8. Conclusions and recommendations
Introduction
1. We welcome the
publication of the draft Civil Contingencies Bill. We believe
that the public consultation on and pre-legislative scrutiny of
the draft bill should be followed by prompt introduction of a
bill in the new parliamentary session. (Paragraph 2)
The draft bill
2. We do not wish
to add to the delay in making progress with this important legislation,
but we are not persuaded that a draft bill could not have been
produced soon enough to have provided for a consultation period
which met the spirit of the Government's Code of Practice on Consultation
and allowed a fair and adequate time for interested parties to
express their views. As it stands, however, and given that the
Joint Committee has until the end of October to report, we believe
that the public consultation period should be extended by three
weeks (ie to the beginning of October). (Paragraph 11)
An enabling bill
3. In the case of
Part I we believe that the Government should aim to make drafts
of the principal regulations available to the Joint Committee
to assist its deliberations. In the case of Part II, we believe
that the Joint Committee would find it helpful to have drafts
of illustrative regulations available. (Paragraph 13)
Definition of emergency
4. We recommend that
the Joint Committee clarify whether a serious threat to the UK
Parliament would be included in the bill's definition of an emergency.
(Paragraph 18)
Central Government
5. The Government
should explain why the draft bill does not include provisions
relating to central government's national responsibilities for
civil protection. (Paragraph 24)
The Regional Tier
6. We are concerned
that the proposals for Regional Nominated Co-ordinators risk repeating
the problems with the concept of lead government departments which
we raised in our report Defence and Security in the UK.
They also place greater emphasis on specialist expertise than
on the ability to provide leadership in times of crisis. (Paragraph
30)
7. We believe that
the decision not to include the regional tier in the framework
established by the draft bill requires a proper explanation. (Paragraph
33)
Local Tier
8. We believe that
the Government must provide much more detailed information on
the content of the regulations which Ministers propose to make
under the draft bill. Without that information it is impossible
to judge to what extent the Government intends to do more at local
level than entrench existing best practice. (Paragraph 36)
9. The Government
clearly believes that genuine resilience can only be secured by
contributions from the local, regional and national levels. They
have described the structures by which they expect it to be delivered.
They must now demonstrate not only that each is needed but also
that the elaborate machine which they have designed will work
efficiently and will deliver a level of resilience significantly
greater than could be achieved by the ad hoc, but often effective,
arrangements which these proposals replace. (Paragraph 39)
Local responder bodies
10. We recommend that
the Joint Committee explore the possibility of including some
voluntary organisations as Category 2 Responders with the organisations.
(Paragraph 42)
11. We believe that
there are strong arguments for including the Armed Forces on Local
Resilience Forums. (Paragraph 43)
12. In our view there
are strong arguments for substantially increasing the membership
of Category 2, although it might not be necessary that all the
additional bodies be members of Local Resilience Forums. (Paragraph
46)
13. We believe that
bodies owning or operating sites covered by the existing statutory
arrangements for managing major accident hazards at industrial
sites, or on oil and gas pipelines or radiation emergencies should
be included in Category 2. (Paragraph 46)
14. We welcome the
progress being made in regulating the private security industry
and urge the Joint Committee to consider whether a private security
industry which is governed by a statutory licensing regime should
be included among those bodies given a statutory responsibility
to co-operate in civil protection activities. (Paragraph 47)
London
15. The Joint Committee
might consider whether the Armed Forces should be represented
on the LRF analogous body in London. (Paragraph 51)
Resources
16. We are concerned
that, if those bodies which are charged with promoting business
continuity management do not have the resources to do it properly
themselves, still less to promote it effectively, the exercise
will be undermined from the outset. This is not an area in which
'do as I say, not as I do' is likely to be a persuasive argument.
(Paragraph 57)
17. We are concerned
that the level of funding proposed in the consultation document
is inadequate for the responsibilities envisaged under the bill
and we recommend that the Joint Committee examine this issue further.
(Paragraph 58)
Provisions relating to emergency powers
18. We recommend that
the Government list in respect of each of the major emergencies
of the last ten years or so (eg floods, fuel crisis, foot and
mouth, 11 September 2001) whether they would have used the powers
in Part II had they been available. (Paragraph 60)
19. We believe that
the Joint Committee should consider whether for certain types
of emergency Ministers might require access to only some of the
powers set out in Clause 21 and, if so, whether the bill should
limit access to certain powers for certain types of emergency.
(Paragraph 62)
The triple lock
20. We believe that
the safeguards governing the use of emergency powers should be
included in the bill. Powers of this type should only be used
when absolutely necessary. There is clearly scope for these powers
to be misused. It seems to us that the bill which provides the
powers should also provide the necessary safeguards on their use.
(Paragraph 63)
Human rights
21. We conclude that
the provision to treat specialist legislative measures as primary
legislation for the purposes of the Human Rights Act should not
be included in the bill unless the Government can demonstrate
a clear and compelling need for the additional powers which it
provides. (Paragraph 68)
Parliamentary oversight
- We believe that regulations made under Clause
2 of the bill should be subject to affirmative resolution by both
Houses of Parliament. (Paragraph 71).
- We believe that consideration should be given
to whether the proclamation of an emergency, or its renewal, should
require to be approved by Parliament, perhaps in the same way
as the regulations made under it. (Paragraph 73)
| 
