7. Conclusion
74. Whether measured from the start of the Emergency
Planning Review or the events of 11 September 2001, we have waited
a long time for a draft civil contingencies bill. Given that the
draft bill which has now emerged is largely an enabling measure,
it is not easy to understand why it has taken so long.
75. One explanation might be that the bill is just
part of a wider set of arrangements designed to entrench resilience
at all levels. The consultation document as well as describing
the bill's civil protection provisions at the local level also
sets out what is being and will be done at regional and national
levels. The total package is elaborate and complicated. The Government
must demonstrate that it is also necessary, robust and effective.
We do not believe that it has yet done so.
76. The draft bill is as notable for what it omits
as for what it contains. The regional and national arrangements
are almost completely excluded. The vital safeguards which are
intended to prevent misuse of the very extensive emergency powers
are not in the bill. They seem to have no status beyond good intention.
77. Finally the extensive organisational initiatives
are not matched by any increase in resources. The Government will
face continuing scepticism over the priority it gives to improving
national resilience as long as it is unwilling to devote the necessary
resources to it. So, although we welcome the draft bill because
there is a real need for new legislation, we will continue to
urge on the Government that genuine resilience cannot be provided
by bodies which are permanently overstretched.
| 
