Plenary, 04 Mar 2004

Meeting date: Thursday, March 4, 2004

Official Report 638KB pdf

---

Civil Contingencies Bill

Motion S2M-974, in the name of Cathy Jamieson, is on the Civil Contingencies Bill, which is, again, United Kingdom legislation. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.

Members will be aware that last week the Justice 1 Committee considered a memorandum on the Sewel motion on the Civil Contingencies Bill, which is on preparing for and dealing with emergencies. The bill's purpose is to provide a single framework for civil protection throughout the United Kingdom that will be able to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The bill is not to address specifically any terrorist threat, but deals with planning for any disruptive event that might go beyond organisations' day-to-day ability to cope.

The bill has two distinct parts. Part 1 will place broad duties on organisations that are involved in responding to emergencies. Category 1 responders are the key emergency response organisations, for example, the police and local authorities. Category 2 responders are organisations that support an emergency response, such as utilities companies. Their duties will be to assess the risk of emergencies occurring, to plan for such emergencies, to promote business continuity advice and to co-operate and share information on preparing plans. Emergency planning is devolved to Scottish ministers; part 1 of the bill will therefore require Parliament's consent.

At last week's meeting of the Justice 1 Committee, I set out the reasons why we believe the measures in the UK bill should be welcomed and implemented in Scotland. We need to ensure that there are consistent standards of civil protection throughout Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. We need to have clear responsibilities for front-line responders and we need to modernise the legislative tools that are available to Government to deal with the most serious emergencies.

Part 2 of the bill will update the powers that central Government has for dealing with the most severe emergencies. It will allow the UK Government to declare an emergency, including on regional emergencies, and to make emergency regulations to deal with the prevailing circumstances. Scottish ministers will be able to request that a state of emergency be declared in Scotland and regulations might confer on Scottish ministers powers to assist them in co-ordinating the response to an emergency in Scotland.

We have considered the results of extensive consultation and concluded that there was widespread support among the emergency planning community for a common framework for civil protection throughout the United Kingdom. Many of the threats that we face are no respecters of national boundaries. We believe, therefore, that it is important for Scotland that we are assured about the standard of civil protection arrangements in other parts of the United Kingdom and vice versa.

However, the Justice 1 Committee asked me three questions about matters on which it felt it had insufficient reassurance and information. The first was on monitoring and how we will ensure that responders adhere to the requirements of the bill. For the first time, the bill will allow regulations to ensure that a uniform set of standards will be maintained throughout the emergency planning community. Arrangements for standards and audits have not been finalised, but they will be considered among other regulations under the bill—there might be elements of monitoring by existing inspectorates or by self-audit, and there might be a role for Audit Scotland.

I was asked whether the bill would be funding neutral and gave the assurance that it would be; it remains our contention that that will be the case. Many of the requirements in the bill are measures that emergency responders already perform and for which they receive funding through grant-aided expenditure.

We will consult on draft regulations that will underpin the bill and we will explore with respondents the impact of any regulations before implementation of the bill. I made a commitment to the committee that any new functions that require funding will be financed by the Scottish Executive.

Members of the committee asked why there was—as they thought—no reference to the Scottish Executive in the bill. I gave an explanation of that at the time, but can further clarify the matter today. Clause 21(2)(l) talks about

"protecting or restoring activities of Her Majesty's Government"

and clause 21(2)(m) talks about

"protecting or restoring activities of Parliament, of the Scottish Parliament, of the Northern Ireland Assembly or of the National Assembly for Wales".

The committee asked why the Scottish Executive was not specifically referred to at that point. However, clause 21(2)(n) talks about

"protecting or restoring the performance of public functions"

and paragraph (d) in clause 30(1) of the bill provides a definition of "public functions", saying that it means

"functions of the Scottish Ministers".

Scottish ministers are, therefore, specifically included as part of the public functions. We believe that, as well as Parliament being protected, the functions of ministers in the Scottish Executive will also be protected. I hope that, with that further reassurance, Parliament can agree to the motion.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees the principle of a single statutory framework for civil protection across the UK, as set out in the Civil Contingencies Bill, and agrees that the relevant provisions in the Bill should be considered by the UK Parliament.

The provisions of the Civil Contingencies Bill are important in that they seek to increase national resilience to, and preparedness for, emergencies that could of course include threats that are posed by international terrorism. For that reason, on this occasion the Scottish National Party will not oppose the Sewel motion, although I will speak later about my growing concerns about the over-use of Sewel motions by the Scottish Executive.

First, however, I will deal with some of the points of detail that the minister referred to. As he said, the Justice 1 Committee, which is to be commended for producing a report in the short time that was available to it, has raised three questions of substance. I will deal first with the last one that the minister mentioned.

The Justice 1 Committee asked why, although the bill provides for a minister to make emergency regulations for protection or restoration of activities of the UK Government, the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales, there was no specific reference to the Scottish Executive. I have heard the minister's explanation and I agree that it seems that there is a mechanism in the bill that will allow Scottish ministers to be included in that process. However, I state simply that that appears to be quite a laboured way of covering the activities of the Scottish Executive and that it would be simpler to have the Scottish Executive listed alongside Her Majesty's Government as being one of the organisations whose activities could be restored or protected by regulations. It may be that the legal effect will be no different—I would have to study the situation to come to a conclusion—but it seems that the bill would have been tidier and easier to follow if the Scottish Executive were covered in the paragraph that covers the UK Government.

Other points are worth noting in passing. Although certain organisations will be required to compile emergency planning protocols, there are no clear provisions about whose responsibility it will be to monitor that and to check that it is happening. Again, I heard the minister's explanation but I think that it is slightly unfortunate that we have been asked to agree to a Sewel motion before we know what those monitoring arrangements will be. It is important that Parliament should have an opportunity to consider the detail of that when it becomes available

The third point is about resources, on which we have a classic case of the minister saying one thing and the committee saying another. I put on record—as the minister has done—merely that the Justice 1 Committee was not satisfied with the statement that the bill will be resource neutral. That must be kept under review.

In closing, I raise again the question of whether the Sewel procedure is the most appropriate way in which to deal with the devolved aspects of the bill. Part 1 of the bill deals with emergency planning, which is a devolved matter. The bill deals with complex issues and much of it is enabling, so the detail will come later in the form of regulations. Again, we are being asked to agree to a Sewel motion when we do not have access to, or knowledge of, much of the detail.

Will the member explain something to me? She obviously knows much more about the subject than I do. One of the reasons that the minister gave for the legislation is, I think, the spurious one that commonality is needed in emergency planning across the United Kingdom. As I understand it, the regulations for England and Wales will be made by ministers of the Crown and the regulations for Scotland will be made by Scottish ministers. Where is the commonality?

I am always grateful to my colleague when he raises such points of detail. That is a fair point in respect of part 1 of the bill, which deals with emergency planning, which is devolved, so the regulations for Scotland will be made by Scottish Executive ministers and the regulations for England and Wales will be made by the Government in London. There is therefore clear scope and potential for different approaches. That raises a question about the necessity for the Sewel motion.

The position might be different with part 2 of the bill, which deals with emergency powers, which are a reserved matter. However, that takes me back to my earlier point: the regulations will be made by the Government south of the border after we have agreed to the Sewel motion, so we will have no further powers of scrutiny. Alasdair Morgan raised a valid question about those points.

I was about to end on the general theme by echoing a concern of the Justice 1 Committee. It is fair to say that the Justice 1 Committee has expressed this concern and I ask the Scottish Executive to reflect on it. In its report, the committee said:

"As with previous Sewel motions, the Committee is concerned at the limited time available to consider the Bill and its implications for Scotland".

Whatever arguments the Scottish Executive makes in favour of Sewel motions, it remains the case that when we allow Westminster to legislate on devolved matters, our opportunity for scrutiny is constrained and is not as full as it would be if the Scottish Parliament were to deal with the legislation. Although that might be justified on some occasions, the Executive is going too far with its use of Sewel motions and I ask it to reflect on the concerns that have been voiced by the Justice 1 Committee.

It would appear that today is a day for consensus, and those are not the kind of debates that I usually enjoy participating in. I welcome Nicola Sturgeon's words, particularly when she said that on this important bill—I believe that it is an important bill—the SNP will not oppose the Sewel motion.

Current emergency legislation is based principally on legislation that was passed in 1920 and, just after the war, in 1946, I think. The time is right to re-examine that legislation and see how we can modernise it. In the years that have passed since that legislation was enacted, the changes in society have been immense: we think of changes in information technology, telecommunications, infrastructure development, equipment design, engineering achievements and the improved equipment that is used by, and is available to, our emergency services. All those provide a good base from which to consider the civil contingencies that are available in emergency situations. The immense changes that have taken place in travel patterns might also give us another raft of problems.

The trigger for the bill may have been the horrendous events of 11 September 2001, but the bill does much more than simply address those issues. I recognise that that might be controversial. As the all-party committee that examined the bill said, the bill contains some potentially dangerous flaws. Examination of the bill and of the debates at Westminster show that the Government's current intentions may well fall foul of the European convention on human rights. However, I have no doubt that the issue will have been considered carefully by the Executive and by the Government south of the border. I feel sure that any such difficulties that might arise will be ironed out before Westminster MPs make their decision on the bill.

I am obliged to say that, on this occasion, I am quite happy to put my faith in Westminster MPs. Despite the fact that there is among them an insufficient number of Tories to guarantee a sane outcome, we will nevertheless put our trust in them.

It is right that we will have legislation that applies to UK borders rather than just to our local borders. Along with the Justice 1 Committee, I recognise that—as the minister said when he spoke about part 1—additional levels of responsibility could well be passed down beyond the Scottish Executive to others, which will be mainly local authorities and utilities companies.

I am intrigued as to why Mr Gallie believes that we should devolve the matter to Westminster and let it take the decision on our behalf because that seems to be a tidier arrangement. Does he agree that the same argument could be made for investing power in European institutions so that, for example, we could all have commonality in our approach to terrorism?

I am sure that our Westminster colleagues and others are already debating issues in Europe on which commonality can be arrived at. However, the bill will amend existing UK laws that it is intended should be changed. I am satisfied that issues that are suitable for the consideration of our Westminster colleagues are not necessarily suitable for the participation of a wider European audience, especially given differences in culture and in other aspects of our everyday living.

Let me return to the important issues that are contained in the bill. To some extent, the minister has addressed my fears—which were shared by my colleague Margaret Mitchell, who raised the issues in the committee—that any arrangements whereby additional burdens would be placed on other authorities and organisations should be properly funded. The minister suggested that the funding arrangements will be dealt with fairly and properly when the time comes. However, I suggest that it may be worth our while to return to some of the details of the bill once it has been passed at Westminster so that we can debate how those arrangements would be applied north of the border.

I acknowledge that part 2 of the bill deals with reserved matters, but pretty extensive powers could be passed down to Scottish Executive ministers. Those include powers for the seizure of public buildings and property, for taking control of public services, for setting up special courts, for enforcing evacuations and for banning public gatherings. Such grave responsibilities could be passed to Scottish Executive ministers. However, I recognise that the bill also envisages some level of agreement from Scottish ministers, whose acceptance should be requested in such circumstances. I would like to hear the minister's thoughts on those issues. Perhaps that could be done later, once the bill has been passed at Westminster.

As far as the debate on Sewel motions goes, I recognise that there are concerns about the number of Sewel motions that come before Parliament. However, I believe that in this case there is another message, if we look back at the pre-devolution situation. It was thought that Scottish business was not always fully covered at Westminster, but to my mind the number of Sewel motions that come before us demonstrates adequately that Scottish business was considered regularly at Westminster and, indeed, that it was considered in a way that involved our 72 members of Parliament having great responsibilities heaped upon their shoulders in looking after Scottish business.

We are obviously in a new world and face real threats of global terrorism, so it is absolutely right that the Government is considering strengthening the mechanisms that are in place to protect our citizens from a range of incidents and emergencies. Some of the existing mechanisms, as we have heard, have been in place since legislation was passed in 1920. There is general consensus that without improved co-ordination and communication between agencies the UK will not be able to respond effectively to the types of emergencies that we might face. Contingency plans now need to be more flexible and responsive, and the responsibilities that are involved need greater clarity.

I welcome the fact that, given the gravity of the subject matter, the SNP does not intend to oppose the Sewel motion, although I have a certain amount of sympathy for its continued opposition to Sewel motions in general. On this occasion, however, I believe—like the SNP—that the content and seriousness of the motion means that UK co-ordination is needed and that that is the better approach. We note that a protocol will be drawn up on how the UK and Scottish ministers will plan for and operate in emergency circumstances, and particularly on the form that consultation of Scottish ministers will take. It may well be that Alasdair Morgan's question about commonality of approach may be answered with a little more clarity when we have seen that protocol. It is unfortunate that, because of time limits, we have not got that protocol in front of us when considering the Sewel motion.

Powers will remain with Scottish ministers through part 1 of the bill. Emergency planning is a devolved matter and the bill sets out new duties for organisations that are engaged in civil protection and provides a certain amount of clarification on relationships between key local responders. It will place statutory duties on organisations to plan for emergencies, to co-operate in developing plans and to share information. In responding to the Executive's consultation, many organisations stated that the present system, although they thought that it was quite robust, needed to be changed. They favoured a less permissive system, so that people know exactly what they must do in terms of risk assessment, audit, threat containment, control, funding, equipment and training.

Some concerns were expressed at the Justice 1 Committee and one of the most interesting that was raised by the SNP was about the fact that, although one of the things that would have to be done in an emergency would be to ensure that we could recover the key services of Government—including the Government itself—the Scottish Executive is not named, which I thought was quite a nice touch. The performance of public functions that Hugh Henry mentioned is a rather laboured way to go about ensuring that the Scottish Executive would be restored following an emergency; that is something that the Executive could take from this debate.

Part 2 of the bill deals with emergency powers, which are obviously a necessary evil. Emergency legislation should be invoked only in the most exceptional of circumstances. Some of my Westminster colleagues have expressed concerns that the bill relies on good faith that Government will not abuse the considerable powers in part 2. Generally speaking, however, we feel that the range of potential threats to the population and the need to protect human life mean that the bill is absolutely necessary.

I had no intention of taking part in this debate, but it occurs to me that we should not see ourselves either as the United Kingdom, or even as Scotland, but as part of the British isles, if we are thinking strategically about the defence of these islands, whether against terrorist attack or natural phenomena. Was any consideration given in the committee to any protocol that might be required with the Government of the Republic of Ireland?

If my memory serves me correctly, there was no consideration of that issue. We had a very short time in which to consider the bill. It is exactly those kinds of issues that crop up when we have more time to consider the matter, but that issue was not discussed at committee.

One of the issues that we have not talked about as much as we might have is the need to ensure that the public are given as much information as possible when we deal with incidents and emergencies. We have, in recent years, seen that on issues to do with to the water supply; information sometimes has not got to people, or the wrong information has got out. We must improve on that.

There was some dismay at the Justice 1 Committee when the minister said that the measures would be cost neutral. We felt that the responders would audit what they were doing, examine their equipment and consider their state of readiness and that there is bound to be a knock-on impact on key budgets, for example in local government and the national health service. I welcome the minister's commitment that any new functions that are identified will be fully financed, but that is one of the matters over which there is still a question mark.

The other issue is obviously who will monitor the extent of preparedness. I hear what the minister says about a uniform set of standards and about the fact that a range of people may monitor the uniform set of standards. However, that does not take us any further forward. Unfortunately, we are having to agree to the Sewel motion today without there being total clarity about who will monitor what is going on in what is a very important area.

It is interesting to note that different pieces of legislation mean different things to different people. Phil Gallie talked about forced evacuation and the banning of public gatherings. I must say that those matters had not occurred to me in the context of the bill.

It is a forward-thinking bill, in the sense that we must think about things that we do not want to think about—for example, what will happen in the event of disaster and the need for emergency planning. It is sensible that we are now thinking about a statutory framework for emergency planning and that we are considering the terrorist threat that may bring our civilisation to a standstill.

Margo MacDonald asked whether the Justice 1 Committee had considered the issue of co-operation with other countries. There is no reason, having established a statutory framework in the UK, why we cannot alter that in the future if we think that there is a case for discussing emergency planning across European boundaries and so on.

If Pauline McNeill believes, as she has just said, that there can be cross-border co-operation between nation states, surely that means that there could easily be cross-border co-operation between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Therefore, a separate Scottish bill would be entirely appropriate and would work well because normal protocols would be in place, so it is not necessary to have a Sewel motion on the issue.

Mr Maxwell has taken advantage of the point that I was responding to; I was pointing out that Margo MacDonald is perfectly correct. If Mr Maxwell wants to address the issue of whether we should this afternoon be addressing a Sewel motion, which I understand the SNP will support, that is perfectly legitimate. However, there seems to be immense value in ensuring that organisations throughout the UK have a single framework in which they plan and prepare for emergencies. That is why the Justice 1 Committee supported that approach.

The Justice 1 Committee had concerns about the timescale for considering such important legislation; we thought that it was important to say that we need more time to scrutinise such an important bill.

I am pleased that the minister has provided some clarity on the points that the committee raised in its report. The question of who monitors the organisations that will draw up plans is crucial, because we do not want to find further down the line that the organisations that should have put together plans have not done so. I am pleased that consideration is being given to the question of who does the audit to ensure that plans are in place.

I hope that the Executive will at least keep an open mind on the question of whether the bill is cost neutral as the legislative framework develops. We perhaps cannot always predict what costs might arise.

My third point is about the committee's concern that, in the event of an emergency, it would not necessarily be a priority to restore the Scottish Executive. I am pleased to hear that that is provided for. There might be situations in which the Parliament might not be able to meet, so it is more important that we have a Scottish Executive that is able to fulfil the functions of Parliament.

I am satisfied that it is correct in the circumstances to agree that the UK legislation should be dealt with through the Sewel motion and I am happy to support it. However, it is fair to say that we should develop better ways of ensuring scrutiny. We are tied to the busy Westminster timetable and our busy timetable here, so it is not always possible to deal with matters when we wish to. It is important that we are thinking ahead to emergency planning.

Pauline McNeill's point about timetables is valid. However, the opportunity has existed for some time in conversations between our Deputy Minister for Justice and his Paisley buddie, Douglas Alexander, who is the architect of the bill, to look at the details. When such contacts take place in the future, it might be possible to respond to Pauline McNeill's comment if the deputy minister brings back such issues to committee at an earlier stage.

It must be recognised that, prior to the current parliamentary session, committees had no opportunity to scrutinise Sewel motions, so there has been an important development. I am trying to think a bit deeper about how much more scrutiny we could have. There is nothing wrong with doing that.

The Civil Contingencies Bill is forward-thinking legislation and I will support the Sewel motion.

The Parliament has been given a brief opportunity today to discuss the Civil Contingencies Bill and I welcome the chance to contribute to the debate. However, I cannot support the Sewel motion in this case. It is important that the emergency powers are discussed fully by the Scottish Parliament because of their significance and wide-ranging nature.

The Justice 1 Committee—echoed by Pauline McNeill in today's debate—said in its report on the bill that it is

"concerned at the limited time available to consider the Bill and its implications for Scotland".

I share those concerns. The motion transfers our devolved powers for emergency planning to the UK Parliament. That should not be taken lightly. We have to see this Sewel motion in the context of the wider bill that is passing through the UK Parliament. Liberty describes the bill as

"the most powerful piece of peace-time legislation ever proposed in the UK. It seeks to grant the Government unprecedented powers to make emergency regulations which are unavailable under existing laws."

The powers that are being discussed are significant.

We are discussing part 1 of the bill, which repeals the Civil Defence Act 1948 and changes the notion of civil defence to the wider idea of civil contingencies. The repeal introduces the concept of emergencies. In clause 1 of the bill, the meaning of emergency is defined in a wide-ranging fashion. It says:

"There must be an event or situation threatening serious damage to human welfare, the environment or the security of the UK."

The event itself need not be serious and the decision on whether the definition of "emergency" has been satisfied is in effect made by a Scottish minister. As any damage needs only to be threatened, that might be a highly subjective decision. Parliamentary scrutiny is required for enactment, but that is not likely to occur for several days after a potential emergency power has been granted and the regulations might already have had considerable impact. We have to recognise the wide scope of the new powers that we are discussing in the limited time that we have available.

Part 2 deals with emergency powers, which are a reserved matter. I very much share the concern of, for example, the Liberal Democrats at Westminster, whose official spokesperson described part 2 as "scary". Members are not considering that part of the bill today. However, in relation to the reserved matters that will be discussed at Westminster, I note that in order for UK ministers to confer functions through emergency regulations on Scotland, they must consult Scottish ministers. I trust that, should those emergency powers be invoked, Scottish ministers will think long and hard before they allow the proposed measures to go ahead. Let us not forget that, as Phil Gallie said, those measures include the confiscation or destruction of property, the forced movement to or from a place, the prohibition of travel and the prohibition of peaceful protest.

There might be advantages to legislating for a single framework for civil protection, but I have not been convinced that that is the case. Emergency powers are an important part of the powers of local authorities, the police force, the fire brigade and so on. The issues are important, but we must not deal with them at the expense of civil rights. It would be a travesty if, in relation to emergency powers, we were to give away without proper scrutiny the important defences and laws that the Parliament works to uphold.

George W Bush was able to rush through his Patriot Act in America virtually without debate, although the act had wide implications for civil and human rights. We must not follow that example. We have the opportunity to say no to the rushing through of potentially serious limitations on Scottish civil rights. I urge members to reject the Sewel motion and to take the time that is needed to debate fully such an important issue. There should be no knee-jerk, over-hasty reactions; we need a full discussion of the wide-ranging and important powers that have been proposed.

The powers that the bill confers would allow cities to be sealed off, travel bans to be introduced, all phones to be cut off, websites to be shut down, demonstrations to be banned and news media to be subject to censorship. We begin to wonder whether the Home Office has watched too many episodes of "24".

Really serious powers have been proposed. If it is the case that both the Home Office at Westminster and the Scottish Executive can envisage a situation in Britain or Scotland in which such powers would be necessary, that is the major factor in the debate. This Parliament should be party to that political discussion, which should take place with full scrutiny in Westminster. We need to scrutinise such serious powers, which are much more akin to those of a dictatorship than to those of a democracy. If we are to vote on powers that could transform the situation in an emergency, we need to scrutinise those powers carefully, whether they are given to the Government in Westminster or in Scotland.

However, today we have less than an hour to discuss the handing over of scrutiny of the aspects of the bill for which this Parliament should be responsible to Westminster with a nod. To be honest, I am really taken aback that the discussion in the Parliament has been so perfunctory, when I consider what the bill contains. Even if it is competent for this Parliament to discuss only the areas in which powers would be devolved, we should take the opportunity to do so fully and to widen the debate past the Parliament, to the forefront of democratic procedures. We will oppose the motion and I urge the Executive to reconsider it.

My final point is that everything is in context. I would like to be able to discuss some of the powers in the bill in committee and in the Parliament as the bill passes through its stages. In particular, I would like to discuss the powers that

"provide for or enable the requisition or confiscation of property (with or without compensation)"

and the powers to take financial institutions into public control. If the Scottish Socialist Party were putting those proposals forward to the Government, the whole Parliament would be up in arms and calling us loonies and mad; yet the Executive is about to put the proposals through without any proper discussion or scrutiny. The Executive is about to hand decisions on such powers to the Westminster Government. I urge the Executive to think again and to scrutinise the measures in the bill.

We now move to wind-up speeches. I call Margaret Smith.

I have said everything that I want to say so I waive my right to speak.

I now call Phil Gallie. [Interruption.]

Thank you, Presiding Officer—you caught me out, but you got through eventually. I will be very brief, which will please members.

Some valid points have been made on all sides. The serious nature of part 2 has been underlined by both the Greens and the Scottish Socialist Party. In my original remarks, I suggested that ministers—after the bill has gone through Westminster, has become an act, and is on the point of being implemented—should bring the issues back to this Parliament so that we can discuss them in greater detail. In the interim, I am more than happy for the United Kingdom Parliament to look after the United Kingdom issues, including Scottish issues, in this bill.

I was going to start by saying, "Another day, another Sewel motion." However, I would have been wrong, because it is another day, another two Sewel motions. For a "rarely used procedure", we seem to be using it rather a lot.

This bill has, in effect, two main parts. Part 1 deals with emergency planning and civil contingencies. As members know, emergency planning is a devolved matter. Part 2 deals with emergency powers, which are reserved. That is fair enough. However, there is no reason why the Executive should not have introduced a bill to deal with the devolved emergency planning areas. The Executive could and should have done that; I do not understand why it has not done so. The areas that part 1 covers are very much within the Scottish Government's remit.

The minister came to the Justice 1 Committee and, to be frank, failed to explain why the Executive should not introduce such a bill. As a number of people have said, cross-border co-operation in a UK context is absolutely acceptable and normal, and can be easily accommodated through protocols and other measures. I do not understand, therefore, why it is unacceptable, and not possible, to have cross-border co-operation and measures in this case. That makes no sense.

Alasdair Morgan made a valid point earlier, when he asked about the minister's logic. It does not make sense to say that we cannot have a difference between Scotland and the rest of the UK in these matters. As we all know, many of the provisions in the bill are dealt with through regulations. The English and Welsh regulations, and the Scottish regulations, as dealt with by the two Parliaments, may well be different. There is nothing wrong with that, but if it is okay for regulations, why is it not okay for bills?

Part 1 of the bill creates two categories of responder. Category 1 responders are organisations such as local authorities, the police, the fire authorities, the ambulance service, the health boards and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. It is within the competence of this Parliament to deal with all those organisations. This Parliament should be dealing with these issues.

Frankly, I am amazed at the naivety of this place. I assure members that, if there were an emergency in Scotland this afternoon, the civil authorities and the emergency services would step in. I have sat on panels discussing what would happen if a plane crashed at a football ground in Motherwell. All the discussions were on how the emergency services would deal with that. Measures are in place now. We do not have to give away any more authority to England under a Sewel motion or by any other means in order to get things moving.

Indeed. However, the bill is about emergency planning. The event would be dealt with by the various authorities such as the police, fire services and other civil emergency authorities.

I will move on to address category 2 responders, all of whom are within Scotland: Scottish Water, the Common Services Agency of NHS Scotland and gas, electricity and telecommunications providers that operate only in Scotland. Given that all of them operate in Scotland, quite frankly it is nonsensical that we do not have a separate Scottish bill in front of us that we can debate fully at committee and in the chamber.

The minister talked about clause 21(2). I agree with the Justice 1 Committee on the point that it made about that provision Clause 21(2) sets out the scope of emergency regulations, including the protection or restoration of the activities of Her Majesty's Government, the Westminster Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales.

Although he did not do so at committee, in today's debate the minister pointed to the provision in paragraph (d) in clause 30(1) relating to the functions of Scottish ministers. As other members have pointed out, it is a strange and laboured way to say that the activities of the Scottish Executive are to be restored. If that is the straightforward restoration and protection of the Scottish Executive, why is it not provided for in clause 21(2)(l), as is the case for Her Majesty's Government? If it is okay for Her Majesty's Government to be included in that provision, why is it not okay for the Scottish Parliament?

I agree with everything that I have heard so far from Stewart Maxwell. Will he explain why his party is not opposing the motion?

As we have said, we do not support the use of a Sewel motion, as it passes powers to the UK Government. At the same time, very important provisions are contained in the bill and we would like to see them enacted. If we want to see that happen, and the Executive gives us no choice in the matter, we have to accept the motion.

Given the changes that Stewart Maxwell is highlighting and the similar but not identical position on the Sewel mechanism that our two parties have, does he agree that a constructive addition to the mechanism would be for MSPs, whether collectively or through the committee structure, to be able to lodge amendments to bills that are before the Westminster Parliament?

I have no problem in agreeing with the proposal. It would be entirely reasonable for us to do that. It would be even better, however, if there were no Sewel motions in the first place. The Scottish Parliament should deal with the issues that are within its competence.

The matters that we are debating are devolved. There is no reason why we should pass them to Westminster other than the fact that the Executive is unwilling to introduce bills into the Scottish Parliament. It is unwilling to allow the Parliament to discuss devolved matters that are of major importance to the people of Scotland. What is the point in having a Scottish Parliament if the Executive continually sends matters back to the UK Government?

Does the member agree that it is not just that the Parliament is disfranchised, which is bad enough, but that, because the Scottish Parliament has a consultation mechanism that brings in views from the wider society in Scotland, that wider society is disfranchised? It is patently obvious that Westminster does not have such a consultation mechanism.

Before Mr Maxwell replies, I have to say that far too many private conversations are going on in the chamber. Members are trying to listen.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I agree absolutely with the point that Alasdair Morgan made. [Laughter.] Labour members might laugh, but the Scottish Parliament was established with specific principles in mind, including the principle that the Parliament should be co-operative and should involve the community and the people of Scotland in a very different way from the way in which Westminster operates. Labour members might think that that is funny, but we think that it is important.

One point that is raised in the Justice 1 Committee's report and which I raised with the minister when he came before the committee is about the minister's claim that the bill will be resource neutral. The committee's report states:

"The Committee was surprised by the minister's comments that the Bill is intended to be resource neutral."

I am no further forward in understanding why he believes that the bill will be resource neutral. The bill places a lot of emphasis on what responders in categories 1 and 2 should do; it also places a lot of emphasis on what organisations such as local authorities should do. Given that there is a heightened risk from various sources, it seems self-evident that the bill has been introduced because of that heightened risk and that therefore the increase in emergency planning and assessing will lead to an increase in the desire for more resources to tackle possible civil emergencies. I do not accept the minister's view that the bill is resource neutral, although I accept that the minister said that the Executive will provide any necessary resources to enact the measures.

It is right and proper that we should have legislation to take cognisance of emergency planning, but this Parliament should have dealt with the issue. Emergency planning, which is the central point of the bill, is a devolved matter. A Scottish bill would have been easier to produce and could have been debated fully in committee and in the Parliament. We could have had a bill that allowed cross-border co-operation and that allowed the Parliament to accept its responsibilities. That is an important point. The more that Sewel motions are used, the more that the Parliament loses its central function. I hope that we see an end to the use of Sewel motions as soon as possible.

I remind members that they have a duty to show respect and courtesy to their colleagues. Far too many members are turning their backs on speakers during the debate, which I regard as discourteous and disrespectful. If necessary, I will identify individuals.

It has been a privilege to listen to the debate because those parties that espouse independence have allowed us to see something of the parallel universe that they inhabit. It has been incredible to listen to some of the comments about the proposals. In some ways, the lack of understanding has been profoundly depressing. For example, John Swinburne talked about the powers going to England and Mark Ballard spoke about other issues. The bill involves issues that are the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. In Scotland, we elect people to go to Westminster to represent us; they do that effectively. [Laughter.] SNP members may laugh about the contribution that other SNP members make at Westminster—frankly, their contribution is at times beyond a joke.

We have heard suggestions that we should be allowed to lodge amendments to legislation that is being considered at Westminster. I do not know whether the members that suggested that wish Westminster to have the opportunity to suggest amendments to legislation that this Parliament is considering.

It is cabaret time. Yes, Patrick.

That was very respectful, I am sure.

Does the minister accept that my proposal to allow MSPs to propose amendments to Westminster legislation—whether collectively through a majority vote of the Parliament or through committees—would enable scrutiny and would undermine some of the arguments in principle against Sewel motions? My suggestion would provide a mechanism through which, if Sewel motions are necessary, the process could be conducted by consent.

How long have I got, Presiding Officer? It is hardly worth getting into.

We have a UK Parliament with UK responsibilities and a Scottish Parliament with Scottish responsibilities. The motion before the Parliament relates to emergency provision, which is the responsibility of the UK Parliament. There are different aspects to this matter. Mark Ballard and others have confused the power of Scottish ministers to make regulations under part 1, which relates to preparing for emergencies and is devolved, with part 2, which relates to responding to emergencies and is reserved. Without this Sewel motion, the Parliament would not have been able to discuss the latter issue, which is a UK responsibility.

No, I think that we have heard enough, thank you very much.

We are discussing matters that are competent for us to consider and that would be affected by the emergency planning system that is being considered by the UK Parliament. The UK Government is conferring certain powers back to Scottish ministers to allow them to respond in the event of an emergency. I would have thought that some people in the Parliament would have welcomed that.

A member queried the difference in regulations between Scotland and the rest of the UK. In fact, consultation is required between Scottish and UK ministers to ensure commonality. If we had different bills for Scotland and the rest of the country, we would not have common regulations—by definition, we would have different legislation. We are able to look at commonality of regulations purely because we are using the same legislation.

Margo MacDonald posed a quite legitimate question to SNP members when she asked why they are not opposing this motion. They are not happy about our pursuing the matter in this way, so they have decided not to vote. However, they realise that important issues need to be voted on and are quite happy for the rest of us to do so. If that is not cowardice, I do not know what it is. They might have been opposed to the bill on a matter of principle, as the Green party members are, although I disagree with them. However, SNP members should not tell us that certain aspects of the bill are so important that they should be agreed to, but that they should be agreed to by the rest of us and not by them because they do not want to dirty their hands.

Although this is an important issue and there have been one or two significant speeches, a number of speeches have trivialised the matter before us. Frankly, we can do better than that.