Civil Contingencies Bill
9:30 am

As I said on Second Reading, the Bill has been developed following a wide-ranging process of consultation and discussion. We are grateful for the contribution of the Joint Committee of both Houses, which considered the Bill when it was published in draft last summer. We will listen to the points raised by all members of the Committee and will reflect on the arguments. Looking around the Room, I am conscious already of the experience and expertise that will be brought to bear on the Bill.

As a service to members of the Committee, I have ensured that my Department has provided a pack of the relevant documentation for the clauses to be taken this morning; it is available on the Table. I also make

clear our commitment to updating the legislation on civil protection in this country, which is the principal reason for the Bill. The Bill and the accompanying non-legislative measures will deliver a single framework of civil protection for the United Kingdom to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I commend the motion to the Committee.

Mr. Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): I join in the welcome to you in the Chair, Sir John. We have spent many a happy hour on Committees considering Finance Bills under your expert chairmanship, so we know that we are in safe hands today.

I also join in the remarks about Lady Butterfill. We missed you last night, Sir John, at the meeting last night of the Programming Sub-Committee and we all join in the hopes and wishes for a speedy recovery for her. I do not think that I have said this on the record, but it is a marvellous thing that you are now Sir John. It is something that I know will be welcome to all sides of the Committee.

We have grave reservations about programming Committee sittings. There was no problem with the old system, which enabled the usual channels to reach agreement about progress in Committee. Although on this occasion I have been fortunate to discuss matters with the Government Whip—who has been extremely reasonable, accommodating and co-operative, as she always is—there is still always the danger that the debate will develop as we go through the clauses and that we will reach a point where, quite reasonably, we need a little more time here and perhaps a little less time there. We are very much against the inflexibility of programming. Therefore, in the best possible spirit, I say—as I did last night—that we do not accept programming, or this programme.

It is worth considering the range of issues that we must cover on the Bill. As was clear on Second Reading, the Bill raises points of law of severe complexity. Hon. and learned Members asked, for example, why part 2 of the Bill contained exceptions to the regulations that could be made in an emergency in respect of strikers and those who may not wish to serve in the forces. Reservations are made in the Bill about those particular human rights, but no reservation is made for the rights that the Human Rights Act 1998 conveys.

There are definitional issues and we shall debate the meaning of ''an emergency'' in parts 1 and 2; the meaning is different in each. It has been suggested that in making the regulations in part 2, it might be better if a Privy Council committee were involved, where practicable, in deciding whether emergency powers could be used in particular circumstances to provide the sort of reassurance that a wartime, all-party, National Government style of Cabinet would bring to such proceedings. We want to press the Minister on what could be done to give a more all-party feel to that aspect.

The Local Government Association has raised concerns about the imposition of duties—seven in all in clause 2—without the provision of necessary resources. Very fairly, the Minister said on Second

Reading that he was prepared to discuss the matter with local authorities and that it was not the Government's intention to impose burdens without adequate resources, but the track record of the Government is such that we have some doubts about that. We shall press him on the matter.

The question arises of the nature of the work force that will enable emergencies to be tackled. As was made clear on Second Reading, it is not enough to rely on our marvellous public servants who can tackle the ordinary situations that they encounter. The example that I gave on Second Reading was that if a dirty bomb fell on a medium-sized city in this country, the point would come relatively quickly where the emergency services were spent. Which reserves would then come into play? The Government have said that defence forces will be available. However, the concern is that the required numbers are not available on the ground. Often, territorial personnel are committed to theatres elsewhere in the world. Is there a case for a volunteer reserve force that would bring together the necessary skills so that more manpower is available?

The Police Federation has made the point that it is necessary to rationalise the organisational structure that would follow a civil emergency in order to provide a new tier of organisation. It talks about making

''clear and unambiguous issues pertaining to jurisdiction, remit, lines of control and lines of communication.''

It also talks about permitting

''proper and effective coordination between public bodies and utilities''

and providing

''the full backing of the law to individuals with designated civil emergency roles and responsibilities.''

We want to probe the structure that underlines the Bill and whether it would produce a practicable and effective response to the sort of emergencies to which the Bill refers.

We are concerned that the appraisal that was commissioned by Scotland Yard—the Unicorn project—has shown big voids in the sort of cover available in London, particularly in the business sphere. We want to examine the arrangements that exist to protect our businesses and what more needs to be done, particularly in the communications field, as highlighted by the report.

At times when our nation has been threatened, arrangements have been put in place for public training and education. More could be done without frightening the public, and it is necessary for our society to prepare for the new threats that we face. For many of the years of my lifetime, the threat that we seemed to face came from the USSR, and we made preparations with that in mind. The current threat is not a certain one; it is more the threat of uncertainty, risk and an unknown form of terrorism. We must ensure that the public are aware of the likely ways in which we might have to deal with the current threat as opposed to that of previous years.

With regard to the motion, it is always helpful if a Minister can provide the Committee with the latest information on any draft regulations that his Department is preparing for the Bill. It would be

helpful if the Minister told us of the latest situation on drafting regulations for this Bill. We do not agree with the motion, but we hope that it will be possible to fit all the important issues and concerns into the time frame set out.

Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD): I echo the comments of the previous speakers about your chairmanship, Sir John, and the good wishes to yourself and your wife at this time.

We do not have any problem about the principle of programme motions, and we think that Programming Sub-Committees are quite sensible. I say that with a certain degree of shame, as I was unable to attend the Programming Sub-Committee sitting last night. I was in a Public Accounts Committee dealing with the fascinating subject of duty on Scotch whisky; so one can understand that we were, to a degree, distracted. [Interruption.] It was a spirited discussion, as the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn) says. I emerged from it to find that I had just missed the Programming Sub-Committee, for which I extend my apologies.

In general terms, we are comfortable with the programme motion; we were not happy with the motion on the Order Paper on Second Reading, because there had been no prior discussion. The motion was put to me before the Programming Sub-Committee sat and we were broadly content with it.

As we said on Second Reading, our main concerns are with part 2, in which there are important principles to discuss. The motion allows us to have a serious debate about part 2; therefore, we do not seek to block it.