The Civil Contingencies Bill which is to come before the present session of Parliament has as yet attracted little attention except from civil rights campaigners. However its implications need to be taken seriously by the trades union movement.
The government is using the present war on terror and national security fears to introduce this legislation which is allegedly to update previous emergency legislation, but in reality goes far further in giving the government of the day full powers and also has a wider definition of emergency.
The legislation which this Bill is to replace is the Emergency Powers Act, introduced in 1920 to replace the 1914 Defence of the Realm Act. The 1920 Emergency Powers Act was intended for use in peacetime as well as war. In 1920 it was introduced by the government of the day to be used in times of industrial unrest. In the aftermath of World War 1 there was widespread industrial turmoil in Britain as all the major sections of the working class – the miners, transport workers and railway workers took strike action. Fearing growing militancy the government introduced legislation, supposedly to secure vital supplies. The Act was used in the 1926 General Strike when members of the central committee of the Communist Party of Great Britain were arrested for the duration of the strike and held without trial. It has been put in practice 12 times in its 80 years history. On these occasions it has been used against the labour movement. The last time it was used was during the 1974 miners strike, when Ted Heath declared a state of emergency and put the whole country on a three-day week. Of course it did cost him the election some weeks later. The government, refusing to settle the miners’ pay claim, called an election of the issue of who runs the country – the government or the trades union movement. The Tory Government led by Ted Heath was defeated and Labour was narrowly elected.
Civil rights critics of the Civil Contingencies Bill say that it is more than an attempt to update existing legislation, one can see this for instance by looking at its definition of an emergency. The 1920 Act defined an emergency as a situation which interferes ‘with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light or with the means of locomotion to deprive the community or any substantial part of the community of the essentials of life’. This definition has been broadened in the draft Bill. An emergency is now defined as a situation which presents a serious threat to the welfare of all or part of the population, to the environment of the country, to the political, administrative or economic stability of Britain (or part of it) and to its security. A threat to political or economic stability is then defined as possible disruption to the activities of government, public functions, the activities of banks and other financial institutions. A threat to the welfare of the population could include disruption of energy supplies, transport, and education. This should set alarm bells ringing! Government spokesmen say that this would not be used to prevent strikes. However once on the books there would be no guarantees about the future use of legislation. Some of the Tories wanted troops to be used to move fire engines during the course of the firefighters dispute last year. Some have also wanted strikes in public services to be outlawed. Once in place this legislation could be invoked by the government of the day without any other legislation having to be passed. Although this Bill is being introduced in the context of the war against terror and the aftermath of 9/11, its potential use is much wider. Home Secretary David Blunkett has already hinted that it could be used in civil disputes, such as floods and the fuel protests of 2000.
Powers contained in the Bill would allow the government to declare a state of emergency without any reference to Parliament. These powers could be in force for a week before they were ratified by Parliament. The regulations would include powers to ban freedom of movement, prohibit people assembling together and to confiscate or destroy property without compensation. Demonstrations against government’s foreign policy, such as the two million strong anti war demonstration, or the demonstrations against the visit of President Bush last year could be banned under these powers. Property of organizations legitimately campaigning against government policy could be seized. At a time when civil rights were under attack all endeavours to defend them would be ruled as illegal. One critic of the bill has said that the government could invoke these emergency powers merely to keep itself in power! The original Bill would have revoked the Human Rights Act and courts would not have been able to consider human rights abuses during the state of emergency. This has now been removed from the Bill during its committee stage.
Why is the government trying to update emergency legislation now? The 1920 Emergency Powers Act saw the country through a world war and the IRA campaign in the 1970s. In addition to that, the present government has introduced the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act of 2001 which has brought in detention without trial and suspects with foreign origins (especially with Muslim or Arab connections) can find themselves locked up in Belmarsh Prison.
Much of the pressure has come from the US government for other governments in the so-called war against terror to follow its own actions. In the US the Patriot Act was passed just 45 days after 9/11 and has already been targeted by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union for its attacks on the rights contained in the American constitution. It has given the FBI carte blanche powers to spy on anti-war organizations (in case any of their members are terrorists). Not since the days that President Hoover spied on Martin Luther King has the FBI been involved in so much secret surveillance. Opposition to the government has been criminalized. Many of the local state governments in the US have passed resolutions condemning this piece of Federal government legislation including Vermont, Alaska, and Hawai. There have been cases of arrests of individuals for being seen looking at a foreign web site in a library. The FBI have demanded access to library records in hundreds of cases. If the librarian protests or reports this, then they themselves face arrest! Having to pass on information such as this would be in serious breach of the Data Protection Act in the UK. Hence the concern of civil rights organizations such as Liberty about the creeping erosion of human rights gains which have been made over the years by similar legislation which is proposed in the UK. The rights of the individual could be undermined by the war against terror. Now immigrants in the US are threatened with losing their citizenship. Michael Moore in his book “Dude – where’s my country’ cites the case of a Lebanese women with a parking fine who was asked if she had any connections with a terrorist organization when she came to court. This she said is not what she expected in the land of the free!
In wartime governments have traditionally curtailed the freedom of their own people in the name of protecting them and with the aim of silencing opposition to their warmongering policies. Both the last two world wars saw curtailment of the rights of the individual including the rights of the working class to defend its living standards. Class struggle was officially put on hold during two world wars. In both instances Labour joined in a coalition government with the Tories and there was an electoral pact not to contest bye-elections. This was only challenged by minority parties. But in real life the class struggle went on. There were strikes against government policy, for wage increases and against profiteering during these wars. Bush and Blair are using the war on terror to attempt to silence opposition from their own population. But opposition to their policies will continue as they are seen to fail. The Civil Contingencies Bill is but one of the measures that the state can use against its opponents, be they anti-war protesters or trades unionists. However we should be aware of its contents and the possible ways that it can be used against the labour movement and the anti-war movement.