[7][8][9] In the wake of these events, the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, announced a formal review of emergency planning arrangements.

[11][12] A draft version of the Act allowed emergency powers to be triggered merely by an event threatening "political, administrative, or economic stability", but this was replaced by the tighter "serious damage" definition following criticism.

The only primary legislation which may not be amended by emergency regulations is the Human Rights Act 1998 and part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act itself; however, said regulations cannot be used to introduce military conscription or prohibit industrial action, nor can they be used to create an offence other than as described in Section 22(3)(i) of the Act, create an offence other than one which is triable before a magistrates' court only (or, if the regulations concern Scotland, a sheriff under summary procedure), create an offence that is punishable by more than three months' imprisonment,[note 1] or alter procedure in relation to criminal proceedings.

[16] There was an attempt by Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers to add a number of other key constitutional laws to the exemption list during the bill stage, but this ended up being defeated in the House of Commons.

Category 2 responders are mostly utility companies and transport organisations: The following orders have been made under sections 34(1) and (3): In the context of a draft version of the Act, specifically after the "serious damage" definition of an emergency and other alterations had been introduced, Liberty's Shami Chakrabarti said that the government had responded to most of her group's concerns about the Act and there was "cause to welcome it",[13] but noted that provisions allowing the declaration of a state of emergency in the case of disruption to communications networks remained a cause for concern.

In a range of crises, from the Foot and Mouth outbreak through to the grounds for war in Iraq, official predictions or capabilities have been found wanting.

But, as shall be revealed in this book, efforts will be hampered because the legislation is hesitant and uneven.A more critical view of the Act is taken by Henry Porter in his 2009 novel The Dying Light, which describes a conspiracy to subvert democracy, based on the modern state's capacity to collect and cross-refer personal information.

[27] Peter Hitchens made a similar assessment of the Act having the potential "to turn Britain into a dictatorship overnight, if politicians can find an excuse to activate it.

In January 2019 it was claimed that the government would make use of the Act as part of Operation Yellowhammer if existing legislation proved insufficient to cover any essential contingency measures necessitated by a no-deal Brexit.

[35][36][37] Both Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable and Labour Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer accused Johnson of deliberately talking about the prospect of civil unrest in the event of a blocked Brexit in order to engineer circumstances that would permit him to use the Civil Contingencies Act; former Attorney General Dominic Grieve said that to use the Act in this manner would be a "constitutional outrage".

[40] The government said that it was not planning to use the Act,[38] while experts such as Jolyon Maugham and Professor Mark Elliott of the University of Cambridge did not believe that any attempt to use it would actually succeed.