Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Amendment of List of Responders) Order 2005

My Lords, I thank the Minister for welcoming me here. I feel churlish now about having to ask one or two questions. I start by saying that we support the change. Of course, we would not stand in the way of the Government making changes to the nation’s civil contingency plan in the context of last Thursday’s bombings in London—exactly the sort of event that the Civil Contingencies Act was put in place to deal with. In agreeing not to stand in the way of the change, we have one or two questions to ask. I join the Minister in paying tribute to the splendid work of our emergency services. The first obvious question is whether it would have made any difference on Thursday if the strategic health authorities had already been included in the category 2 responders. The second question that I would like to ask in the light of events relates to the SHAs, and I hope that I am not repeating anything that the Minister said. My question is about the expected reduction in the number of SHAs. What impact will the uncertainty have on their ability to act as category 2 responders and to provide assistance in the event of an emergency? Would it be helpful for the Department of Health to make a decision soon on whether it will establish a single health authority for London, given that the capital is, sadly, likely to be the centre of any future attacks? Thirdly, we think that the fact that the Government are having to amend the list of responders so soon after   the Civil Contingencies Act was passed—November 2004—is a cause for concern. This is extremely important legislation, as last Thursday’s events have already shown. It is vital that it is right. Are the Government confident that the lists of category one and two responders are complete and correct? I hope that the Minister is able to put my mind at rest on those questions. I repeat that we support the order, given the terrible events of last Thursday.