Terror fears have put the spotlight on emergency planning

Human rights and democracy could be put at risk by the planned new laws for coping with emergencies, they say.

The committee of MPs and peers set up to examine the plans says they have "potentially dangerous flaws".

The criticism of the draft Civil Contingencies Bill follows a pledge in the Queen's Speech to make it law.

Police powers

The measures are aimed at shaking up legislation that dates back to the 1920s, giving ministers all the powers they need to tackle a wide range of incidents - ranging from foot-and-mouth to an attack on the internet.

They include enabling the government to rush through temporary legislation without prior Parliamentary approval, with authorities having new powers to declare a regional state of emergency.

Our democracy and civil liberties could be in danger Joint committee of MPs and peers Proposals 'totalitarianism'

The police would get new powers to evacuate danger areas in the event of a "catastrophic incident".

They could also be able to restrict public access to "sensitive sites" if there was a serious terror threat.

The definition of an emergency would also be extended to encompass emergency situations affecting national security, human welfare, the environment and "political, administrative or economic stability".

Democracy fears

But chairman of the committee Dr Lewis Moonie said: "In defining emergency powers, the government has come up with a one-size-fits-all bill for every possible scenario.

The Army took part in an anti-terrorist operation at Heathrow

"We are concerned that as a result the draft bill does not provide adequate safeguards to protect against the misuse of emergency powers.

"In the wrong hands, it could be used to undermine or even remove legislation underpinning the British constitution and infringe human rights.

"Our democracy and civil liberties could be in danger if the government does not take account of our recommended improvements."

'Loose definitions'

Civil rights campaigners say the plans give ministers too much scope to define an emergency.

Pressure group Liberty said the definition of an emergency was "extraordinarily wide", was open to potential abuse by unscrupulous governments and did not safeguard human rights challenges.

The committee backs those concerns, saying there are too many situations which could trigger substantial emergency powers on the basis of "loose and subjective" definitions.

As currently framed, the new powers could be used against political protests, computer hacking or a campaign against banking practices, it says.

Protecting key laws

Douglas Alexander, minister to the Cabinet Office, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The old legislation was out of date... and equally it's important to recognise that the nature of emergency in the future could actually change.

"We will obviously look at the recommendations of the joint committee.

"If there is scope for change then we will make the change before the bill is introduced into the commons."

The MPs and peers back the warning already delivered by another parliamentary committee that the measures could carry a "significant risk" of endangering human rights in an emergency.

The committee appeals for laws which "form the bedrock of our constitution" to be exempt from new powers for ministers to scrap any act of Parliament during an emergency.

And it wants a comprehensive review of the funding on offer for tackling emergencies.

Funds gap?

Local councils charged with responding to such incidents currently receive �19m from the government - estimated as only 50% more than given 10 years ago.

Councils invest another �17m of their own resources.

It argues there is a good case for Whitehall meeting all emergency planning costs, but the costs review is needed before a final judgement can be made.