New - UKIP Forum/Civil Contingencies Bill

From Steve Reed, Chairman, Wells and Weston-super-Mare Branch.

This is a promising development - a forum anyone can post to. At the moment, it is unoccupied, like a brand new suite of offices; but I can imagine a great concourse of information-exchange passing through here, sparking myriad new initiatives and alliances. Let it be so.

The topic of the week, in my view is the "Civil Contingencies Bill", which is coming before Parliament again on Wednesday - under cover of the "Hunting Bill" and any other hoo-hah the regime can muster to distract our attention.

The terms of this Bill are truly horrific. There are no dictatorial powers they do not confer on government, nor any excuse too feeble for their implementation. They sweep away centuries of safeguards against tyranny and set the scene for Soviet-style regimentation. Nothing our treacherous governments have signed up to in the last fifty years so aptly expresses the establishment's fear, hatred and contempt for democracy and the British people, as this Bill - unless it is the EU Treaties themselves.

We should cry out against it in any and every way we can think of.
Steve

[Anthony Butcher]

Welcome to the forum Steve.

I completely agree with you about the Civil Contingencies Bill. It breaches every common-sense limitation on government power, and it appears that it can be invoked almost at will.

We can only hope that the sensibilities of Parliament and the House of Lords will prevail and throw the bill out. I find it hard to believe that the government is seriously suggesting this legislation. If they are indeed intent on passing the bill, then I think that they truly have lost all sense of what it is to be British.

I wonder whether this is in fact part of a larger trick:

1. Suggest something completely outrageous that gets people worked up.
2. Back down under the pressure and appear to be listening to the people.
3. Suggest a milder alternative as a compromise (which is the legislation originally hoped for anyway).
4. People are so relieved that the other suggestion has failed that they will accept the new suggestion willingly as a compromise.

Yes, it is cynical, but hopefully this will be the case.

Anthony - it is the silence of the media, on this topic, which disturbs me the most. Sometimes the news-corporations appear to be impartial, or even anti-establishment, and so it comes as a shock, even to students of their policies, to see them nodding this Bill through.
Steve

[Anthony Butcher]

It did appear in the Telegraph, but not as a main feature. I don't understand why the tabloids aren't screaming "Police State" on their front pages. I would have thought that the prospect of John Prescott being granted fuhrer-like powers because a bus has broken down in Scunthorpe would be a striking image.

Or perhaps the whole bill is just too bizarre for Brits to understand. It seems to silly for anyone to actually suggest that a minister could actually implement the bill, so maybe it simply isn't taken seriously by the papers?

I have just read through some portions of the bill again. It is absolutely astounding. For anyone unwilling to read through the bill, here are all of the conditions under which the legislation could be invoked:

21. Scope of emergency regulations

(1) Emergency regulations may make any provision which the person making the regulations thinks is for the purpose of preventing, controlling or mitigating an aspect or effect of the emergency in respect of which the regulations are made.

(2) In particular, emergency regulations may make any provision which the person making the regulations thinks is for the purpose of—

(a) protecting human life, health or safety,
(b) treating human illness or injury,
(c) protecting or restoring property,
(d) protecting or restoring a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel,
(e) protecting or restoring an electronic or other system of communication,
(f) protecting or restoring facilities for transport,
(g) protecting or restoring the provision of services relating to health,
(h) protecting or restoring the activities of banks or other financial institutions,
(i) preventing, containing or reducing the contamination of land, water or air,
(j) preventing, or mitigating the effects of, flooding,
(k) preventing, reducing or mitigating the effects of disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life,
(l) protecting or restoring activities of Her Majesty’s Government,
(m) protecting or restoring activities of Parliament, of the Scottish Parliament, of the Northern Ireland Assembly or of the National Assembly for Wales, or
(n) protecting or restoring the performance of public functions.

And here are the seemingly unlimited powers that can be assumed by a minister:

(3) 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—

(a) confer a function on a Minister of the Crown, on the Scottish Ministers, on the National Assembly for Wales, on a Northern Ireland department, on a coordinator appointed under section 23 or on any other specified person (and a function conferred may, in particular, be—
--- (i) a power, or duty, to exercise a discretion;
--- (ii) a power to give directions or orders, whether written or oral);
(b) provide for or enable the requisition or confiscation of property (with or without compensation);
(c) provide for or enable the destruction of property, animal life or plant life (with or without compensation);
(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;
(i) create an offence 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;
(j) disapply or modify an enactment (other than a provision of this Part) or a provision made under or by virtue of an enactment;
(k) require a person or body to act in performance of a function (whether the function is conferred by the regulations or otherwise and whether or not the regulations also make provision for remuneration or compensation);

Thank you, Anthony - and for your welcome - that is a remarkably telling and concise precis of the Bill, providing the necessary for letters to editors. I have already sent off my two penn'orth, on this subject, to the national dailies, but there's still time for others to influence the Wednesday-morning editions.
Steve

[Anthony Butcher]

Did the Civil Contingencies Bill actually go before Parliament today? I can't seem to find any record of it; everything on the news sites is about the pro-hunting demonstrations.

[Anthony Butcher]

http://www.ukip.org/abc_news/gen12.php?t=1&id=974

Mr Titford said: "This bill is very frightening in that it gives this Government very loosely defined powers to declare an 'emergency' on the flimsiest of pretexts and place extraordinary powers in the hands of a small group of ministers and regional co-ordinators. Once this has been done democracy is in effect suspended, Parliament becomes inoperative. The citizenry, who are the soul of a democracy, are effectively brought under strict police/military rule. Property can be confiscated without compensation and previous Acts of Parliament can be nullified."

[Anthony Butcher]

It occured to me, while in the pub this evening, that the Civil Contingencies Bill could be directly related to the Foot and Mouth crisis. According to Private Eye, many of the actions taken by the government were illegal, and the compensation cost an absolute fortune. The litigation against the government could add in a massive cost as well.

Imagine another Foot and Mouth crisis with the Civil Contingencies Bill in place. This time there will be no possible implication of unlawful activity, since the government would be immune, and no requirement to pay compensation to any farmers at all.

Is that how we really want the government to deal with a crisis? With no fear of litigation and no requirement for compensation, they could go a great deal further next time.

[Tom Wilde]

Thanks for alerting me to this very worrying bill. I'm astonished by how little media coverage there has been. Just now I typed "Civil Contingencies Bill" INTO phpbb_the News search section of Google. From all their thousands of news sources, only five recent matches came up for this. One was a very approving article from the business pages of the Scotsman, one a passing mention in the Guardian. The only two critical pieces were an opinion piece in the Cumberland News and a piece by George Monbiot called "A Threat to Democracy", originally printed in the Guardian Weekly and now republished by the New Nation, Bangladesh!

Tom

[Intbel]

From an e-mail:TESS NASH, Helston, Cornwall

Part one of this Bill is innocuous enough, but in the Commons MPs weren't given time to debate part two, which contains all the contentious material. How much of the content did they read and how much did they rely on a civil service precis?
The conditions which would trigger use of this Bill are so widely and loosely defined that a small group of Government ministers could do exactly as it wished to any of us, without let or hindrance by the courts or anyone else.
Ministers would have almost unlimited powers to do anything they thought fit, with no Parliamentary control at all.
They would be empowered to 'disapply' any existing law or Act of Parliament they chose, simply by issuing regulations.
Under this Bill they will be allowed to order anyone to go anywhere or to do anything they care to dream up; to forbid any travel or movement; to requisition, confiscate or destroy any property; and ban any meetings, however small.
A tiny, unaccountable group of politicians and officials would be empowered to issue regulatory edicts, entirely of its own volition, for any pupose --- enforced by criminal penalties.
Even in wartime, such powers have never before appeared on the UK statute book.
Yet when this Bill had its second reading in the Commons on January 19, MPs only discussed only its innocuous first part.
The few honourable members who tried to protest were silenced by closure of the debate. The Bill was approved by 286 votes to 138.
So far, there has been only one tiny reference to this Bill in the Press, certainly not the headline news it should certainly warrant.