsored by a junior Home Office minister, Douglas Alexander, opens with a soothing claim that nothing in it is incompatible with the Human Rights Act; and Part One reads almost like a parody of bureaucratic tinkering, under such headings as "Advice and assistance to business", together with a section defining how the Act shall apply to Scotland and Wales.

Only in Part Two, after 13 pages, does the truly extraordinary nature of this legislation suddenly explode off the page, as Section 21 sets out the powers it will give to a tiny group of ministers and "regional co-ordinators" in the event of an emergency being declared. The conditions for this could hardly be more loosely or widely defined, including anything from a terrorist incident to flooding, a chemical spill or a recurrence of foot and mouth.

In any such instance, senior ministers (including whips) will be given virtually unlimited powers to do anything they think fit, virtually without parliamentary control. They will be empowered to "disapply" any law or act of Parliament they choose, simply by issuing regulations.

 They will be permitted to order any person or body to go anywhere, or to "perform any function"; to forbid any travel or movement; to order the requisition, confiscation or destruction of any property (with or without compensation); and to prohibit any assemblies of persons, however small.

 This tiny, unaccountable group of politicians and officials will be empowered to issue regulatory edicts off their own bat for any purpose, enforced by criminal penalties.

 Such powers go far beyond anything on the UK statute book before, even in time of war. Yet when this Bill had its second reading in the Commons on January 19, MPs were only allowed time to discuss its innocuous Part One. (One or two honourable exceptions, such as Richard Shepherd and Bob Marshall-Andrews, did try to ring alarm bells on Part Two.) The Bill was then approved by 286 votes to 138.

 When it first came before the Lords late on the evening of July 5, again one or two peers protested at its more extreme provisions. But unless they are joined on September 15 by enough others to provoke a real rebellion, we shall have an Act which would in effect permit the setting up in this country of a dictatorship as sweeping as anything achieved under Hitler.

 It would be scant consolation to know that this was sanctioned by Parliament, even if MPs had scarcely been given a chance to discuss it.