§ (1) The provisions in this Act shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which it is brought into force.
§ (2) The Secretary of State may by order provide—
- (a) That a provision of this Act which is in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall continue in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months.
- (b) That a provision of this Act which is not in force (whether or not by virtue of this subsection) shall come into force and remain in force for a specified period not exceeding twelve months.
§ (3) An order made under subsection (2) shall not come into effect unless it has been laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament."
§ The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is quite evidently a sunset clause for the Bill. We on these Benches feel very strongly about this legislation. We are encouraged by the improvements in the Bill through the concessions that Ministers have made thus far. However, after all consideration, we believe it seriously important to have a sunset clause.
§ The powers in the Bill are not only far-reaching and wide-ranging, but contain the tools to increase those powers further and for the Government to allow themselves to pretty much do anything that they wish. Although I am concerned at giving any government such huge powers, I concede that the times in which we are living are dangerous indeed, and that this country is exposed to the threat of terror on a scale which we have not seen before. However, I sincerely hope that there comes a time when our children do not have to live under such a threat and when some of the provisions in the Bill are no longer necessary.
§ Of course I understand that there will always be the risk of a natural disaster occurring. If we are to believe some of the scientific reports being published, natural disasters may well be on the increase. I realise that for that reason we will always need some form of civil contingencies Act. With the amendment, I am saying that we are simply not sure that the Government are entirely right, and we are asking whether a civil contingencies Act need necessarily be this one.
§ On a different point—this is envisaging a worst-case scenario—what if the government of the day are very different from the one whom we have now? We have kept returning to this point, from Second Reading onwards. Some people might think us daft, but we in this House are being conscientious by contemplating a government in power, the type of whom we would rather not even conceive to be possible. But anything is possible. What if the government of the day are not working for the greater good and acting in the best interests of the country, as we all try to do? Notwithstanding that some will think that far-fetched, we know that it is possible.
§ Our amendment would allow Parliament to consider the Act contemporarily, and allow changes to be made should both Houses feel that they are necessary. We have drafted the amendment to, in a sense, mirror the sunset clause in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. We are also recalling the Northern Ireland Acts, which it was mandatory to consider annually in both Houses of Parliament. If the Government have nothing to fear from this legislation, they should have nothing to fear with the amendment. I beg to move.
§ Lord McNallyMy Lords, the hour is late for debating a sunset clause, but two points are worth making. One is that the Bill replaces legislation that was in one case 55 878 or 56 years old, in another case 80 years old, and in a third case 90 years old. That is too long a period for legislation to lay on the statute book without Parliament considering its implications. Therefore, I think that there is a case for a sunset clause of some length. Perhaps it should not be an annual one, but a clause of some length would be worthwhile.
My second point concerns a recurring theme in the Bill—that is, the rapid changes in technology which may change circumstances. I think that some provision should be built into the Bill to take account of that. I say that because of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, concerning the awesome powers that the Bill conveys to government, because of the changes in technology, and simply because we should not leave this kind of legislation on the statute book without an opportunity for Parliament to check on it. We think that a sunset clause is well worth considering, perhaps not tonight but at Third Reading.
§ Baroness Scotland of AsthalMy Lords, I regret to say that the Government cannot support the amendment—perhaps for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has just made clear. We are replacing Acts that have stood us in good stead for 84 and 56 years respectively. It has never been suggested that the 1920 Act, in particular, was not needed; nor can it be said that it has been used in a disproportionate or inappropriate way. It has been used appropriately and judiciously by governments of various complexions in order to meet the emergency needs of the people that they have served.
The Bill is designed to enhance the resilience of the United Kingdom. It delivers a new framework for civil protection and a mechanism for making temporary regulations, where necessary, in the worst emergencies. I do not in any way take away from the importance of our critical analysis of the minute detail of the Bill. But I remind your Lordships that the Bill has generally been greatly welcomed by many as a significant improvement on what has gone before it. It is sometimes easy to forget the plaudits that were showered by all sides upon the work of the Joint Committee and upon the work carried out on the draft Bill, but I think that we should remember that now.
The need for the legislation does not disappear. I wish I could say to the noble Baroness that the kind of contingencies for which we are planning will disappear in a year. I wish I could say that the legislation will not be necessary as we shall not have floods, the threat of terrorism attacks or any such things and that, in a year's time, all will be well. But that is not the world in which we live and we all know that that is not the truth. We must plan for the world in which we now find ourselves, and at times that is a very dangerous place.
Part 1 establishes a framework for local civil protection planning. There is no reason why it should lapse after one year. The framework that it will deliver will remain necessary. The risks that it addresses are long-term generic matters, such as flooding, which unfortunately will still be with us for years to come. Part 1 is deliberately designed to allow that framework to be updated over time. The details of the duties that 879 it contains will be set out in regulations and guidance, and the lists of responder organisations covered by them can be amended.
Therefore, there will be opportunities to revisit parts of the Bill when we consider affirmative resolutions and when we come to review the legislation. But the framework or structure will remain in place because it will be needed. So, by time-limiting or calling into question this sensible planning framework every year, we would succeed only in undermining the certainty that is needed for effective long-term planning and investment at the local level. That is why we have put huge investment into this matter; that is why the Government increased their commitment to local authorities; and that is why we want to build stability. Such planning will be necessary for us all for a very long time.
Part 2 is an enabling mechanism that will provide the necessary powers to deal with a large range of emergencies, including catastrophic terrorist attacks, flooding or disruption to essential services and resources. While the Government hope that the need for such a mechanism does not exist in a year's time, as I have said already, that is unlikely to be the case.
It is the Government's view that sunsetting legislation is appropriate where the powers that it contains are expected no longer to be needed after a certain length of time or where their application should be reviewed by Parliament. This is not appropriate for a piece of enabling legislation that simply creates a mechanism for the creation of temporary legislation.
§ 11 p.m.
§ It should be noted that existing emergency powers legislation, as we have already said, lasts for a very long time. I know that no one in the Chamber would like to give me a time when, they reasonably anticipate, the legislation will no longer be necessary. It falls foul of the criterion that we usually use to apply a sunset clause. I would love to be able to say that we could sunset it. If I could, I would sunset it for six months, but it is not possible. That is not the world in which we live.
§ The key point to bear in mind is that Part 2 itself does nothing. It is simply a mechanism to make temporary legislation that sits there until it is needed. 880 The regulations that may be made, using the mechanism, will actually affect people in the real world. Emergency regulations under the Bill will be scrutinised by Parliament. If I have learnt anything in the past five years, it is to anticipate that they will receive the most rigorous, the most vigorous and the most wholesale scrutiny of any legislation. I rely on the House to do just that.
§ Baroness BuscombeMy Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. With all due respect, I believe that the Minister has missed the point. We are not saying that all will be well a year from now. I entirely agree with the Minister on that. I wish that, in moving the amendment, we were contending that—far from it.
The reason we proposed the amendment is that we believe that it is tremendously important to revisit these extraordinarily wide provisions on a regular basis. The reality is that the stakes in terms of terrorism may change, so we believe that it is necessary to revisit the provisions, given that they are so wide-ranging, particularly in Part 2. The idea that proposing such an amendment means that we assume that matters will improve is far from the case.
We believe that a sunset clause, given the wide-ranging, enabling powers in the Bill, would probably be the most important clause of the Bill. I urge the Minister to consider the amendment in a different light and from a different perspective between now and Third Reading. Sadly, the world in which we live is extremely dangerous, and we should revisit those dangers and revisit the breadth of powers in the Bill on a very regular basis. We suggest that that should be done annually, mirroring the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act. There is such a sunset clause in that Act and, therefore, I cannot see why the Government should not accept the necessity for a similar clause in this Bill. I urge the Minister to consider those points, but at this late hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.