Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Contingency Planning) Regulations 2005

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for giving us the opportunity to consider the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (Contingency Planning) Regulations 2005, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and the noble Lord, Lord Garden, for their questions and points. We seem to live in a time of emergencies and disasters. There have been recent events in London, New Orleans and Pakistan, as Members of the Committee have said. They have raised the profile of civil contingencies. Clearly there are things at the forefront of our thinking in planning to ensure that, in this country at least, we are in a strong position and well placed to counter emergencies and contingencies. Before responding to noble Lords’ points, I shall give a brief overview of the purpose, structure and content of the regulations and the supporting guidance. I want to demonstrate how the Government have engaged both Parliament and practitioners effectively in the policy-development process, and to bring the Committee’s attention to the wider package of measures that the Government are putting in place to support local responders in meeting the challenges set out in the legislation. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 and supporting regulations and guidance establish a robust single framework for civil protection capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century. It will further enhance the resilience of the United Kingdom by setting out a clear set of responsibilities for those organisations with a role in preparing for, and responding to, emergencies at a local level, delivering greater structure and consistency in local civil protection activity and establishing the basis for robust performance management of local responders’ civil protection work. While the broad shape of the duties is set out in the Act, the regulations clarify the scope of the duties and prescribe the manner in which they are to be performed. The regulations are complemented by the statutory guidance, Emergency Preparedness, a copy of which I have before me. It is important that noble Lords recall the need to read it in conjunction with the regulations. It provides what I think is required: effective good practice guidance to support local responders in complying. The regulations have not just been dreamt up in Whitehall. The Government have worked closely with Parliament and a wide range of stakeholders over the past 18 months to ensure that the package is fit for purpose. In particular, the Government published an indicative set of draft regulations on introduction of the Bill in January 2004 to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny. We also established a series of stakeholder working groups during the passage of the Bill, as noble Lords will recall, to advise the Cabinet Office on the development of the draft regulations and the accompanying statutory guidance; consulted publicly on the draft package of regulations and guidance, engaging directly the expertise of practitioners in a series of roadshows in each of the English regions and Wales; and kept responders informed of progress throughout the process by issuing regular bulletins and maintaining close dialogue on implementation issues. That open and consultative approach has without doubt been fruitful. In particular, it has meant that we have delivered a better package of regulations and guidance, which reflects the needs, concerns and aspirations of our stakeholders. It has led to a clear sense of ownership among front-line responders, who feel that their views have been taken fully into account and acted upon, and a genuine commitment to delivering the objectives of the legislation. The approach highlights the benefits of a genuine dialogue between the Government, Parliament and practitioners. In particular, I welcome the Merits Committee’s recognition of the Cabinet Office’s efforts in that regard. Finalising this legislation and bringing it into force is very much the beginning of the process and not its conclusion. A significant amount of work is under way in a number of areas to give local responders the support that they need to meet the challenges in the Act, and it is perhaps worth giving noble Lords a flavour of that work. The new legislation is underpinned by the right level of resources. The level of funding for national security and emergency preparedness will double between 2001 and 2008, and local responders have benefited significantly from that new investment. For example, funding for local authorities’ civil protection work was more than doubled in the last spending review. We as a Government are committed to ensuring that established public expenditure processes continue to secure for local responders the funding that they require. The Civil Contingencies Act has also generated an unprecedented demand for learning and professional development opportunities. We are working with all the government colleges—the Emergency Planning College, the Fire Service College and so on—to ensure that we meet that demand. The Government are also committed to giving local responders the guidance and support that they need to comply with the requirements of the Act. One good illustration of that commitment is risk assessment. In addition to the risk assessment methodology set out in Emergency Preparedness—the guidance—in July the Government issued centrally provided risk information to all category 1 responders. That will ensure that local risk assessments are made on the best possible evidence and will minimise the scope for duplication of effort. It has been warmly welcomed by stakeholders. The Civil Contingencies Act has without doubt raised the profile of civil protection work, and the performance management regime that we are putting in place will ensure that continues to be the case. The Government are committed to ensuring that the requirements of the Act are reflected in local responders’ mainstream audit and inspection regimes in a robust, fair and consistent way. The Act establishes a clear set of standards, and we are working closely with audit and inspection bodies, notably the Audit Commission and HMIC, to ensure that those are met. Noble Lords made a number of useful and valuable points for discussion. I shall try to work through them now, so that questions can be properly dealt with. I shall start with the three points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The Government carried out active consultation work with the key stakeholder groups, which was an inclusive process. We were encouraged on that during the passage of the Bill, and that was right. The Cabinet Office convened a number of working groups to develop the draft regulations and the guidance during the course of working on the legislation, which was very helpful to us in honing the expertise of those on the front line in the policy development process. We consulted publicly on the draft regulations and guidance, and hosted a series of consultation roadshows to facilitate that dialogue. We can honestly say that we listened carefully to the views of stakeholders, and made a number of changes to detailed aspects of the package as a result. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also referred to the importance of local responders. We take that very seriously, and it is right that we put in place systems that are therefore warning and informing the public—the dual role of those local responders—and ensuring that they are made well aware of the arrangements that are being put in place in any given emergency. In particular, we want to ensure that risks are understood, so that the public will understand what actions have to be taken by an authority if an emergency occurs and the things that the public can do in an emergency. The Act requires local responders to maintain arrangements to warn the public and provide appropriate advice at the time that an emergency occurs. The point is often made that we need to ensure that the public are informed in advance of an emergency. That is right, and the local authorities are doing a valuable job in ensuring it happens. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also referred to the need for conferences. Public events have taken place. We want to ensure that people are well informed. The notion of a generalised conference is welcome and valuable. We may need to hold such an event in the future. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, made the usual points that we expect from the Conservatives on civil preparedness. The Conservatives have a well honed argument: they suggest that we ought to have a homeland security Minister. There are different approaches but we argue that ours works well. The emergencies that occurred this summer—the security issues and the terrorist attacks—showed that our emergency services worked and performed to their best. We can be proud of that, although we must not be complacent. I am not sure how that process would have been strengthened by having a homeland security Minister. The United States, for instance, has a homeland security Minister. I have no wish to criticise the approach of the United States, but weaknesses were shown in its response to Hurricane Katrina. Some of those may have been a by-product of its organisational structure. We need to learn the lessons from events abroad and to reflect on them, but we are confident that our system is robust, our framework works, we have a clear line of ministerial responsibility and those responsibilities are well understood. I am not confident that we would want to introduce a homeland security Minister. We think that our process works well. The noble Baroness also raised concerns about avian flu. I take issue with her in that we have in place measures and a structure for dealing with such matters. We are prepared for risks as they develop. We have regularly updated the generic contingency plan for avian flu and the UK influenza pandemic contingency plan. We are stockpiling antivirals and other equipment, and we are acquiring vaccines and the capacity to acquire new vaccines rapidly. We are flexible in our approach. We have strong generic arrangements for emergency responses. Organisations at local, regional and central level are preparing all options for dealing with an outbreak of either disease and ensuring that plans are scaleable. I also argue that we have been decisive. We have in place clear arrangements for directing planning and response. Lead government departments direct that, and we have tried-and-tested structures for managing emergencies, as I said earlier. We must work internationally. The issues of avian flu and pandemic flu are well known internationally. We work together with other administrations to ensure that those issues are tackled on a global basis—that makes perfect sense. We must protect the public here as best we can and take important countermeasures. In the light of our expertise, we can reasonably argue that we have undertaken global work and that we are working well with other authorities. In particular, it is of benefit that we can take a lead as the current holder of the EU presidency. In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Garden, I did not think that there was a great deal there. The civil contingencies regulations are quite a detailed document. It is not often that one gets such a detailed, 36-page document. I looked for the paragraph that the noble Lord said was vague. It qualifies an important point—that category 2 responders need to be present at meetings, on a need-to-know basis. That is not suggestive of vagueness in the regulations. The regulations work very well. Our general approach is to try to inform not alarm. We want to work well with category 2 responders. We seek to inform them in a way that is clearly understood. The way in which our civil contingency arrangements have developed over the past two or three years has demonstrated many of the system’s strengths. We will go on developing; we certainly cannot afford to be complacent in any way, shape, or form, because emergencies take many forms. It can be a flooding in Boscastle; a flooding in Carlisle; an outbreak of avian flu; it could be a mini-tornado in Birmingham. We know that these things take different variants. Our approach, in particular in the summer to the fallout from the London bombing attacks, showed just how far we have come in speedy response and effective action, because that is what the public need and want. On that basis, I am more than content with the regulations.