The Civil Contingencies Act 2004: A Hidden Weapon for Control?

Keir Starmer is fronting for a regime now willing to take such extreme measures to control people, that it really wouldn’t surprise me if some national emergency is soon fabricated so that the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (CCA) can be invoked.

The CCA is divided into two main parts: Part 1 (local arrangements for civil protection) and Part 2 (emergency powers). I’m looking at Part 2 in this article.

Under Part 2, Section 22 (emergency powers), the government can make emergency regulations to address a defined “emergency”. These regulations can include:

• Providing for the requisition or confiscation of property, with or without compensation (Section 22(3)(b))
• Destruction of property, animal life, or plant life, with or without compensation (Section 22(3)(c))
• Prohibiting or enabling the prohibition of movement to or from a specified place (Section 22(3)(d))
• Requiring, or enabling the requirement of, movement to or from a specified place (Section 22(3)(e))
• Prohibiting or enabling the prohibition of, assemblies of specified kinds, at specified places or at specified times (Section 22(3)(f))
• Prohibiting or enabling the prohibition of, travel at specified times (Section 22(3)(g))
• Prohibiting, or enabling the prohibition of, other “specified activities” (Section 22(3)(h))
• Creating new offenses for failing to comply with emergency regulations (Section 22(3)(i))
• Disapplying or modifying existing laws so that their legal force or effect is either removed or changed in some way (Section 22(3)(j))
• Requiring individuals or bodies to perform specific functions (Section 22(3)(k))
• Facilitating deployment of armed forces, including conferring powers over property (Sections 22(3)(l & m))
• Establishing special courts or tribunals to handle emergency-related legal matters (Section 22(3)(n))

These powers are extraordinarily broad, allowing the government to take drastic and draconian measures during a “crisis”. And worryingly, the definition of an “emergency”, (crisis), is subjective under the Act, relying on the government’s assessment of the same. This subjectivity could be exploited, particularly by pressure from external bodies such as The WHO.

The powers under the Act are exercised by His Majesty through an Order in Council (Section 20(1)), typically on the advice of the Prime Minister or a senior minister. In practice, this means the executive branch—specifically the PM or a designated Secretary of State—initiates the process. However, a senior minister (e.g., Secretary of State) can make emergency regulations if it’s impractical to use an Order in Council due to urgency, and in some cases, regional authorities (e.g., the First Minister of Scotland or Wales) may also act within their jurisdictions.

Any regulations made can direct various bodies to act, including local authorities, emergency services (Category 1 responders), and even private entities like utility companies (Category 2 responders).

For the Act to operate, an emergency must be declared which under Section 19 is defined as “an event or situation threatening “serious damage” to human welfare, the environment, or national security” – the latter being war and terrorism. At the same time, the government must believe that existing powers are insufficient to address said emergency (Section 21(5&6)).

The only throttle on measures enacted under the Act is that they must be proportionate to the emergency. But who determines this?

There are some oversight mechanisms in the Act but they of course have wide limitations, especially in the immediate term of enactment. For instance, emergency regulations must be laid before parliament only “as soon as practicable” after they are made (Section 27(1 a)) and parliament must approve them within 7 days, or they lapse (Section 27(1 b)). Emergency regulations also automatically expire after 30 days unless renewed by parliament (Section 26(1)), and renewal requires parliamentary approval. Regulations can, however, be renewed indefinitely in 30-day increments, although parliament can revoke or amend the regulations at any time (Section 27(3)).

This oversight is reactive rather than proactive — regulations take effect immediately upon being made, and parliament only reviews them after the fact. In a fast-moving event, determined as a “crisis”, this could allow significant actions to occur before parliamentary scrutiny. Additionally, if regulations exceed being proportionate or violate fundamental rights (e.g., under the Human Rights Act 1998), they can only be challenged via judicial review, and this would be costly and take much time. The process is so slow it will not provide immediate relief, which is hardly comforting if you’ve had your property confiscated under the Act.

The Act is allegedly compatible with human rights standards, but allows significant latitude, so it’s hard to reconcile compatibility with the extreme measures that can be taken under it. The Cabinet Office itself describes Part 2 of the Act as a “last resort option“. However, “last resort” is not legally binding and who believes them anyway after all we have seen over the last 5 years?

Those debunking broader claims of a government conspiracy to provoke unrest this year to invoke the CCA, as speculative, should consider the very real anxieties about this Act’s potential for misuse, especially given its subjective activation threshold and the current socio-political climate in the UK. The subjective definition of an emergency, combined with the Act’s draconian powers, creates a framework where the government could justify extreme measures under the guise of a crisis. Historical examples—like the use of emergency powers during the COVID era—show how government stretches legal frameworks to impose restrictions with limited pushback. The CCA’s provisions are far more expansive than those used in 2020-2021, raising the stakes significantly.

External pressures, such as from the WHO, amplify risk under this Act. The WHO’s influence during global health crises, coupled with its push for stronger international health regulations, likely encourages governments to declare emergencies prematurely. In the UK’s current political and social landscape—marked by polarised debates over free speech, immigration, and public order—there’s a very real plausible fear that the government could exploit the CCA to suppress dissent or control unrest.

The CCA is a powerful tool – some would day a dictator’s dream. Do you trust it in the hands of this government? Or in fact any government? In my opinion it is a (currently dormant) device of control, quietly waiting to be picked up and used by control freaks.