Select committee: Constitution Committee

Recommendation 43

3rd Report - COVID-19 and the use and scrutiny of emergency powers Published 10 Jun 2021 Paragraph 215
Recommendation (the committee's words)
Section 21(5) of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 appears to present a legal and practical barrier to use of that Act during an emergency. We recommend that section 21(5) of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 be reconsidered as part of the review of emergency powers.

From: Constitution Committee, 3rd Report - COVID-19 and the use and scrutiny of emergency powers, paragraph 215, 10 June 2021

Government response

The government responded to the whole report on 16 September 2021 (deadline 10 August 2021).

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The Government's response largely points to existing arrangements as adequate, while stating that a review of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, due to conclude in March 2022, will cover all of the Act and that it will consider the evidence before recommending any changes.

  • On sunset provisions, the Government says a sunset provision is "only one method" of time-limiting instruments, citing built-in review periods and other approaches, and that "a one-size-fits-all" sunset clause may not suit every case.
  • On the urgent procedure under the 1984 Act, it states that Explanatory Memoranda "clearly" set out the rationale, and that the draft affirmative procedure is "unsuited" to such an emergency because it usually takes six to eight weeks.
  • On the review of emergency powers, the Government says all provisions of the Civil Contingencies Act are within scope, that it "will then consider this evidence carefully", and that the final review is "due for publication in March 2022".
  • On guidance, it says it "is for departments to make judgements about the right balance to strike between law and guidance in any particular case", and notes that withdrawn guidance remains accessible on GOV.UK.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error