| UK emergency planners need more resources to meet the demands of the Civil Contingencies Bill A Commons Defence Committee report published today says that local emergency planners will not be able to meet their new business continuity responsibilities without increases in budgets. Under UK Parliamentary procedure, the Commons Defence Committee has been examining the draft Civil Contingencies Bill and has produced a list of issues which need resolving. Prime amongst these are budgetary and civil liberty concerns. The Committee also criticises the lack of time given for public consultation. The Civil Contingencies Bill calls for emergency planners to take responsibility for educating local businesses in the need for business continuity plans. Emergency planning departments must also model good business continuity practice in their own contingency planning activities. The Commons Defence Committee concludes that these things are unlikely to happen in reality unless extra funding is provided to local emergency planning departments. The report states that: “We are concerned that, if those bodies which are charged with promoting business continuity management do not have the resources to do it properly themselves, still less to promote it effectively, the exercise will be undermined from the outset. This is not an area in which 'do as I say, not as I do' is likely to be a persuasive argument. We are concerned that the level of funding proposed in the consultation document is inadequate for the responsibilities envisaged under the bill and we recommend that the Joint Committee examine this issue further.” The Committee also criticised the lack of safeguards in the Civil Contingencies Bill against misuse of the emergency powers legislation, saying: “The emergency powers provisions in the bill allow the Government to declare an emergency and having done so introduce special legislative measures in order to deal with it. The powers themselves are similar to existing powers in legislation dating back to the 1920s, but the definition of emergency is much wider. The principal safeguards against the misuse of the powers are described by the Government as a ‘triple lock’: the emergency must be serious, the powers must be necessary and they must only be applied to those regions where they are needed. But these safeguards are not in the draft bill. We believe they should be. The bill would also prevent any special legislative measures being struck down by a court as incompatible with the Human Rights Act. The Government will need to present a clear and compelling case for this provision. It has not yet done so…The vital safeguards which are intended to prevent misuse of the very extensive emergency powers are not in the bill.” The full report can be read by clicking here.
•Date:
10th July 2003 • Region: UK
•Type: Article •Topic:
Emergency
planning
|
