Joint Committee on Draft Civil Contingencies Bill First Report

3 Category 1 and 2 Responders


82. The Bill's Schedule 1 lists the organisations to be included as Category 1 and 2 Responders. Category 1 Responders will have a statutory duty to assess and plan for an emergency, with further details to be laid out in regulations made under the Bill. Key duties will include risk assessment, maintaining plans to prevent or control an emergency, publishing assessments and plans, and maintaining arrangements to warn the public. At present, they include local authorities, emergency services, ambulance trusts, the Environment Agency and the Secretary of State in relation to maritime and coastal matters.

83. Category 2 Responders include utility companies, railways, airports and harbour authorities and the Health and Safety Executive. The Government told us that Category 2 currently includes "more than 400 private sector organisations".[75] They will be required, through regulations to be published under the Bill, to join with Category 1 Responders to establish arrangements for better communication, cooperation and information sharing.

84. The Government's Consultation Document asked stakeholders whether they thought the list was appropriate. We also sent out a separate letter to key NHS bodies and organisations in the energy, food and media sectors, asking whether they believed they should be included as a Category 1or 2 Responder.

85. We heard, in evidence from the Government, that their intention was "to capture the people who are at the core of or are essential in cooperating with the local effort. What we are not seeking to do is capture everyone who has even the most peripheral interest in planning in certain local areas".[76] Organisations that are not included in Category 1 or 2 are not intended to be excluded from the planning process: "Bodies that are not covered by the list for Category 1 or Category 2 can of course still continue to be involved in local civil protection".[77]

86. We have heard numerous suggestions about the inclusion of other organisations as Category 1 or 2 Responders. We note the Government's argument that Category 1 and 2 Responders should be focused on the core organisations at the heart of the emergency planning process and welcome the flexibility of the categories.[78] We consider below whether more local flexibility is required, given that different areas face very different threats. We also outline below the organisations that we believe ought to be added to the Category 1 and 2 lists.

Local flexibility

87. During the course of our scrutiny, a huge range of organisations have been suggested to us as suitable for inclusion in Category 1 and 2. It is evident that regional and local diversity means that many of the organisations that would be useful for emergency planning in say, Dartmoor, would be entirely inappropriate in London boroughs. This has led us to question whether the selection of organisations required to aid emergency planning should be allowed more local flexibility.

    "Agencies that are not listed in either Category 1 or 2 should, with consent of the Local Resilience Forum, be adopted (locally) on a temporary or permanent basis if appropriate".[80]

88. The Minister in charge of the Bill told us:

    "A central part of the intention of the Bill is to ensure that there is a national framework. In that sense we are keen to ensure that there is a degree of coherence in terms of the planning and framework that are in place. Bodies that are not covered by the list for Category 1 or Category 2 can of course still continue to be involved in local civil protection".[81]

89. We accept the Government's intention to create a national framework, and acknowledge that it would be impractical to put every relevant regional or local organisation into Category 2. We do not consider that local flexibility need affect this national framework however, but will instead enhance Category 1 Responders' abilities to ensure robust emergency planning in their area.

90. We recommend that Category 1 Responders should be able to require any person or organisation to cooperate in planning or training for a response to an emergency. This requirement should be reasonable, necessary, and only be imposed on those most conveniently placed to deal with an emergency, while not creating substantial burdens relative to the resources of any person. Any resources or services required by a person under this section should be paid for by the Category 1 Responder on the most favourable (to the Category 1 Responder) commercial terms.

Central and regional tiers

91. Part 2 of the Bill provides for the appointment of Emergency Coordinators (or, in England, Regional Nominated Coordinators) to coordinate an emergency response following the declaration of an emergency. No other reference to central government or regional government is made on the face of the Bill. Apart from functions related to maritime and coastal matters, central government departments and the regional tier are not given any statutory duties, and have no formal status in the process of contingency planning set out in Part 1. Devolved administrations are required to be consulted before regulations are published (although this can be disapplied), but their own responsibilities are not explained and they do not have any statutory duty placed upon them.

92. Central and regional government are referred to in the Consultation Document, which outlines the substantive responsibilities that central government undertakes regarding civil contingencies: "all [Government] departments have a responsibility to plan, prepare, train and exercise for handling incidents and emergencies that might occur within their field of responsibility".[82] These mirror the responsibilities of those included as Category 1 Responders. Rather than having a statutory responsibility to undertake these duties however, the Government is working to "establish standards against which departmental contingency planning activities can be monitored and audited".[83]

93. The Government has acknowledged that the regional tier proved inadequate during the flooding and the fuel crises in 2000: "arrangements at a regional level were unpractised and led to a disparity in response across the affected areas".[84] As a result, it has suggested that, "robust regional arrangements needed to be put in place".[85]

94. We have heard a range of views about the value and practicality of including central and regional government as Category 1 Responders. Several witnesses and consultation responses have suggested that placing statutory duties on central and regional tiers of government and devolved administrations would enhance the creation of a clear national civil contingencies framework:

    "The Society is convinced that both central and regional arms of government should be subject to the statutory duties in order that we have this single framework throughout the land".[86]

    "It is surprising that Government departments have "responsibilities to plan, prepare, train and exercise", yet are not to be included in the draft Bill".[87]

    "The absence of Government departments contradicts the ethos of response through the lead Government department principle".[88]

    "Civil protection is too important an area of public life for statutory responsibilities not to be imposed on any of the agencies which have key roles".[89]

    "We would certainly support regional government being involved as potentially a Category 1 Responder to provide that focus and coordination for regional response. It was our experience in both the fuel crisis and the foot and mouth outbreak… that we would have benefited from that in the early stages of the outbreak".[90]

    "Should the Welsh Assembly Government be listed as a Category 1 Responder, as it has responsibility for key funding on health, ambulances and other services?"[91]

95. We have heard from other witnesses that including central government in the Bill may not add much value to the process, as there are already non-statutory relationships and procedures in place:

    "Certainly from a health perspective in England we would be looking for the Department of Health to be providing direction and control and operational co-ordination in a very major incident at a regional or national level anyway, and whether or not that was covered by the statute I suspect would not make an awful lot of different at all to the way we engage with them".[92]

96. Rhodri Morgan, First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales, told us that he did not think that the National Assembly for Wales should be a Category 1 or 2 Responder because it had qualitatively different functions from those already included in the list:

    "no more than a Whitehall department - because we are not providers of the services. We are funders of the services, whether it is ambulance, health or, in the future after transfer, fire; but we are not the providers".[93]

97. However, in relation to foot and mouth, Mr Morgan told us that the Welsh Assembly was at the forefront of the response: "We did administer foot and mouth disease, even though we had no powers at all… We had to take de facto powers which we did not have and operate in a way which did not have legal backing, because that was the necessity of the situation".[94]

98. The Minister in charge of the Bill told us:

    "It is difficult to see how a sensible, meaningful duty could be imposed on central Government by way of statute".[95]

99. We note however, that Category 1 already includes "The Secretary of State, in so far as his functions relate to maritime and coastal matters".[96] Moreover, there are numerous examples of legislation imposing duties on Secretaries of State. Section 1 of the Police Reform Act 2002 requires the Secretary of State to prepare a national policing plan.[97] The Enterprise Act 2002 s118 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an agency's report subject to excisions.[98] The National Health Service Reform & Health Care Professions Act 2002 imposes a duty on the Secretary of State to establish Strategic Health Authorities and Health Authorities in Wales.[99]

100. The Minister also raised concerns that "there is a particular legal difficulty with [imposing a legal duty], in that Government Offices of the Regions do not have a separate legal personality and therefore to place a distinct legal burden upon them would be, to say the least, difficult".[100] We wonder how the Government's desire to make arrangements for the regional tier more robust[101] can be achieved with a regional administrative centre that does "not have a separate legal personality". In any case, we suggest that placing a statutory duty upon Secretaries of State will overcome this issue.

101. Given that central and regional government and the Welsh Assembly Government do in reality plan for and respond to emergency situations, we can see no reason for not according them a statutory duty to do so. At the moment, the Bill appears to be very 'bottom heavy', with all statutory duties being accorded to local providers and a cloak of invisibility being drawn over the regional and central tiers. It is entirely conceivable that a local emergency could turn into a regional one and then a national one. Given this potential, it is vital that the role of the regional and central tiers is clarified and codified, so that the chain of responsibilities is obvious to all. Without a statutory duty on central or regional tiers, it is difficult to see how the comprehensive national framework that the Government hopes to attain through this Bill can be achieved.

102. We recommend that the role and responsibilities of Government Departments, the National Assembly for Wales and regional government are outlined on the face of the Bill and that they are given a statutory duty to undertake their responsibilities.

Local government arrangements

103. County councils and Shire district councils are both included as Category 1 Responders, which in effect accords them the same duties and responsibilities. However, the Consultation Document states that, "county councils will take full responsibility for local authority civil protection planning in their area".[102] This has led to confusion about what the responsibilities of district councils will be and concern that their current role in emergency planning is being overlooked:

    "The district council seeks better definition for the responsibilities within each Category. It cannot support the view that no additional resources are required to meet the wider scope and potentially higher standards envisaged by the Bill".[103]

    "It is irrational to suggest that Shire counties take full responsibility for local authority civil protection planning in their area. Counties lack the resources, staffing and local expertise to effectively meet their proposed new responsibilities without the support of a District Emergency Planning Officer or equivalent in post".[104]

104. When we asked him to clarify matters, the Minister told us:

    "We believe the main civil protection burden will continue to fall on the counties as it does at present but the Bill will allow for clear roles and responsibilities and minimise duplication of effort. We have included districts in Category 1 because of their role in delivering key functions such as housing and environmental health".[105]

105. We recommend that the responsibilities, in England, of County councils and Shire District councils should be explicitly set out on the face of the Bill.

Fire and Civil Defence Authorities (FCDAs)

106. Under the draft Bill, FCDAs seem likely to be prevented from undertaking emergency planning arrangements on behalf of local authorities, as they have been doing in Tyne and Wear and Merseyside for several years. Several other FCDAs exist around England, although each has its own arrangements and duties. The Consultation Document states that "FCDAs will not exercise any aspects of the civil protection duties under the Bill on behalf of local authorities".[106] No explanation is given as to why this should be the case, except that "Joint working… is not always appropriate".[107] Some witnesses have strongly recommended that existing arrangements be allowed to continue:

    "There is no reason in principle why the imposition of an obligation on all local authorities should necessarily result in joint and collaborative arrangements ceasing. On the contrary, if all local authorities have similar obligations, there is very good reason why they should work together".[108]

    "I would advocate that good practice/excellent practice where it exists, such as Tyne and Wear, should continue".[109]

107. We recommend that the Government re-examine its stance and consider whether successful existing arrangements, such as Fire and Civil Defence Authorities, should be left in place.


108. We invited NHS organisations in England and Wales to comment on the fact that the only representatives of the Health Sector mentioned in the Bill were Ambulance trusts. All 22 replies contended that some or all of the NHS should be included as Category 1 or 2 Responders:

    "it is difficult to see how issues of availability, capacity etc of the NHS facilities could be addressed by anyone else".[111]

109. We heard from witnesses that certain parts of the NHS should be included in Category 1:

    "I think it is appropriate to have in Category 1 strategic health authorities, PCTs[112] and acute trusts. I think this is a recognised admission… they may not be a blue light in terms of the London ambulance or the ambulance service at large, but certainly the response and the planning is well within the remit and it is a key responsibility of the strategic health authority and the PCTs".[113]

    "From a Wales perspective where the structure is slightly different we agree that it should be both trusts, the ambulance service and local health boards as Category 1 organisations".[114]

    "The National Public Health Service absolutely should be a Category 1 Responder, to my mind. Their role is vital in response to incidents that involve chemicals, biological agents and that type of incident".[115]

110. We have heard that these parts of the NHS already undertake the emergency risk assessment and contingency planning required of Category 1 Responders:

    "The work around risk assessment and planning, information sharing and actual incident response is all part of general major accident planning and emergency preparedness in SHAs[116], NHS trusts and PCTs".[117]

    "All acute hospitals, PCTs, strategic health authorities and ambulance services in general have a responsibility to have an emergency plan with escalation triggered within those plans".[118]

111. There were varying degrees of support for including the Health Protection Agency (HPA) as a Category 1 or 2 Responder:

    "In terms of the Health Protection Agency within Wales and the National Public Health Service ... their role is vital in response to incidents that involve chemicals, biological agents and that type of incident".[119]

    "We would see the HPA very much as an advisory body providing advice and expertise to the NHS organisations … and in that advisory capacity I am not sure it would be necessary for the HPA to be categorised as a formal Category 1 or 2 respondent".[120]

    "It is important to note that by this time next year the HPA will not be part of the NHS and their role and responsibilities need to be clearly defined as a consequence of that transfer".[121]

112. It has been proposed that the National Blood Service, medical gas supply companies or NHS supply companies are included as Category 2 Responders, because "we have to be confident in our response, in our planning arrangements, that those services behind us can support us in the event of a long-term destructive challenge".[122] It was also noted, however, that by including pharmaceutical organisations "the Category 2 list would become never ending as a consequence."[123] We were also told that their inclusion may not be necessary as "there are emergency stores of mainline drugs around the country, both with the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Health, and it is something that the Department has access to on an as-required basis".[124]

113. In conclusion, we recommend that Category 1 also include (in England) Strategic Health Authorities, Primary Care Trusts, Acute Hospital Trusts, (in Wales) Local Health Boards, Public Health Services and the National Public Health Service for Wales.

114. We recommend that the Health Protection Agency, National Blood Service and Welsh Blood Service be included as Category 2 Responders.


115. Electricity, gas, water and telecommunications companies are included as Category 2 Responders under the Bill. Paragraphs 73-75 have already outlined the utility companies' concerns about an overlap in their own emergency planning duties under other legislation and the role of Category 1 Responders in this Bill.

116. We have also heard that the requirement for Category 2 Responders to provide information to all Category 1 Responders would cause utility companies practical and financial difficulty, not reflected in the Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment:

    "At the moment it is me that supports the London resilience forum, and if I were to support another nine regional committees all wanting to start at the same time there would be an issue not just of who would do it but what is the skillset if you were to put that under BT alone".[126]

    "As drafted, the Bill provides for each and every Category 1 Responder to require every Category 2 Responder to cooperate, attend meetings etc. ... In WPDs case, it interfaces with over 45 county, county borough and district councils alone, let alone the other Category 1 Responders".[127]

117. Many of the utilities advocated interfacing at county or regional level, rather than at local level:

    "We would certainly welcome a regional forum because having that regional footprint… particularly with our aqueduct network which stretches across that region, we have the scope to affect fairly quickly from a problem in Cumbria the citizens in Manchester for instance".[128]

    "if we were called in at a regional level and that replaced the need to liaise at a local level, that would help, but the question would then be whether you would be able to go into the detail required for local authorities working at that level".[129]

    "In respect of electricity we already interface with the county councils quite happily and successfully, and we would hope that they could take on the role of coordinating the interface with the local authorities below them".[130]

    "Virtually all local authorities are represented at county level and we do have regular exchanges with them, but the implication of having more detailed and more extensive exchanges, as is perhaps implied in the proposals, would require additional resources on our part to manage, but that testing and challenge of the preparedness does go on at county council level".[131]

118. The Government has acknowledged the utility companies' concern and has proposed that utilities be involved at local resilience forum level, based on police force areas:

    "Of course, utility companies do not always cover the whole country; they tend to cover a region, so realistically perhaps four or five interfaces with the local level for each utility company, which to our mind seems to strike the right balance in terms of the degree of involvement".[132]

119. We conclude that the Government's proposal to involve utilities at local resilience forum level represents a practical compromise.

Voluntary sector

120. The Government has chosen not to include the voluntary sector as Category 1 or 2 Responders, because "the skills and expertise available to the voluntary sector may vary from place to place".[133] In his evidence, the Minister in charge of the Bill said that:

    "Our concern in terms of framing the legislation was to ensure that we did not impose legal duties on organisations which, by their character, were unable to necessarily secure a uniform level of provision or service across the entirety of the country".[134]

121. Their involvement in local multi-agency planning and response will however be encouraged in the forthcoming guidance to the Bill.[135]

122. We have heard that the resources of the voluntary sector would be of great use in an emergency:

    "I think that the role of the voluntary organisations is vitally important and, from my own area, I have one particular allegiance with the WRVS and they are absolutely superb in providing an excellent service in the back up to the emergency services".[136]

    "we feel it is absolutely imperative that voluntary sectors are included as part of the planning organisations, but as part of the regional resilience committees and forums rather than as Category 1 or 2 Responders because we do feel it would be difficult to apply statutory responsibilities to voluntary organisations because of the obvious funding issues".[137]

    "we believe voluntary agencies could quite probably be treated as Category 2".[138]

123. There is varying opinion within the voluntary sector about whether they wish to be included as a Category 1 or 2 Responder or could deliver the demands this would place upon them.

124. The Red Cross told us that they should be made a Category 1 Responder: "With this unique status as auxiliary to the statutory authorities in the humanitarian field we feel strongly that we would be failing in our duty if we did not come in and support statutory partners and give humanitarian relief and that is why we have asked to be designated a Category 1 Responder."[139] The Red Cross later outlined a more flexible approach: "The Red Cross believes that the final legislation should place a statutory responsibility on Category 1 Responders to involve the relevant voluntary organisations in all aspects of civil protection. We are flexible as to how this might be achieved".[140]

125. Whilst all of the voluntary organisations that we spoke to believed that they had a valuable role to play in planning for or responding to an emergency, most did not believe that they should have a statutory duty imposed upon them:

    "I would like to stress that we see ourselves as giving assistance to and not assuming the principal role in providing support. We have some 30,000 volunteers, but we have to recognise that many of those volunteers also have other commitments and amongst our many volunteers are doctors, nurses and paramedics whose prime responsibility would be to respond principally to the National Health Service rather than St John Ambulance in times of emergency".[141]

    "It is the element of support in providing that which is in addition to that which is provided by the statutory services, which we feel is a very significant role and it is another dimension to the role that is provided in the case of an emergency and we would not want to commit ourselves to a task that we would not be able to fulfil perhaps in some locations".[142]

    "We recognise the problems of having statutory status not just from the point of view of guaranteeing a level of service but actually influencing the relationship we have with our funders at a local authority level and we have been working hard to try and secure funding streams there to support the work that we do and if we were to become a Category 1 status body that may have an impact at that level".[143]

126. There was support for voluntary organisations to have a consultative role in emergency planning:

    "we feel we should be consulted. We see ourselves as partners, albeit supportive partners and we believe we should be consulted by the Category 1 providers".[144]

    "I think the obligation on Category 1 Responders to consult with the voluntary organisations would perhaps lead to a more consistent approach to emergency planning and the way the involvement of voluntary organisations is managed".[145]

    "there needs to be some inclusive approach to the voluntary sector, something explicit within the Act, so passing the responsibility on the Category 1 or perhaps 2 Responders… what we should ultimately end up with is the voluntary sector appropriately involved in every aspect of civil protection".[146]

127. We have also heard concerns that local flexibility is vital if the most appropriate voluntary organisations are to be involved in emergency planning:

    "Providing a list of who would be Category 2 in particular is difficult because there is so much local variation. As an example, in Lincolnshire we might actually want the marsh wardens who work in The Wash actually to be involved at that level. I am sure that to put them in the list would not mean that in London you would have marsh wardens… There needs to be that flexibility".[147]

    "Clearly the national voluntary organisations are able to get involved at a national level but there are different parts of the country, like Dartmoor, where there are lots of local organisations who support emergency planning for those areas and I think it is vital they have the ability to have that flexibility".[148]

    "That represents a positive flexibility, in the sense of drawing into consultation those specialist organisations in particular parts of the country which have something particular to offer. St John Ambulance does not believe it will be correct to provide flexibility so that some organisations could be excluded from consultation".[149]

128. We recommend that a statutory duty be placed upon Category 1 Responders to consult with and involve relevant voluntary organisations in civil contingency planning.

129. Given the plethora of voluntary organisations and the individual requirements of local areas, we recommend that Category 1 Responders be given flexibility to identify and consult with the most relevant voluntary organisations in their area.

Nuclear and chemical sites

130. No mention is made in the draft Bill about sites that have the potential to create emergencies, for example operators of establishments subject to the Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) Regulations. This could include major chemical factories or nuclear plants.

131. Given their potential to cause, as well as their ability to respond to a major disaster, we recommend that the Government consider whether to include in Category 2 all operators of establishments subject to the Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) Regulations and organisations that have an emergency response through national schemes, including the National Arrangements for Incidents involving Radioactivity (NAIR), RADSAFE and CHEMSAFE.

Private sector industries

132. At present, railways, airports and harbour authorities are included as Category 2 Responders. The House of Commons Transport Committee has suggested that consideration be given to including road based transport enterprises:

133. This view is endorsed by others:

    "Major transport providers should be aligned to this Category [2]… because local authorities rely on transport to take people from the incident site to rest centres and therefore there must be that cooperative requirement for us to be able to plan adequately".[153]

    "Bus operating companies and/ or transport authorities with bus operating responsibilities should be included as Category 2 Responders".[154]

134. We have also heard evidence that the food and drink industry should be included as Category 2 Responders:

    "The industry plays a key, strategic and vital role in the UK Economy and Category 1 Responders need to be aware of the 'emergency' impacts on the industry".[155]

    "Food and animal feed producers, processors, distributors and retailers should be considered for inclusion in Category 2".[156]

    "There are a number of central government agencies - a couple that come immediately to mind are the Food Standards Agency and the Health Protection Agency - that have a major role to play in many emergencies.[157]

135. Others have suggested including private security firms as Category 2 Responders.

136. We have not had an opportunity to take oral evidence from these sectors and therefore have not had time to explore these areas in great depth. We recommend that the Government consider whether to include the Highways Agency, transport enterprises, fuel suppliers, the food sector and private security firms as Category 1 or 2 Responders.

75   Q 275, Mr Hargreaves (Head of Bill Team, Civil Contingencies Secretariat). Back

76   Q 280, Mr Hargreaves (Head of Bill Team, Civil Contingencies Secretariat). Back

77   Q 282, Mr Alexander (Minister of State, Cabinet Office). Back

78   The Consultation Document states that "Movement between the two categories will be possible under the Bill. New organisations may be added in future in either Category", chapter 3, para 14, p 18. Back

79   Memorandum from NCCP, Ev 243, question 2. Back

80   Memorandum from Mid Bedfordshire Council, Ev 236, question 3. Back

81   Q 282, Mr Alexander (Minister of State, Cabinet Office). Back

82   Consultation Document, Chapter 5, para 5, p26. Back

83   Ibid, Chapter 5, para 6, p26. Back

84   Ibid, Chapter 1, para 4, p9. Back

85   Ibid, Chapter 1, para 4, p9. Back

86   Q 13, Mr Ward (Emergency Planning Society). Back

87   Memorandum from Kirklees Metropolitan Council, Ev 230, question 3. Back

88   Memorandum from Ceredigion County Council, Ev 198, question 2. Back

89   Memorandum from Brent Council, Ev 184, question 2. Back

90   Q 332, Mr Miller (United Utilities). Back

91   Memorandum from North Wales Police, Ev 248, question 3. Back

92   Q 309 Mr Kealy (West Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority. Back

93   Q 152, Mr Morgan (National Assembly for Wales). Back

94   Q 131 and Q 133, Mr Morgan (National Assembly for Wales). Back

95   Q 265, Mr Alexander (Minister of State, Cabinet Office). Back

96   Draft Civil Contingencies Bill, Schedule 1. Back

97   Police Reform Act 2002, Ch. 30, 1. Back

98   Enterprise Act 2002 s118. Back

99   National Health Service Reform & Health Care Professions Act 2002, Ch. 17. Back

100   Q 283, Mr Alexander (Minister of State, Cabinet Office). Back

101   Consultation Document, Chapter 1, para 4, p9. Back

102   Ibid, chapter 3, para 10, p 17. Back

103   Memorandum from Rochford District Council, Ev 260, Part 1, para 2 and Part 2, para 2. Back

104   Memorandum from Exeter City Council, Ev 216, question 2. Back

105   Q 277, Mr Alexander (Minister of State, Cabinet Office). Back

106   Consultation Document, chapter 3, para 31, p20. Back

107   IbidBack

108   Q 10, Mr Griffin (Local Government Association). Back

109   Q 10, Mr Ward (Emergency Planning Society). Back

110   Memorandum from Northumberland and Tyne & Wear Strategic Health Authority, Ev 248. Back

111   Memorandum from Ceredigion Local Health Board, Ev 201. Back

112   Abbreviation for Primary Care Trusts. Back

113   Q 299, Mr Pullin (South West London Strategic Health Authority). Back

114   Q 299, Mr Williams (North Wales Health Emergency Planning Group). Back

115   Q 307, Mr Williams (North Wales Health Emergency Planning Group). Back

116   Abbreviation for Strategic Health Authorities. Back

117   Q 302, Mr Kealy (West Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority). Back

118   Q 303, Mr Pullin (South West London Strategic Health Authority). Back

119   Q 307, Mr Williams (North Wales Health Emergency Planning Group). Back

120   Q 307, Mr Kealy (West Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority). Back

121   Q 307, Mr Pullin (South West London Strategic Health Authority). Back

122   Q 300, Mr Williams (North Wales Health Emergency Planning Group). Back

123   Q 308, Mr Pullin (South West London Strategic Health Authority). Back

124   IbidBack

125   Q 327, Mr Miller (United Utilities). Back

126   Q 326, Mr Turner (British Telecom). Back

127   Memorandum from Western Power Distribution, Ev 141, paras 15-16. Back

128   Q 327, Mr Miller (United Utilities). Back

129   Q 326, Mr Tuner (British Telecom). Back

130   Q 328, Mr West (Western Power Distribution). Back

131   Q 329, Mr Miller (United Utilities). Back

132   Q 279, Mr Hargreaves (Head of Bill Team, Civil Contingencies Secretariat). Back

133   Consultation Document, chapter 3, para 13, p 18. Back

134   Q 275, Mr Alexander (Minister of State, Cabinet Office). Back

135   Consultation Document, chapter 3, para 13, p18. Back

136   Q 19, Mr Ward (Emergency Planning Society). Back

137   Q 39, Mr Dobson (London Fire Brigade). Back

138   Q 41, Mr Goldsmith (Association of Chief Police Officers). Back

139   Q 359, Ms Beardshaw (Red Cross). Back

140   Q 370, Ms Beardshaw (Red Cross). Back

141   Q 361, Mr Brown (St John Ambulance). Back

142   Q 362, Major Cochrane (Salvation Army). Back

143   Q 363, Mr Lever (Women's Royal Voluntary Service). Back

144   Q 370, Mr Brown (St John Ambulance). Back

145   Q 370, Mr Lever (Women's Royal Voluntary Service). Back

146   Q 363, Ms Wood-Heath (National Voluntary Aid Society Emergency Committee). Back

147   Q 41, Mr Goldsmith (Association of Chief Police Officers). Back

148   Q 371, Mr Lever (Women's Royal Voluntary Service). Back

149   Q 371, Mr Brown (St John Ambulance). Back

150   Abbreviation for London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. Back

151   Memorandum from London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, Ev 233, question 3. Back

152   Memorandum from the House of Commons Transport Committee, Appendix 2. Back

153   Q 23, Mr Ward (Emergency Planning Society). Back

154   Memorandum from Kirklees Metropolitan Council, Ev 230, para B. Back

155   Memorandum from the Food and Drink Federation, Ev 219. Back

156   Memorandum from the Food Standards Agency Wales, Ev 219, para 4. Back

157   Q 14, Mr Griffin (Local Government Association). Back

previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 28 November 2003