eurealist.co.uk

Hazel Blears MP Labour Member of Parliament for Salford, Home Office Minister, defends the Civil Contingencies, Act in the Telegraph.

But we should all understand that these are Bolshevik-style powers, so sweeping and totalitarian that they sound as if they have been lifted out of some 1930’s banana-republic manifesto, no democratic parliament in a free country should even consider the possibility of putting such power in the hands of Ministers.

The thing about this bill to remember is that it is an enabling act, it does not set out the laws or regulations which might at a later time be introduced under the act. The government have also ensured that nothing can stand in the way of any law they may make under the act. The act enables the government or even part of the government to ignore or remove any other act of parliament and even parts of our Constitution, Ministers are empowered to make virtually whatever regulations they want; In fact, the Government can “disapply or modify” (i.e. repeal, amend or suspend) virtually any ‘enactment’ (Act of Parliament) - even constitutional legislation such as the Human Rights act Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta.

Yet Hazel Blears has the cheek to say;

“that Parliament has not granted the Government dramatic new powers, nor are these powers solely about terrorism and similar powers have been available to governments since the Emergency Powers Act was passed in 1920.

The principal difference between this Act and its predecessor is that we have substantially strengthened the safeguards against misuse. A “triple lock” has to be satisfied before the powers can be taken - the emergency must be serious, the decision to take new powers necessary and any powers taken proportionate. In addition, the maker of emergency regulations must have regard to the continuing operation of Parliament and the courts and cannot make substantive amendment to constitutional enactments. ”

Unfortunately the much vaunted “Triple Lock” does not form part of the bill it only appears in the Consultation document, The House of Commons Defence Committee said “The consultation document claims that before using the emergency powers, Ministers “must be satisfied” that the triple lock criteria are met. But no such requirement appears in the bill and the consultation document does not ask for views on this point. We believe that it should. Powers of this type should only be used when absolutely necessary. There is clearly scope for these powers to be misused. It seems to us that the bill which provides the powers should also provide the necessary safeguards on their use.

So the substantially strengthened safeguards against misuse does not exist.

The House of Commons Defence Committee also said:

“We have discussed the wide-ranging scope of the powers to make regulations given to
Ministers by the bill. We have expressed a number of concerns in principle over their
scope, but additional to the question of whether they are too far-reaching in themselves is
the question of whether they are subject to the proper parliamentary procedures. The wider
the scope of such powers, the greater the need to ensure that their exercise is subject to
adequate parliamentary oversight”

“The first question therefore must be whether the Government needs such powers at all”

“We believe that the Government must provide much more detailed information on
the content of the regulations which Ministers propose to make under the draft bill”

“We conclude that the provision to treat specialist legislative measures as primary
legislation for the purposes of the Human Rights Act should not be included in the
bill unless the Government can demonstrate a clear and compelling need for the
additional powers which it provides”.

“The draft bill is as notable for what it omits as for what it contains. The regional and
national arrangements are almost completely excluded. The vital safeguards which are
intended to prevent misuse of the very extensive emergency powers are not in the bill.
They seem to have no status beyond good intention”.

Anne Palmer says about the Act|:

The Government intend and would like, through Clause 21(3)(j) of the above Bill, to disapply or modify any Act of Parliament. They believe that they could (and most certainly would on their definition of the word “emergency”) remove all past legislation, which makes up the statutory patchwork of the British Constitution, which is made up of the following,

• Magna Carta 1297
• Bill of Rights 1688
• Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689
• Act of Settlement 1700
• Union with Scotland Act 1707
• Union with Ireland Act 1800
• Parliament Acts 1911-49
• Life Peerages Act 1958
• Emergency Powers Act 1964
• European Communities Act 1972
• House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
• Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975
• British Nationality Act 1981
• Supreme Court Act 1981
• Representation of the People Act 1983
• Government of Wales Act 1998
• Human Rights Act 1998
• Northern Ireland Act 1998
• Scotland Act 1998
• House of Lords Act 1999

Our Common Law Constitution, is a contract between the Crown and the Sovereign people of this country. Some of the others are ‘Settlement Acts’, and others are ‘Treaties’ which also cannot be repealed or altered, even though a couple of these have been altered to suit the Government of the day I believe this action to be ultra vires. Another Government that recognises our Common Laws for what they truly are should have the task of correcting this action?

The remedy is a protective Clause inserted IN the proposed Civil Contingencies Bill, which will protect all our Common Laws, our Constitution forever.

Parliament cannot amend, alter or repeal; all that Parliament can do is to amend that legislation which, in later years when we did have a Parliament, implemented Magna Carta. That is why Magna Carta is so very important and why the people would have (and are duty bound) to protect it. The most Parliament can do is activate Clause 42 of the Magna Carta which states that all men shall be free to come and go except -for a short period-in time of war”. It is limited to movement of people, but I think that is clear enough, until a decision is made as to the interpretation of a “short period”. Therefore the removal of our Constitution would be unlawful/illegitimate. Our Oath of Allegiance so recorded in the Common Laws must be honoured.

Also, what is not included in the list above is HM Queen’s Coronation Oath. Parliament cannot remove that, because it was sworn at the Coronation, and the Queen is bound by it. However, it is a most important document, because she swears to Govern by our laws. Those LAWS are listed above.

The Government thinks they can do as they like, they cannot, for they have to obey our Constitution-every bit of it, in the same way the people have to. The Government are bound by our Constitution in the same way that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth is and as Her people are.

All Governments are bound by the following, “Whereas it was established in 1932 that “No Parliament may bind its successors”, (Vauxhall Estates v Liverpool Corporation 1,KB 733)” which applies to all legislation, statutes etc, put forward by them, (various Governments from 1932) they cannot alter our Constitution for they are all bound by it. The present Government seem to have great difficulty distinguishing one from the other.

Lord Lucas: “The Government are not averse to gathering enormous powers unto themselves. The draft Civil Contingencies Bill would, in the event of a crisis, have given the Government the power to abolish or tear up legislation and, by ministerial fiat, create any legislation. Perhaps we will see something different when the Bill emerges, but under the draft Bill they would have the power to destroy the constitution — to abolish judges and Parliament and create a dictatorship…

Lord Lucas, speaking at the second reading of the bill in the House of Lords on 5 July, made this point:
“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.