Orders of the Day — Civil Contingencies Bill

House of Commons, 24 May 2004.

New Clause 11 — Scotland: Cross-Border Collaboration

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 82 to 89.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I want first to put on the record my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who cannot be with us this afternoon because he is on paternity leave as the proud father of a daughter, Eve, I think, born about 10 days ago. I am sure the House would wish to join me in that.

I am very much looking forward to the debate this afternoon. Having briefed myself fairly rapidly over the weekend, I know that the Bill has already undergone a huge amount of scrutiny, including pre-legislative scrutiny and two forms of public consultation. There is a plethora of information before us, but I am sure that we will have more extremely good scrutiny this afternoon.

As the House will be aware, the Government, working closely with the devolved Administrations, seek to ensure that civil protection is delivered in a coherent fashion throughout the United Kingdom. New clause 11 and Government amendments Nos. 82 to 89 seek to address the issue of cross-border co-operation and information sharing.

Co-operation and information sharing are absolutely fundamental to effective civil protection arrangements. Emergencies are no respecters of boundaries, and it is important that collaboration take place across borders as well as within them. The amendments that I now propose follow from further discussions that the Government have had with the Scottish Executive. We have looked again at the circumstances in which co-operation and exchange of information should take place, and have concluded that a number of changes to the Bill are required.

As a product of the devolution settlement, in this Bill, Scottish responders not exercising reserved functions come under the jurisdiction of Scottish Ministers. Local responders in England and Wales—and responders performing reserved functions in Scotland—come under the jurisdiction of UK Ministers. At present, Scottish Ministers can require Scottish responders to co- operate with other Scottish responders, and UK Ministers can require English, Welsh or UK-wide responders to cooperate with each other, but there is no power to require cross-border co-operation and information sharing.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) is not in his place today, as he highlighted the lacuna in the legislation in Committee. It would appear to be an important gap in our legislative armoury.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am grateful to the Minister for crediting my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) with having picked that point up in Committee on 29 January, with his typically detailed eye. Unfortunately, he had a constituency engagement today that he could not cancel, but he is devastated not to be here. I hope that the Minister will understand.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am sorry to hear that he is devastated, but we are grateful to him for his sharp and keen eye. I understand that proceedings on the Bill have been non-partisan, and I am happy to continue in that vein and give credit where it is due.

An example of the problem is that if the Maritime and Coastguard Agency required information held by a chief constable or a local authority in Scotland, there is currently no power for Ministers to require such disclosure. I understand that two other organisations that exercise reserved powers in Scotland—the Health and Safety Executive and the British Transport Police—could have similar problems. There is also currently no means of imposing an obligation on responders to collaborate across borders. When planning for any incident—not just a terrorist incident, but perhaps a plane crash or spread of an infectious disease—it is important that all relevant authorities be familiar with each other's plans, whether or not there is a national boundary separating them. There need to be clear powers to ensure that that happens.

New clause 11 and amendments Nos. 82 and 83 will allow Ministers to ensure that such collaboration takes place, thereby ensuring the coherence of the UK civil protection framework. Amendments Nos. 84 to 86 supplement these provisions by ensuring that the general provisions in the Bill relating to enforcement and information sharing apply to cross border situations.

Given their respective roles in managing the civil protection framework across the UK, it is also important to ensure that communication between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive works well.Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 are technical amendments intended to clarify the requirement to consult each other where that is appropriate. The effect of those amendments is to establish a clear requirement on UK Ministers to consult Scottish Ministers when making provisions affecting responders exercising functions in Scotland. There is also a clear requirement on Scottish Ministers to consult UK Ministers when making any order under part 1 of the Bill. That will ensure that, while the UK Government and the Scottish Executive have responsibilities in the Bill that rightly reflect the devolution settlement, they will exercise those responsibilities in a coherent and consistent fashion.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I associate the official Opposition with the good wishes to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and his wife and baby girl. I am sure that he will find this a busy time, although not, I hope, as noisy as it is in Parliament—although you never can tell with babies.

In Committee we had a detailed discussion of the relationships between the parts of the United Kingdom in connection with emergencies and the way in which they should be tackled under parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. The principle of reciprocity, and of ensuring that each part of the United Kingdom was capable of responding effectively, was discussed at considerable length by all members of the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who made a great deal of it, and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who has already been mentioned.

Our particular concern was that in border areas there are, for example, hospitals, strategic health authorities and other authorities that provide services on both sides of the border. The Minister has mentioned one or two of the other authorities, such as maritime authorities and the Health and Safety Executive. We were keen that the Bill should make such arrangements more transparent than they originally were, and I am pleased that it has been possible, in consultation with the Scottish Parliament, to agree on more effective and better defined wording. I welcome the new clause and the amendments, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give a bit more detail about how the arrangements would work—with a hospital authority, for example.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I, too, associate myself with the good wishes that have been offered to the Minister for the Cabinet Office. We shall miss him today, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), because in the good-humoured proceedings in Committee they traded lawyerly tales about places in Scotland of which I know nothing. It is a pleasure to be able to speak about the first group of amendments on a note of concord, rather than the discord that we often experience in the House.

The amendments are indeed welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland had asked me to draft some amendments to pick up the issues that he raised in Committee; I am relieved that the Government have been able to do that, so that I did not have to tackle the job myself. We identified the problem, but the solution was clearly going to be complex in drafting terms, and the amendments before us deal adequately with that complexity.

I am pleased that the Minister cited word for word the example offered by my hon. Friend in Committee. There is a true spirit of cross-party co-operation when the Minister's speech quotes elements of Opposition Members' concerns when she responds to them. That reflects the fact that my hon. Friend precisely identified a difficulty with the original wording, and I am comforted by the Minister's assurance that her amendments seek to address that precise difficulty. There is no more to be said about this group of amendments. I welcome them.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The Minister said that there had been consultations with the Scottish Parliament. Were there similar consultations with the National Assembly for Wales? The Assembly says that the problem is that

"the Bill does not take into account the constitutional and practical implications of devolution in Wales and does not provide the National Assembly with adequate powers to ensure the proper preparation and implementation of emergency plans in Wales."

That is not a party view; it comes to the House from the appropriate Committee—the Local Government and Public Services Committee, chaired by the appropriate Minister. The Committee continues:

"The contradiction implicit in having political accountability for matters for which legal responsibility has not been devolved has since been recognised, with the Welsh Assembly Government requesting the transfer of animal health and welfare powers to the Assembly. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has confirmed that the UK Government does not expect to have difficulty with this proposal and the transfer of powers is now scheduled for autumn 2004."

A specific example of the constitutional contradiction that is written into the Bill appears in clause 9, which allows Ministers of the Crown to require category 1 and 2 responders to provide information on compliance with part 1 of the Bill and to specify how and when such information should be provided.

At present, however, the Bill does not require the UK Government even to notify the National Assembly that they are obtaining such information from agencies in Wales. Many such bodies obtain funding from the National Assembly, and work in partnership with it to deliver services in devolved areas. As a result, their performance in those areas is already monitored by the National Assembly.

The Local Government and Public Services Committee believes that the Bill should be amended to confirm that monitoring powers under clause 9 will be given to the National Assembly for Wales or at the very least to require the UK Government to consult the National Assembly before exercising those powers. The Committee recommends that part 1 should be amended to confirm that the powers of the National Assembly regarding Wales are roughly equivalent to those given to Scottish Ministers regarding Scotland. In turn, that would remove the need for clause 15, which requires the National Assembly to be consulted or give its consent before Ministers or the Crown act under certain provisions in part 1 relating to Wales.

Similarly, to ensure that practical issues arising from an emergency in Wales can be dealt with swiftly and efficiently, the Committee recommends that clause 19 be amended to allow the National Assembly to make emergency regulations concerning events or situations. I shall not deal with the matter at further length, because time is short, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has pointed out. However, I wanted to put the issue on the record, as Ministers in Cardiff and the Committee have been asking for the change. If the Minister cannot give me a reply today, I should be grateful if she could write telling me what consideration and what meetings, if any, have taken place on those important issues.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am glad that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has disrupted what was becoming a cosy, consensual, self-congratulatory session all-round. I always become suspicious when Front Bench spokesmen congratulate one another on how marvellous everything has been, how productive their discussions have been, how wonderful the Committee debates were, and generally what a jolly good job they have all done. The hon. Gentleman has, in his inimitable way, put his finger on the downside of devolution. That is not what he meant to do, but he has done so none the less.

We have been told all too often about the wonders of devolution and how our relatively small country will do so much better if it is broken up into its constituent parts. We have extra bureaucracies, additional Governments and Assemblies and so on, and for the first time, a statute has set out how difficult such an arrangement can be.

It is a great challenge in a genuinely integrated state to respond to the horrors of terrorism, but it is much more difficult to do so when we must deal with the multifarious bureaucracies that we have been crazy enough to set up in the United Kingdom. Proposed subsection (1)(a), for example, says that regulations may be made

"permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 2 or 4 of that Schedule to co-operate, to such extent and in such manner as may be specified, with the person or body listed in Part 1 of that Schedule in connection with the performance of the duty".

That is just for starters, and sets the tone for pages of jargon that attempt to identify the ways in which we will achieve the laudable aims that the Minister set out at the beginning of our debate—collaboration, familiarity with each other's plans and so on. However, we must remember that we are discussing a complex set of organisations that, in normal circumstances, it would be difficult to encourage to co-operate with one another, including category 1 responders—local authorities, emergency services, health services and so on—and category 2 responders, including electricity, gas, and water and communications suppliers, railway and underground companies, airports, harbours and highways.

All these will be expected to share each other's plans and, no doubt, each other's aspirations, to collaborate and co-operate in what will inevitably be the most difficult imaginable circumstances—and that against a background of the fact that we have deliberately and gratuitously created, some would argue, artificial and unnecessary borders and lines of demarcation within this small country under the rubric of devolution.

Here for the first time we have a very real problem created by devolution and, incidentally, some hidden costs, I suspect. In all the wallowing in mutual and self-congratulation that we heard a moment ago, I did not hear anybody mention costs. Does anybody imagine that the process will be cost free? Has the Minister given an estimate, or has she even been asked what the costs will be? Maybe one of those who spent such a delightful time in Committee teased that information out. I hope they did; it certainly was their duty to do so. If members of the Committee did not do any teasing, this is the time for us to do some teasing on Report.

We are entitled to know, albeit in general terms, the likely cost of all the collaboration and co-operation, given what we expect to emerge from the complex working not only of the schedule, but of the new clause and all that goes with it. Surely if the provisions are to be made to work properly, not only are the Scottish Executive and the relevant and parallel English ministries involved, but all the category 1 and category 2 responders, all of which are being asked to do something additional, over and above what they would have done before, if, as we are led to believe, the work of the Committee was so valuable in identifying the additional work that had to be done to make the collaboration and co-operation that much more effective.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

There is a way of short-circuiting that. The Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998 are not entrenched legislation—we do not have such a thing. All the consultations could be bypassed by making the Act a United Kingdom Act and giving the authority to the central authorities in Whitehall.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is an intriguing thought. We could undevolve, if I might express it in that rather inelegant way, those functions that we considered essential to deal properly with the sort of contingencies that we fear might arise under the Bill. That at least would be a consideration. Just as an aside, my own favoured approach would be that from time to time we should offer people further referendums to ask them whether they still want what some of them, at least, voted for those years ago in terms of devolution. I am very keen that the people of London, for example, be offered a further referendum—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. That may well be of interest to the right hon. Gentleman, but we ought to be debating in a little more detail new clause 11—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

More detail? Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. Delighted for your—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

—rather than referendums.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I thought that might tease the House a little, Madam Deputy Speaker, but your instructions are for me to go into more detail. How can I possibly ignore that? Let us get on with the detail, shall we? Having just run round the course fairly briefly, we can now really get down to what it is all about.

Under "Category 1 Responders: General"—this is the detail of the schedule that is referred to in the new clause—the local authorities enumerated in relation to England are county councils, district councils, borough councils—at least, the schedule states "a London borough council". I wonder whether the other unitary authorities have been missed out. The schedule does not mention them. We have county councils, district councils and a London borough council, the common council of the City of London and the council of the Isles of Scilly. We then come, in relation to Wales, to county councils and a county borough council. Presumably that subsumes the others as well.

Already it is clear that there is a complex of local authorities at various levels that are tasked as category 1 responders to participate in the process that the new clause envisages. We now have the potential to begin to see—this is the point I was making before I got side-tracked into referendums, which I will leave for another day—what the real cost could be.

With regard to costs, I always stand to be corrected by those who spent so much time in Committee doing such useful work in collaboration with one another, as we have been told. Perhaps they know or have some idea of the additional costs of the tasks identified by the new clause.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the key to whether the Bill will work is extra resources. Questions were asked many times about that issue. During pre-legislative scrutiny, approximately 200 responders made the same point, and answer there was none.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have always had my suspicions of pre-legislative scrutiny. I know that we are all supposed to say that it is a wonderful thing and that we should have lots more of it, but one sometimes wonders about it. Sometimes it identifies more questions than answers, and this is a very good case in point. It should be possible to pursue those questions during the parliamentary process, but given the time restrictions, there may not be the opportunity to do so. None the less, we have plenty of time to consider the amendments before us. That is why this is a very appropriate point for us to rehearse yet again the question of costs.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

On inquiry as to whether Walsall metropolitan borough council had made an assessment of the cost implications, my emergency planning officer said:

"The full impact of the Act will not be fully assessed until the regulations come out—the detail. The regulations will give a clear idea of the impact on local authorities."

I do not think that the Government are in a position to give any indication of the cost.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Oh dear; it is worse than I thought. We are being asked yet again to sign a blank cheque.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

rose—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

It appears that my hon. Friend is about to give us the details of that cheque.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

My right hon. Friend is making an important point about money. The Government say that they are not increasing the funding and that the civil grant, which deals with civil contingencies, will remain at the same level this year as last. It is hard to reconcile that position, however, with the extra duties that are being imposed on councils in the new clause.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Should we be allowing the Bill to proceed if we are completely ignorant of the likely costs? Would we not be failing in our duty as the custodians of the taxpayer's interests if we were to pass the Bill, admirable though its intent may be, without any idea of what it will cost either at local authority level, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) pointed out, or at a broader level, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) implies? Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) indicated, we do not have any idea about the National Assembly for Wales or his local authorities.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I believe that councils throughout the country are holding staged events to put the procedures to the test, so the costs will probably become a lot more apparent over coming months. My right hon. Friend may therefore have a very good point in saying that we are looking at the issues too early, as the costings will not be available until the councils have carried out those procedures.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

In that case, this is a bit like horses and carts. We are apparently producing some very complex legislation. Let us be in no doubt that the new clause is extremely complicated and ambitious in what it seeks to do. The Minister outlined what it seeks to achieve in terms of collaboration, mutual exchange of information, co-operation across borders and the like. All those intentions are admirable—let us hope that the arrangements will work effectively—but there must be a cost. Training must be required and channels of communication must be opened up. No doubt, that will be complicated—I mention this only in passing—by the different legal systems in England and Scotland, which may well be relevant.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

But is not the dilemma that my right hon. Friend faces, and we all face, that it is vital that we have a proper structure for civil contingencies? The structure in part 1 cannot work without new clause 11, and given the urgency of the situation and the need for the action, surely it has to go ahead?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That may or may not be the case. I must confess that the proposition that something "has to go ahead" always worries me, because I like to know a little more about the facilitation or underpinning involved in doing so.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I have every sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's general point about the overall cost of the legislation, about which we, too, have expressed concern, but I suggest to him that the new clause will be a cost-saving measure. Under the Bill as originally drafted, the problem was that no Scottish local authority could be empowered to give information to a body such as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which would have had to go and get it for itself. Although we have concerns about the general scope of the Bill, I think that the new clause will be a net cost saver.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, as far as it goes. "Empowerment" is a wonderful word—a very Liberal Democrat word—that sounds good when one says it, but that is not what new clause 11 is about. It is about "permitting"—a good old-fashioned word that is far better than "empowerment"—or "requiring". I am focusing on the "requiring" part because that usually means additional effort, which usually means additional cost. Empowerment or permitting could be cost-free, I suppose—although even then, it is conceivable that additional costs might be involved in empowering a body that desperately wants to share information with another, but is otherwise unable to do so.

Let us consider the matter from a different angle. The other day, we heard that the new Home Office headquarters that is rising magnificently before our eyes in Marsham street is no longer big enough because the number of Home Office bureaucrats has increased so much over the past few years that that brand-new, state-of-the-art building, which is not yet completed, cannot house them all.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will address his remarks to the new clause under discussion.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I was about to suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, that perhaps the Home Office could second some of its bureaucrats to the authorities that will be required under new clause 11 to produce collaboration, co-operation and communication. Having probed a little on the surface the problems that could arise from the new clause, I am trying, in my usual way, to be helpful. Instead of putting the cost burden on to these hapless category 1 and category 2 responders, why does not the Home Office release, on secondment or permanently, some of its burgeoning numbers of bureaucrats to assist in the process that new clause 11 requires of those responders? That is an idea to conjure with. Without going into what on earth they are all doing and why they will not fit into the new building—that is a matter for another occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker—it gives one pause for thought.

All in all, I find this rather unsatisfactory. Fine words and fine aspirations give us all pleasure, but surely we are here to satisfy ourselves, on behalf of the taxpayer, that what is being done is proper and appropriate, of reasonable cost, and justified in terms of burdens on the taxpayer. I should have thought that all those things normally go together. Frankly, I am rather shocked to find that the Bill has reached this advanced stage without our being given any idea whatsoever of what its true cost will be. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy helpfully pointed out, even the much vaunted pre-legislative scrutiny process did not elicit that information. Throughout the pre-legislative process and the legislative process—in Standing Committee and, now, on Report—we have been unable to extract from the Government any idea of the likely additional cost to the taxpayer.

It may not only be the taxpayer but the consumer, because the category 2 responders include utilities, transport and so on. One would imagine that, unless the Government were going to give them some sort of grant—I very much doubt that—the burden was likely to fall on the consumer, who is one and the same as the taxpayer. The costs may therefore come under a different, more stealthy heading.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. The right hon. Gentleman once again strays rather wide of the new clause. Discussion of the Bill's overall provisions, including cost, may be raised on Third Reading.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am always delighted to follow your guidance, Madame Deputy Speaker. I like to keep some ammunition for later—I do not like to use it all at once. Given that many groups of amendments remain to be considered and that we have some four hours in which to do that, I will follow your guidance. I hope that the Minister can help us with some of the questions that I have asked. I am sure that we all look forward to probing much more deeply into these matters as our proceedings continue.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I was about to say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that there was a danger of a little too much consensus, so I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has brought us down to earth with a bump.

The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) asked about the way in which, for example, hospital authorities might collaborate across borders. I am sure that he knows that well established mutual aid arrangements already exist everywhere in the United Kingdom. In the health service, there is often a great deal of cross-referral from primary to secondary and tertiary care. That is as true in the border areas as in the rest of the country. There are well established schemes between local responders. The new clause helps to clarify the position even better than the custom and practice that already existed. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured.

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) raised issues about Wales. Obviously, discussions have taken place with both devolved authorities to get the Bill right. It is important that the relationships between England and Scotland and England and Wales and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom, are appropriate and that people play their appropriate role. As I said, a fundamental part of the Bill is about coherence, consistency, collaboration and information sharing. There is a proposal to draw up a concordat with the National Assembly for Wales and with the Scottish Executive to set out the way in which that might work in practice. The hon. Gentleman's point about information sharing could properly be considered in that concordat. A proposal to amend the Bill at this stage is probably disproportionate. The issue that he properly raised can be tackled in regulations, guidance and the concordat between the relevant parties.

The hon. Gentleman obviously knows that to have that communication between Her Majesty's Government and the National Assembly, whereby regulations are made that apply to bodies within the Assembly's jurisdiction, a Minister of the Crown has to seek the Assembly's consent. In other cases, in which a UK Minister legislates for Wales, consultation must take place between the two bodies. Clearly, there is a framework for dialogue and exchange of views. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that, provided those channels of communication are kept open and we have a proper concordat to which reference can be made openly and transparently, people will be assured that the Welsh position is properly protected.

I take it that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst does not seek at this point to reopen the devolution settlement. Clearly, it is important that we get the right balance between the decisions that Her Majesty's Government make and those that are the proper province of the devolved Administrations. We have tried to achieve that in new clause 11 and amendments Nos. 82 to 89. We want to ensure that, where we have devolution—we clearly have devolution, which was the will of the people—Scottish Ministers can take the necessary actions, Ministers in England and Wales can take the necessary actions and there is a proper meeting of minds and consent. It is not beyond our wit to work together. We must do that in different regions, even of this country. In many cases, there is a need for cross-regional collaboration and information sharing. We must also ensure that the plans mesh well together. It is right to do the same thing in Scotland and Wales.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the costs of collaboration. Often, the most cost-effective thing to do is to work together to share information. Insufficient collaboration or consistency can be extremely costly in financial and human terms. Indeed, I am sure that we would all express concern if different people were doing a series of different things that did not join up. This is about working smarter, and using our imagination to ensure that we get this absolutely right.

Significant extra funds have been put into the civil defence grant in recent years, and before coming to this debate I asked for a couple of figures that might prove illuminating. In the past seven years, the grant has risen by 31 per cent., whereas in the last seven years of the previous Conservative Administration it fell by 42 per cent. I am not keen to make partisan points, but it is important for the House to have that information.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Does the hon. Lady accept that people are concerned that the grant has not increased since 2002, and that it is not set to increase because the Government's plan is to keep it at its present level? People are worried about how councils will do their work—with all the extra burdens, including the seven new duties imposed on them by the Bill—if they do not have the money.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I note that the hon. Gentleman is concentrating on this last year, as opposed to the previous years that I mentioned. He will know, however, that local authorities have always supplemented the civil defence grant because they see it as part of their responsibility to lead their communities and to take care of them. This has never been simply a ring-fenced grant to which local authorities make no contribution. Furthermore, the Bill deals with an organisational framework, rather than with the specific duties placed on authorities. Several Conservative Members suggested that we needed to work through the guidance and regulations. We are talking about events that are difficult to predict, so we need to work through what some of the costs might be.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I mentioned earlier that about 200 responders had mentioned this issue. The Minister might say of local government, "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?" However, when faced with a decision to cut either their social services budget head or the civil defence one, many local authorities cut the civil defence budget. It has been the Cinderella service in local government. If we are going to get local authorities up to speed and to change the culture by putting in place a proper civil defence structure, the resources will have to follow.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that this is an area of increasing salience, particularly in the light of the threats that we face in this very changed world environment. However, local government in general has had significant real-terms increases in its settlement, certainly over the past few years. He postulates an argument about decisions to make cuts in social services, education or civil defence, but local authorities have, for the first time in a long time, received significant increases in the grant available to them. They ought, therefore, to be able to take on these responsibilities. He will know from his own area that local government services are improving across the piece, whether in education, social services or housing. It is important that local authorities continue to be able to fund those services.

I know that local government has concerns about these issues, and the hon. Gentleman mentioned the 200 respondents who raised them with him. It is absolutely right that we should continue to talk to the Local Government Association and, when we see what the increased burdens might be, that we seek to address them. That will be a fundamental part of the spending review 2004 process.

Vincent Cable (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

Is it the Government's position that these new statutory obligations on local authorities will result in cost neutrality? Or will they result in increased costs, which the Government will have to look at new ways of funding?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Yes, we accept that extra pressures might well occur if we ask local authorities and other responders to work differently, to collaborate and plan together and to raise their games on civil contingencies, and we are in discussions with the Local Government Association to establish what those additional pressures might be. It would take a robust business case for the Government to acknowledge such additional pressures, which the spending review process would address. As I said to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), it is not a matter of making cuts in one department or another, because the issue must be considered in the context of the significant real-terms increases for local government as a whole.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I have listened to the Minister's remarks about local authorities' preparations to deal with the Bill's strictures with interest. A number of emergency planning officers to whom I have spoken tell me that the civil defence grant will barely cover the exercises, to which we shall undoubtedly return, for this financial year. Unless they are allowed to conduct the exercises, they cannot implement suitable measures when an emergency occurs. They are even more concerned that next year's civil defence grant is being frozen at this year's level, which is, in other words, a real-terms cut. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that she has heard similar views and that she is addressing them in a practical way, rather than a theoretical way.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I have already indicated that discussions are ongoing between representatives of those organisations, and I am sure that the excellent exercises that are taking place with local government and a range of responders will continue. Local government is keen to make sure that communities are properly protected and that preparations are made, and I therefore have no doubt that those discussions will continue. We will seek to address those pressures where the business case is robust and where the increase is identifiable.

I am sure that the figures for 2002–03 were repeatedly quoted to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) in Committee: an extra £330 million provided for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office to examine civil contingencies; an extra £56 million provided for the new dimension project in the fire service; an extra £85 million provided for the Department of Health to consider chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear issues; and an extra £84 million provided for the police. I am not saying that those figures are the be all and end all of financial pressures, but it is hard to make the case that the Government have been slow to provide extra resources, given that in the past seven years of this Administration funding for civil contingencies has increased by 31 per cent., compared with the 42 per cent. decrease in the last seven years of previous Administration.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The Minister discusses increased funding, but she does not mention local authorities—in her earlier comments, she mentioned the Government's generosity to local authorities. It is important to make the point that funding for local authorities to cover civil contingencies has increased from £14.4 million to £19 million. Starting from a low base, funding has gone from peanuts to that paltry figure, and it must be increased yet again.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I hope that this debate does not turn into an auction, because I shall be forced to refer to the shadow Chancellor's plans to cut public expenditure, and I do not want to enter that territory today. Whether the shadow Chancellor plans to cut £18 billion or £180 billion—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. I have allowed some latitude in the debate, but we should return to new clause 11.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am delighted to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I addressed the issues relating to funding raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

On the cost to local authorities, Mr. Boyd, the emergency planning officer in Walsall, attends briefing sessions for the emergency services on CBRN issues and terrorist attack, and is concerned that the emergency services have received more than £100 million to spend on decontamination equipment and training for its officers, but the local authority has received nothing. The emergency services expect local authority staff to attend the scene of such an incident.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. New clause 11 concerns cross-border collaboration with Scotland, and I ask hon. Members to refer to it in their deliberations.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I do not have anything to add, except to commend new clause 11 and amendments Nos. 82 to 89 to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1 — Emergency Volunteer Reserve

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 11, in page 3, line 8 [Clause 2], at end insert—

'(h) consult with humanitarian or voluntary organisations through the development of plans maintained under paragraphs (c) and (d) to such extent and in such manner as a person or body listed in Part 1 or Part 2 of Schedule 1 shall think fit.'.

No. 12, in line 36, after 'consult', insert

'with any humanitarian or voluntary organisations or'.

No. 13, in line 41, after 'collaboration', insert

'with any humanitarian or voluntary organisations or any other specified person or body or class of person or body'.

No. 14, in line 44, after 'delegation', insert

'to any specified person or body or class of person or body including any humanitarian or voluntary organisations'.

No. 15, in line 46, at end add

'or with any humanitarian or voluntary organisations'.

No. 16, in page 4, line 5, after 'Schedule', insert

'or to any humanitarian or voluntary organisations'.

No. 17, in line 7, after 'body', insert

'(including any humanitarian or voluntary organisations)'.

No. 76, in page 5, line 5 [Clause 4], leave out 'business' and insert 'organisation'.

No. 77, in line 8, after 'commercial', insert 'voluntary and community'.

No. 18, in line 8, after 'activities', insert 'or community activities'.

No. 19, in line 20, at end add

'save that a charge may not be made to any organisation carrying out community activities'.

No. 20, in page 11, line 23 [Clause 17], at end add—

'"community activities" means activities in fulfilment of any charitable, benevolent, or philanthropic purpose,

"humanitarian or voluntary organisations" means any voluntary organisation, charity or other body which contributes to civil protection arrangements on an international, national, or local basis which is identified as such by any person or body listed in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 1.'.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am sorry that the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is not here, although I am sure he is absent for an extremely happy reason. The new clause and amendments Nos. 76 and 77, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), go to the heart of the Bill.

It is fair to say that the Government were a trifle surprised in Committee by some approaches taken by Conservative Front Benchers not to the powers and theory of the Bill, but to the practicalities of delivering it. The new clause and the amendments address the muscle and the manpower that will be required physically to put those powers into practice in horrible events such as those for which we are preparing. I hope, therefore, to range not too far and wide, but essentially over the matter of a volunteer reserve and the involvement of the multifarious voluntary organisations, which I have no doubt we will depend on heavily in the event of a disaster.

The Government have rightly identified the problem—it could be anything from a natural disaster to something horrendous such as a dirty bomb inspired by terrorists that kills perhaps thousands of people. They have also rightly identified the fact that powers need to be put in place to deal with that. We have a Bill before us, and Conservative Members are happy to support many parts of it. We have tried to take a non-partisan and largely supportive approach, but there seems to be a lacuna between the problem and the powers. I have already identified the problem; it is one of delivery.

I do not believe that the Government have thought about the practicalities of the problem in any detail. There is no doubt that local authorities will be empowered to deal with the problem in theory; there is no doubt that category 1 and category 2 responders will be identified and told what powers they have to deal with events on the ground. However, who, physically, will do that?

A cursory glance at the emergency services in any of our constituencies would show the Government how parlous the preparations are. Let us take the example of my constituency of Newark, which, I trust, is unlikely to be attacked by terrorists. It was clear six weeks ago when I spoke to Newark fire service that not a single member of it had received any training whatever to deal with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear emergencies. It is clear that the pumps we have available in Newark could respond for only a few hours in the event of an intensive incident.

Ten pumps must accompany one of the immediate response vehicles that the Government have put in place to whichever part of the country is the scene of an emergency. There is no doubt that we would quickly run short of the manpower required to take either the fire, police or ambulance service through a sustained emergency. There is no doubt that, very quickly, it would be impossible to replace policemen—they would be exhausted, particularly if they were wearing protective clothing and trying to operate despite all the difficulties of a CBRN attack.

I do not know whether the Minister has ever operated under such conditions, but I can assure her that wearing one of those suits is extremely difficult and that trained and well prepared staff, no matter how many of them the Government believe they have prepared, will quickly become degraded and impossible to replace.

What have the Government done about providing an additional work force? We are told glibly that the 60,000 or 70,000 regular Army, Navy and Air Force personnel in this country at any one time, depending on emergencies, would be called on to help, particularly in the event of a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attack. The fact remains that there are no standing plans to use our regular forces, despite the fact that every man Jack and woman Jill has received this sort of training.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

As my hon. Friend develops that theme, does he not agree that the physical disposition of those highly trained personnel is inadequate to cover the entire country? Given that such events, by their very nature, could occur anywhere, even were we lucky enough to have a centre of trained military excellence, most of the country, sadly, would not be within easy reach of those excellent people should the worst happen.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. As usual, he is absolutely right. In fairness, that is probably why the MOD has not tried to tie down its regular forces in great detail. Due to the overstretch of our regular forces, the fact remains that an indeterminate number will be available in this country should an incident occur.

What have the Government done to increase the availability of manpower? Curiously, just before the Committee stage of this Bill was completed, the civil contingencies reaction force, more than two years after the events of 11 September, was finally declared operationally ready. A cursory glance at the CCRF, however, shows that it was far from ready. Interestingly, I note that we spoke on 28 January about this very event, on exactly the same day that Private Kitulagoda of the Rifle Volunteers was killed in action. He was indeed a member of the civil contingencies reaction force. He came from Devon, and his duties were to respond to an incident in the area of Plymouth or Exeter, and yet he was killed in Kabul by a British-born suicide bomber. If the Government have raised that very modest number of territorials and reservists specifically for those duties, why on earth are they posting those soldiers, sailors and airmen overseas? Why are they concentrated on Basra and Baghdad rather than Bermondsey or other areas where they may be necessary? The answer is simply that the Government have made no coherent plan to provide additional manpower in the event of this sort of incident.

That is why we propose the raising of an emergency volunteer reserve—[Interruption.] In response to the sedentary intervention from the Government Front Bench, the intention is not to raise a Home Guard, but to contribute to the British Red Cross or other organisations that already exist. The plan that I suggest is simple: those who have a desire to volunteer and who have skills to contribute to the country should be allowed to do so. A category A responder might be an off-duty surgeon, who would take the training necessary to bring him or her up to scratch, and put himself or herself on a register of willingness or availability, and in the event of an incident occurring, that surgeon might come forward either to reinforce medical staff, or to take the place of those who are exhausted. At the other end of the spectrum, a category F responder might be someone without a specific skill, and without much time to spare, but who would be available, on being contacted by text message, to help the police or other emergency services in the event of an emergency.

I do not understand why the Government did not think the scheme through more carefully. It would be cheap and relatively easy to impose. Training would be practical. Above all, it would mop up the huge reserve of volunteers who I have no doubt would be ready and willing to come forward in these circumstances.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

When we discussed this in Committee, there was some concern about the overlap between the hon. Gentleman's proposal and the existing voluntary sector organisations. Now his thoughts seem to have evolved. Can he confirm that he is talking about co-ordinating bodies such as the Red Cross and St. John Ambulance rather than about some substitute for them?

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am interested to note from the mayoral election plans that the Liberal Democrats have taken not just the idea but the term "emergency volunteer reserve" and decided to bend it to their own purposes—shocking behaviour!

Let me answer that perspicacious intervention by reading something about what happened in Madrid.

"Within minutes of the bomb explosions on the terrible morning of 11th March, Spanish Red Cross volunteers were on the scene. Over the following 24 hours and beyond . . . 900 volunteers provided medical care, psychological support and handled enquiries from the public. 52 ambulances, 26 transport vehicles and mobile blood collection units run by the Spanish Red Cross worked in close collaboration with the statutory services. Volunteers supported many bereaved families . . . 61 requests for information on missing persons were received from abroad and dealt with through the International Red Cross Message and Tracing service."

Here is the rub:

"The Spanish Red Cross was able to make such an exemplary response to this tragedy because in Spain the voluntary sector has a formal role in the civil protection framework. The Spanish voluntary sector plays an integral part in emergency planning and is designated to be involved in rescue, medical care, information and communication, and emotional support."

The Joint Committee on the draft Bill recommended that

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

It also recommended that

"Category 1 Responders be given flexibility to identify and consult with the most relevant voluntary organisations in their area."

Yet those points were not included in the Bill.

We propose that we should raise—in addition to the voluntary organisations that already exist—an emergency volunteer reserve that would overlap and interlock with the existing voluntary organisations, and that the voluntary organisations should be brought much more closely into line with the standing blue-light services. That would bring about much more integration of training, approach and operational procedure.

I have no doubt that Labour and Liberal Democrat Members will want to deal with amendments Nos. 11 to 17 and 18 to 20. I want to say a little more about amendments Nos. 76 and 77, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and me. We feel that we should recognise all the good work of organisations such as the British Red Cross, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the Salvation Army and St. John Ambulance.

We should recognise the potential of these organisations, and the fact that if we were to use them in a much more sensible, coherent and thoughtful way, although the Government would not get a service for nothing, they would get a wholly trained, thoughtful and thoroughly well-motivated organisation for an absolute pittance. If that were integrated with the emergency volunteer reserve that I outlined, the Government would not be in their current difficult position.

Helen Jackson (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

Amendments Nos. 11 to 17 and the associated ones relate to volunteers and to the realm of the voluntary sector. When considering them, we should remember that the Bill is entitled the Civil Contingencies Bill. As we all know, a disaster—an emergency—affects the whole of society and the surrounding civil society, so the response to, and planning for, emergencies and disasters must involve the whole of civil society as well.

The amendments, which, as the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said, have been backed by the British Red Cross, St. John Ambulance, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the Salvation Army, basically reflect the view that the voluntary sector's contribution to caring for the victims of emergencies and disasters in particular should be properly recognised and made explicit in the Bill. They have been introduced on Report on the basis that the "explicit" involvement of the voluntary sector in what the Government are seeking to do in responding to an emergency is not nearly explicit enough. As the Government will doubtless recognise, the Joint Committee, which is acting as consultee on the draft Bill, recommended that representatives from the voluntary sector be included as consultees at both the planning and response stages.

I should point out to the Minister that the Government's record in the voluntary sector is excellent. The Chancellor, the Prime Minister and leading members of the Government frequently refer in their speeches to the partnership that the Government are trying to build with the voluntary sector. Therefore, the voluntary sector's response, which shows that it is puzzled and disappointed that the Government have not involved it in a more explicit way, also reflects my feeling.

I hark back to 15 April 1989 and this country's greatest sporting disaster, which occurred in Hillsborough stadium. At that time, I was not the Member of Parliament for the area, but I was a member of the city council and I represented the area and the people who lived in it. I am aware that that ghastly disaster was felt for many years—indeed, it is still remembered yearly on 15 April—not just by the statutory services but by the whole community, who were involved in responding it. The entire community helped the voluntary services—the Red Cross and St. John Ambulance—by doing what they could.

None of the residents of the Hillsborough area of Sheffield will ever forget that day of sirens going on and on and on, for hour upon hour upon hour, as the vehicles ferried people to hospital. They will never forget the continuing radio appeals for volunteers with skills of any nature to help. They will never forget, because it was, I suspect, one of the first disasters to be covered minute by minute on live television. It was a Saturday afternoon in April, when many people were at home watching sport on TV. They did not expect to see the disaster that unfolded.

Not only organisations and a volunteer force came to help; the local clergy, the league of friends from the hospital, individual doctors and cleaning staff who worked in the football stadium did so too. Those in public housing and other individuals in the area offered accommodation. The answer is not to blame people, but to recognise that all volunteers and voluntary organisations are involved immediately when an emergency arises. It is only right that they should be brought in at the pre-planning stage and for the delivery on the ground, because they are the people who will make a difference in the event of a disaster.

Given the Government's record on the voluntary sector, they should recognise its skills, experience and potential in this context. Government recognition of the sector's potential will improve the chances of voluntary sector organisations being able to deliver the training that is necessary to keep up to date, and being organisations on which we can rely in every city.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I agree with what the hon. Lady is saying. Does she agree that the threats that we face and the events that we may have to face are changing quite quickly, so proper consultation and perhaps an overarching body of the sort that we suggest is a good idea? It will mean that everyone can keep up to speed.

Helen Jackson (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I am grateful for that intervention. I agree that the threats are changing, but let us bear in mind the characteristic that a civil emergency is probably not expected. No one could have predicted that an aeroplane would explode and kill 200-plus people in Lockerbie, for example. These things cannot be totally planned for. There is no textbook emergency. That is one of the problems, whether it is a fire at King's Cross, a football disaster at Hillsborough, the Lockerbie disaster, or the terrorist incident in Madrid. Therefore, there can be no definitive Government planning blueprint saying that we have got it all sorted out and we will know exactly what to do. It will not happen like that, although there are always common factors: injury, stress, trauma and shock, and the need for comfort, reassurance and to deal with people who feel bewildered.

The other common factor that the amendments deal with is that, almost universally in our country, there is a huge and immediate willingness to help among everyone who knows about the situation.

That must be recognised and should form part of how we deal with this opportunity to update legislation from the 1920s. Perhaps we can now learn from experience gained between 1920 and the present: we should be proud of and treasure the immediate response of volunteers and voluntary organisations coming together.

One recent event affected us all in the House: the reaction of the people of Spain to the ghastly events in Madrid. I recall how moved I was—I believe every hon. Member felt the same—to see them coming together on the streets to make it clear that they were the people of Spain and that they condemned the tragic events.

I feel strongly that the involvement of the voluntary sector in dealing with disasters should be properly recognised by the Government, both in pre-planning and in operational guidance attached to the Bill. The Government should take this opportunity to strengthen their partnership with the voluntary sector by amending the Bill along the lines suggested in this group of amendments.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I was pleased to offer my support and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson). We examined the issue in Committee, but it remained, to a degree, unresolved.

Unlike the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I am in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny, though I recognise that it does not cure all known ills. The consultation process brought to light different views from the voluntary sector. I understand why that created a difficulty and why, given the broad range of voluntary sector organisations, it would not be appropriate to place all of them in the category of those required to respond on a statutory basis.

I agree, however, with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough that some reference should be made in the framework of primary legislation to voluntary organisations. She has produced some good amendments in an attempt to achieve that. Rather than making all voluntary organisations statutory responders, she would amend clause 2(5) so that the regulations imposed on the statutory bodies—the local authorities—included a requirement that local "humanitarian or voluntary organisations" be involved. That is a wholly appropriate way of tackling the problem, which overcomes the Government's objections to making all voluntary sector organisations potentially subject to statutory duty. The statutory duty to consult would be placed on the local authority, and could be exercised in a common-sense manner. The hon. Lady has found an appropriate way of framing the provision. When the Minister responds, she might say that the regulations could, in any case, require local authorities to consult local voluntary and humanitarian organisations. That may well be the Government's intention, but it would be that much stronger if it were built into the Bill.

I understand the concerns of organisations such as the Red Cross, St. John Ambulance and the Salvation Army, which provide core services. The voluntary sector now provides essential services in many areas. Bodies such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children provides core child protection services in my city of Sheffield. If such organisations are in negotiation with local authorities for planning purposes, they will want to have some statutory authority and strength. It would therefore be appropriate to amend the Bill, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough suggests.

We debated clause 4 in Committee; I am not at all persuaded that it will deliver anything positive in the context of the Bill. It deals with the provision of advice and assistance to business, and the amendments are designed to extend that to include "humanitarian or voluntary organisations". If the provisions in clause 4 are to be in the Bill, the amendments are appropriate, given that many of those organisations will be providing mainstream services. If the local authority is to provide continuity, planning and advice to anyone, it should provide that to the bodies that are likely to be assisting during a period of crisis or emergency.

My major concern about the business side of clause 4 is that it is hard to see how, if it were on a cost-recovery basis, anyone would be likely to sign up to it.

I find it difficult to envisage how it will work from a business point of view. The amendments suggest that humanitarian organisations should not be charged for the advice.

I hope that the Minister can offer us more than we have had heretofore about the requirements that central Government will place on local authorities to engage with voluntary sector and humanitarian organisations. The Bill could be strengthened in that area.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on these excellent amendments, which address a very important and, indeed, rather grave subject. I also support what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) said in such an articulate fashion.

New clause 1 concerns the central issue of setting up a new civilian reserve, while most of the associated amendments concern making better use of our splendid voluntary organisations, such as the British Red Cross, the WRVS and others that have written to us to say that they feel rather left out of the planning process in the Bill. We are blessed with a very strong voluntary sector. As well as the organisations that I have mentioned, let us not forget St. John Ambulance and neighbourhood watch schemes. I was the co-ordinator of one of the first such schemes, and we successfully reduced crime. What a good point of contact they are for disseminating these plans.

As my hon. Friend said so effectively, we simply do not have enough manpower so we have to rely on the wider community. That reliance must be based on structures that are in place and properly rehearsed before the event, and not on ad hockery.

We saw with the unhappy incident in the Chamber last Wednesday that we as MPs had not been briefed on or rehearsed the steps that we should take. Had it been a biological attack, we should all have stayed in the Chamber until we had been decontaminated. Had it been a chemical attack, we should all have got out very quickly. Who distinguishes, and how the message is relayed quickly, are matters that present serious problems for the House authorities. Those problems need to tackled in advance. There may have been a great deal of planning behind the scenes, but at the level where it matters—the point on the ground where the incident occurred—the message had not got home, and, above all, the steps had not been rehearsed.

It is difficult to exaggerate the thinness of the official structures that we have in place for civil contingencies. My hon. Friend gave the touching example of the Territorial soldier, nominally a member of the civil contingency reaction force, who was killed on duty in Afghanistan—illustrating how overstretched that structure is. It is not only overstretched but completely inadequately structured. I have twice challenged Defence Ministers—I challenge the Minister again today—to explain how the 14 organisations can organise anything, when they are based on the headquarters of the 14 TA infantry battalions, which were stripped to an absolute skeleton in the most recent defence review. Although intelligence officers have finally been put back into them, there is still no intelligence cell to handle incoming information, the signals set-up is tiny and the whole structure is too woefully small to command anything. Those concerns were raised by TA officers who are very anxious to do this job and do it well.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is thought that, of the civil contingency reaction force of 6,000, about half—or certainly between a third and a half—are overseas?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I cannot entirely endorse my hon. Friend's figures, but a significant number are overseas and the organisation is anyway well below strength. I support the concept, but the organisation is far too small and under-resourced. The essence of having a surge capability to deal with an emergency is the ability to expand provision. If most of the people who form part of that surge capability are being used abroad, there is little surge capability available. The proposal for a new civilian force as a supplement would go a long way towards bridging the gap.

The ideas behind the other amendments in the group for a much closer relationship with all the vital voluntary organisations are also essential. The role played by the Red Cross in Madrid has been mentioned, but the point is that exercises are needed. I know of one small voluntary organisation that already does some of the work necessary. I have not spoken about it in the House before, as far as I remember, although my wife is a serving member. It is the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry, whose colonel-in-chief is the Princess Royal.

The organisation is only 100-strong, so its ability to make a difference is limited, although it punches well above its weight. It had a gallant record in both world wars and members were covered in decorations, but its role for more than a generation has been to support the City of London police force. For three days after the Moorgate tube disaster, it manned all the communications for the hospitals treating the injured. It was called out during the great storm of 1987 and, for the subsequent IRA bombing in the City, it again manned the communications so that relatives could find out where their loved ones had been taken. It is a small organisation that does an excellent job, and it is worth mentioning in this debate.

The truth is that we need all the voluntary organisations. They deserve silver-tongued praise in this House, but they should also be part of the planning for the frightful emergencies that may happen at any time. Colleagues would be surprised if I did not mention that I still hope to persuade the Government to support my Promotion of Volunteering Bill. I already have 150 signatures to my early-day motion from Members from all parties, broadly pro rata to their representation in the House. Surely a debate such as this should convince us that it is wrong that volunteers who sign up to organisations that may already do exercises on these potential dangers should face the same risk of negligence suits in the civil courts as, for example, a commercial company would.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I was about to finish, but I will give way to my hon. Friend.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My hon. Friend will not have reason to regret his decision. He is speaking eloquently to new clause 1, and I hope that it will warm the cockles of his heart to learn that only this morning I received three letters from constituents vigorously urging me to support his Bill.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. Laudable as that Bill may be, we are discussing new clause 1 of the Civil Contingencies Bill.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, although the organisation that would be set up under new clause 1 would face the risk that my Bill attempts to remove. I might say that it is always a wise decision to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), not only because I work for him in another capacity but because he invariably hits the nail on the head. Colleagues from both sides of the House are writing to me and telephoning my office because their constituents have contacted them.

The amendments in this group go to the heart of the way in which we should tackle these emergencies. It is no good just recognising the excellent work done by voluntary organisations. We need to bring them into the planning framework and introduce a new reserve to assist them. I urge the House to support all the amendments.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said and thought that the contribution of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) was very sensible. If we are serious about involving the voluntary sector—as we would have to in the circumstances that we are discussing—we should give it statutory recognition for its important work and include it in planning. We should not forget that many of those who gave evidence to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee were from the voluntary sector.

I cannot understand how the Minister can pay warm tribute to the voluntary sector but also cut it out of the scene. It does not make sense and I hope that the Government will think again, even at this late stage. The amendments are sensible and would improve the Bill. I recall that, in Committee, we discussed the civil contingency reaction force and the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said that the Government hoped to establish a complement of 7,000 but that at the time—towards the end of January—only 5,000 had been trained and accredited. Can the Minister tell us whether that figure has improved? We should not forget, of course, that many of those people are already serving in other theatres.

The amendments would be useful and provide an element lacking in the Bill. I see no reason why such a volunteer force could not complement other organisations involved in this sphere.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said in his informed and important speech on the need to use the full resources of the nation, rather than just the full resources of the state, when it comes to national emergencies. I fully support the suggestion of an emergency volunteer reserve to make full use of the pool of talent that we have. However, I was spurred to speak this afternoon by a letter from the British Red Cross that I am sure that other hon. Members have received and that also bears the names of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the Salvation Army and St. John Ambulance. It makes several significant points that made me realise the importance of the amendments.

The letter refers to the explosion in the plastics factory in Glasgow on 11 May, where, for more than three days, Salvation Army and Red Cross volunteers and staff provided emotional support and first aid at a reception centre set up in Maryhill community hall. It refers to the Morecambe bay cockle pickers tragedy, where the survivors were comforted by Red Cross volunteers who provided first aid treatment, blankets and clothing. The letter points out that, within 50 minutes of the Ladbroke Grove rail crash, St. John Ambulance had 32 volunteers and 11 ambulances on the scene and transported 22 people to hospital. For the following seven days, volunteers provided a 24-hour mobile treatment centre for workers at the site. The organisations were also involved after the terrible fire at the Yarlswood centre for asylum seekers in Bedfordshire, which is close to my constituency. The WRVS played an important role in providing food and comfort to the survivors and—importantly—to the fire workers and other emergency service personnel involved. The importance of the voluntary sector is not only the help provided to victims but the assistance to primary emergency workers. In that way, the volunteers become part of the primary team.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Does my hon. Friend agree that, for international disasters and other such scenarios, we are keen to include NGOs such as the Red Cross in the planning phase? Why are the Government so willing to make use of voluntary organisations for the delivery of international relief, but not when there is a crying need for them in this country?

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I shall refer later to the experience in Madrid and try to answer his question, although of course I do not have one, so it might be for the Minister to address his concerns when she replies.

The Red Cross points out:

"In situations like these, volunteers help to absorb the impact a disaster makes on victims and their families. They are local, community-minded, ordinary people who give aid in extraordinary circumstances. Local authorities and emergency services turn to such volunteers knowing that they can provide comfort, emotional and practical support when most needed, yet there is no formal mechanism to involve the voluntary sector in the planning for emergency response . . . The Civil Contingencies Bill has presented the ideal opportunity to formalise arrangements by specifically including the voluntary sector in the legislation".

As for the international experience, my hon. Friend the Member for Newark mentioned what happened in Madrid, which very much involved the Red Cross. The British Red Cross says:

"Within minutes of the bomb explosions on the terrible morning of 11th March, Spanish Red Cross volunteers were on the scene. Over the following 24 hours and beyond . . . 900 volunteers provided medical care, psychological support, and handled enquiries from the public.

52 ambulances, 26 transport vehicles and mobile blood collection units run by the Spanish Red Cross worked in close collaboration with the statutory services.

Volunteers supported many bereaved families as they went to identify the bodies of their loved ones.

61 requests for information on missing persons were received from abroad and dealt with through the International Red Cross Message and Tracing service."

My hon. Friend the Member for Newark mentioned the massive input that the Spanish Red Cross had in the aftermath of the disaster in Madrid. The British Red Cross goes further and says:

"The Spanish Red Cross was able to make such an exemplary response to this tragedy because in Spain the voluntary sector has a formal role in the civil protection framework. The Spanish voluntary sector plays an integral part in emergency planning and is designated to be involved in rescue, medical care, information and communication, and emotional support".

As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) rightly said, the support provided in such a situation goes beyond emotional support, making tea and giving comfort. Voluntary organisations have many specialist skills. The British Red Cross gives the following examples:

"Information services, clothing and shelter, first aid and medical care, comforting and befriending of individuals affected, staffing rest and reception centres, support to hospitals, support to ambulance services, search and rescue, transport services, message and tracing services for those who have lost contact with loved ones in an emergency overseas, radio communications, faith and cultural support and awareness."

That is an enormous list of invaluable services that go together to make the complete emergency service that the state could never provide acting on its own.

In summary, the British Red Cross says:

"As key providers of emotional and practical support to victims and their families, the voluntary sector is united in calling for formal, explicit recognition of the contribution of the voluntary sector in emergency planning and response on the face of the Civil Contingencies Bill.

A duty should be placed on statutory authorities to involve the voluntary sector fully in emergency planning and response.

An acknowledgement of the voluntary sector's contribution will formalise an already active response.

Without the involvement of the voluntary sector in emergency planning and response, the response to the human dimension of an emergency may be less effectively addressed."

Why have the Government marginalised the contribution of the voluntary sector in the Bill? It cannot be on the ground of cost, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark said earlier. It cannot be on the ground of the voluntary sector's ability, which is well proven. It cannot be in terms of its commitment, which is exemplary.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Absolutely.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

My hon. Friend made that clear in his own speech.

One wonders what the reason is. Could it be the Labour party's long-held disdain for public services being performed outside the public sector? If so, that is a sorry set of circumstances. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of her position and fully support the new clause and the amendments.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). Whatever the Government's intentions—I am sure that there was never any intention to exclude the voluntary organisations, which do such a wonderful job in providing practical and emotional support when there is a disaster—an explicit recognition of that role would be enormously helpful. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain further how she sees the relationship between the statutory and the voluntary sector in this context.

I urge the hon. Lady to accept the proposal, because an explicit reference in the Bill would be in the interests of all concerned, in terms not only of planning but of understanding capabilities and recognising what resources may be available. It would also acknowledge the essential role played, albeit often at a slightly lower level than the first responders who arrive at the scene, in providing support not only to victims and their families and others affected but, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said, to the people who have to deal at first hand with the emergency, and looking after their emotional and practical well-being, which is equally important.

The point that I want to raise is slightly different and I would be interested to hear from the hon. Member for Newark whether it is encompassed in his proposal. I welcome the fact that his proposal has been developed since the Bill was in Committee, because there was a concern that it might lead to two parallel organisations—the voluntary sector as already established and what he proposed. It is now clear that his proposal would integrate existing structures.

I am concerned about maintaining a register of professionals in a variety of fields who can be deployed at short notice in case of a civil contingency. We are not terribly good at that in this country. We are good at getting our emergency services on the scene and doing the job, but we sometimes then need more members of the caring, medical and surgical professions to be available, simply because of the scale of the emergency and we are not very good at knowing where those individuals are.

I am talking about people who do not have commitments within their own hospital or medical environment, but who could be used in a particular region or situation to provide support. For example, there are chronic emergencies, such as foot and mouth, as well as acute emergencies. During the outbreak, I had colleagues and friends in the farming community in my area who were experienced veterinary surgeons but were not, for one reason or another, in practice. They volunteered their services either to go in and identify potential infection, or to replace those who were doing that, and were therefore unable to do their normal work. Those offers of support met no response whatever from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

That was a scandalous and avoidable waste of professional resources. A similar situation could arise in, for instance, the nursing profession. There is not a surplus of trained theatre or accident and emergency nurses, so we cannot afford to lose people who have left the profession but retain the necessary skills to help in an emergency.

Either as a result of the proposal of the hon. Member for Newark to establish a volunteer reserve that identifies professionals in the same way that people with medical training are retained as a distinct category within the military reserve list, or as the result of Government action that the Minister may tell us about in her reply, we should identify professionals who are willing to provide their services, can be easily contacted and, most importantly, are available at short notice to drop whatever they are doing to help in an emergency. People are willing to use their skills and professional abilities, but they need a mechanism to enable them to reach the right place at the right time.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

If such an emergency arose in the hon. Gentleman's constituency or, indeed, mine, the primary response would probably be made by firemen, who are effectively volunteers retained for precisely that purpose. The principle is acceptable and works now, so it is a mystery why it should not work in the scenario envisaged in the Bill.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman is right. Retained firefighters do a wonderful job in rural constituencies such as ours and I have long argued that we should have retained police officers to provide a presence in rural areas, but that is to depart from the purpose of this debate.

We have a reservoir of ability that we should be able to call on at short notice. The key is identifying before an emergency who those people are, how we can get hold of them, how they can be recruited to serve in an emergency and how they are to be organised. Those crucial elements are missing from the Bill and I hope that they will be included in the proposal of the hon. Member for Newark.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I remain to be convinced by the argument for a volunteer reserve despite the avalanche of consensus in our debate. I am worried when my hon. Friends come to the House to propose yet another bureaucracy or, dare I say, a quango, which is to be interposed between, on the one hand, the existing bodies described in the Bill and the amendments and, on the other, the excellent voluntary bodies that they rightly praised. I am not entirely sure, despite the advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), what added value the new organisation would provide, never mind its size, scope, scale, statutory powers and so on. New clause 1 is skeletal to say the least, and gives little or no indication of how the organisation would fit between existing statutory authorities and the voluntary sector. The proposition is therefore problematic.

It would be much more valuable to explore the prospect of enhancing the role of existing bodies before we rush to create a new one. I often argue on a Friday, as you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you do Fridays along with me, that we should enforce the existing law more effectively instead of rushing to introduce new laws. The new clause is a parallel case. Before we rush to create yet another body or organisation, however virtuous it might appear—the words "emergency volunteer reserve" give it a patina of respectability or desirability, but that is not enough—we are owed an explanation from my hon. Friend about how it will work. To be fair, he gave the example of a surgeon who wants to volunteer his expertise and experience to contribute to an emergency such as Hillsborough, which was deployed as an example by the Minister and which we all recall only too well. I immediately wondered where the surgeon would go to volunteer and to whom would he make himself known. Where would his skills be recorded, who would be the repository of that information, who would give him any additional training that he needed—although he would have surgical skills, he might need retraining or reorientation to deal with emergencies—and by whom would he be co-ordinated? My first thought was that he would want to sign up with the Red Cross or St. John Ambulance, and a woman volunteer might want to sign up with the WRVS or another organisation well versed in responding to such contingencies. The Territorials, local authorities or other bodies mentioned in the Bill may be in a good position to accept to such volunteers.

We should therefore pause before establishing the additional organisation for which my hon. Friend argued. I was worried when he used the words "overlap" and "interlock", because such terms do not satisfactorily explain the complex relationship between existing statutory bodies and the voluntary sector. He argued that the emergency volunteer reserve would be included in the Bill if his new clause is accepted, thus giving it a statutory footing.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

My right hon. Friend has gone to the heart of the matter, but does he not accept that certain skills, such as those needed to deal with chemical, nuclear and biological warfare, are not widespread in voluntary organisations? One option is to increase the Territorial Army to its previous size, but some people may want to make a lesser commitment and make themselves available only for such civil defence work. There is therefore a case for establishing a new, lower-cost body instead of expanding the Territorial Army, for which I have argued for many years.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am disappointed that my hon. Friend has reached for that solution, as he could have pressed for an enhancement of the Territorials on the one hand or the fire services on the other. The other day, I heard someone on the radio arguing, albeit in the context of the regrettable reoccurrence of the firefighters' dispute, that we ought to consider making prevention and the sort of response detailed in the Bill a role for firefighters, now that the incidence of fires in society has happily decreased a great deal. Why are we therefore not looking at, for example, adjusting or enhancing the role of the fire services, perhaps introducing an additional service, volunteers and so on, to fit neatly with their organisational responsibility? The role of such volunteers would be not unlike that of retained firefighters in rural areas, who have already been mentioned.

In setting up the organisation proposed in the new clause, there is a danger that we will achieve confusion instead of co-ordination. As soon as we start to interpose new organisations between existing ones, unless we are extremely clever—frankly, I am not confident of our skills as bureaucrats—we risk causing more confusion because we are causing bodies to proliferate, even though we are giving them a comforting title and responsibilities for co-ordination and so on. The case for such organisations must therefore be made more fully before I am convinced that there is added value in my hon. Friend's new clause.

Helen Jackson (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I have some sympathy with the drift of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I should have thought that when an emergency occurred, very few people got up in the morning thinking, "Today is the day I will volunteer and do some extra work." The nature of emergencies is that volunteers come from wherever, whenever and in whatever form that particular emergency requires. It is crucial to keep that openness and flexibility in the arrangements for which local authorities or other bodies are responsible.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The hon. Lady makes a good point, which raises the question of whether the creation of the EVR would attract people more than St. John Ambulance, the Red Cross or any of the other organisations mentioned in the debate already do. I am not convinced that they would flock to the EVR, without having offered themselves to one of the other bodies.

The other consideration—I make no apology for returning to the issue—is the cost element, which again has been rather glossed over. Inevitably, if we set up a new body, it will involve some sort of cost. We already have the statutory organisations—the firefighters and so on—and the excellent voluntary organisations working as they do. The EVR is to be created and interposed somewhere between them. It is not clear to me how that would be funded or whether we are in danger of diverting resources that might otherwise be focused on those other organisations. Those resources might be siphoned off to deal with the bureaucracy that would accompany the setting up of a new body.

All in all, I am somewhat sceptical about the approach. I can see what my hon. Friend the Member for Newark was trying to do, but I am far from being convinced that the new clause would deliver what is intended. I would rather look to an enhancement of the statutory bodies or to the volunteers to do more.

I was slightly disappointed by the letter that was read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). Voluntary bodies seem to think that they are unloved and neglected unless they are mentioned in a Bill or an Act. That strikes me as odd. I should have thought that the Red Cross, of all bodies, had sufficient history, standing, respect and pride that the contribution it made was reward enough. If we have reached the stage where such bodies do not feel that they are sufficiently valued unless they are mentioned in an Act, that is somewhat disappointing. I find that the least convincing argument for writing additional words into the Bill.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

My right hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. There may be a misunderstanding. The voluntary organisations are not seeking a mention of their own names in the Bill. They are concerned that there should be a statutory duty written into the Bill to consult them when the plans are drawn up. If they are to react effectively and be a full part of the process, it is essential that they should be consulted when the plans are being devised.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

That may well be an argument to support some of the amendments, but it is no part of the argument that I have been making so far. We in this place reach rather readily for mandatory consultation, and I believe that the word "consultation" has been more than a little devalued over the past few years, the more examples of it I see. The Post Office is currently consulting on the simultaneous closure of five post offices in my constituency. I do not have any great faith in that process and I doubt very much whether it will alter the outcome one bit.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

My right hon. Friend evidently has little faith in the ability of the state to deliver on many of its functions. Would it therefore not be agreeable to him to include the voluntary sector much more in deliberations such as we are discussing, precisely because it is rather better at many of those roles than the state turns out to be?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

What my hon. Friend says is true. The chemistry, so to speak, is extremely important. How far we are able to reflect that or enhance it in a Bill is another matter. I fear that setting up an EVR, which is the purpose of new clause 1, would not go very far in that direction, to put it mildly.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

My right hon. Friend is demonstrating once again that, by comparison with him, Victor Meldrew is the epitome of optimism at all times. My right hon. Friend was generally clear in the thrust of his argument, but I am a little perplexed, as was my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), I think, by my right hon. Friend's reference to the desirability of an enhancement of the existing statutory bodies. If that is his position, does it not clash somewhat with his general scepticism about the ability of the state to organise anything?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I was reflecting what I understand to be in the provisions of schedule 1. We have already had this debate and I would not want to return to it—at least, not at this stage. I will return to it at the slightest provocation on some other occasion. In that little aside I was trying to reflect the fact that we are already laying additional responsibilities upon the local authorities and other bodies, so we could look in that direction rather than setting up yet another new organisation, which could cloud the relationships and the responsibilities of both the statutory and voluntary sectors.

In short, we must hear quite a bit more from my hon. Friend the Member for Newark about exactly how the EVR would add value to the exercise that we are contemplating before I would be prepared to give it my support.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

If they were honest, many hon. Member would have more than a little sympathy with the views of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Somebody had to put the other side of the argument and to challenge us to define what we want to happen.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) described the situation in Spain after the Madrid bombings. The difference is that in a country the size of Spain, the Red Cross is but one of three organisations that would claim to have such expertise. The authorities in Spain learned more than 20 years ago that they had to break down the plethora of organisations into designated, co-ordinated groups that could respond to certain dilemmas faced by the civil community.

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is right to say that if we accept the proposition tonight, which I hope we do, we have a responsibility to resource it properly, to ensure co-ordination and to ensure that we can cope with the disappointment factor. We have so many groups in this country that are actively engaged in responding to emergencies that some will be disappointed, because they cannot all be at the table as consultees. They will not all be part of the new system. We need expertise—groups that can come to the table already trained, with the knowledge of how to deliver what is required. Sometimes they will be told, "Sorry, your expertise is not needed on this occasion."

The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) will remember the early days on the Defence Committee when we discussed the matter. One of the issues that was raised time and again was the dilemma that the voluntary sector faced: when such organisations should come in, when they would be invited in and who would make that decision. Who would ensure that the communications were in place and co-ordinate the register not only of the well intentioned, but of the well informed and well trained who had the expertise that was needed?

I have been involved in two major disaster areas in the past 25 years. On both occasions, I was amazed by the number of different United Kingdom groups that turned up. In one instance, they came a third of the way around the world. Some of them arrived when the operation to save the living was past all reasonable possibility of success—yet they still came, and no one in this country was prepared to tell them not to do so; it was really sad.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a good case for better co-ordination of the voluntary groups. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), he seemed to imply that including the groups in the Bill would add to the confusion. The groups are asking not for personal aggrandisement or to have their names included in the Bill, but for a more co-ordinated approach. That is what the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) will provide.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

I agree entirely, and that is what I was trying to say. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was challenging the House to recognise that if we accept the amendments, as I hope we will, we must ensure that the arrangements are properly resourced. It is not a question only of including the bodies as consultees; if we are to make use of them, we must give them the right equipment to allow proper communication and to ensure that they are properly protected. We must ensure that training is renewed and that people's expertise is not based on knowledge gained a decade or more ago. It is necessary to be a bit more sophisticated, and I had hoped that that was what we were trying to achieve.

The challenge to the House and to the Government is clear: if the Government choose not to accept the amendments, what are they going to do about managing the obvious expertise that is out there in the wider community? How will we marshal that expertise? I believe that, at the end of the day, the Government's reluctance to agree to the proposals is more about the resources that would be needed than about the merit of the case for bringing in the organisations in the first place.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I wish to use an analogy that might ring true for many hon. Members who are present: we are all members of voluntary organisations in that we are members of political parties. I am sure that many hon. Members will share my experience of the anger and frustration that can arise on our part and that of volunteers when the latter have indicated that they were willing and eager to carry out functions such as knocking people up on election day or delivering leaflets—such jobs might be highly relevant at the moment with local elections in the offing—but, because of the nature of the voluntary organisations in which we operate, no one co-ordinated them when there was a desperate need for the service that they offered. In such circumstances, there can be anger on both sides.

Although the activities that we are discussing might involve voluntary action, they must be performed thoroughly professionally. We cannot possibly have a standard of delivery that falls short of that level or approaches anything like the functioning of a political party as hon. Members have experienced it—hence the strength of the amendments and the new clause, which take the huge contribution and professional services of the voluntary sector and seek to include them in the consultation and planning phase.

I pointed out in an intervention that we take such an approach as a matter of course in relation to the delivery of international aid. The NGOs and organisations such as the Red Cross are included in the planning of the delivery of aid in all sorts of disaster situations. That is part of the basic consultation and planning process. While we are prepared to take that approach in the delivery of international aid for disasters, I suggest that, given the expertise that is available to us, we should do the same as a matter of course with regard to the delivery of relief for contingencies. That seems perfectly sensible, and I look to the Minister to come up with a plausible argument as to why we should not take such an approach, given that we do so in international affairs.

The House will recall that, when the additional chapter was delivered to the defence review—it was published before 11 September and did not, by the Government's own estimate, deal adequately with the question of asymmetric threats—its big idea was the civil contingencies reaction force, but the reality is that it exists on paper only. It simply is not adequate for the task. Even if it had been established as was proposed, the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark would have been necessary but, in its absence, they are even more so.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

We have had a wide-ranging, interesting, constructive and challenging debate about very important issues concerning the role of the voluntary sector and about whether it should have a statutory presence in the Bill in terms of consultation, and about the slightly separate but related issue of creating an emergency volunteer force. The matters are interrelated, but each has distinct issues around it.

I am sorry to say to hon. Members that the Government cannot accept the amendments. None the less, they raise some interesting questions about the role of the voluntary sector in contingency planning and its position in the Bill. It is worth setting out the Government's position in some detail, as hon. Members have asked me to do, and trying to provide some reassurance about how the central role of the voluntary sector can be encapsulated in the Bill as it stands, taken with the guidance that we propose to develop over coming months—something that, as we have already indicated, we will do in full consultation with all the parties involved, including the range of voluntary organisations that have been mentioned, as well as those that have not been mentioned. It is clear that there are many more voluntary organisations than have been named in the debate.

The Government particularly encourage membership of voluntary organisations and their engagement with key responding organisations. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) who said that this Government have a proud record of involving the voluntary sector not only in this area, but in a range of public service delivery contexts. I think that that is one of the significant differences about this Administration: we have not been afraid to say that the voluntary sector—the third sector or not-for-profit sector—should have an increasingly important role in the delivery of mainstream services. That position has not always been popular across all organisations, but it is a key issue for the Government, whose support for the voluntary sector is certainly acknowledged.

Helen Jackson (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

That was indeed the point that I made. Given those views, how will my hon. Friend mitigate the considerable disappointment and puzzlement felt by parts of the voluntary sector about the idea that they might not be brought into the planning as fully as they want? Is she prepared to have further meetings with them to mitigate that disappointment?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I hope that my hon. Friend, as well as the voluntary organisations, will not be disappointed when they have heard all that I have to say today. I do not think that not naming those organisations in the Bill for one moment works against their importance and centrality in terms of planning or the delivery and support mechanisms that they provide. I have no doubt that there will be further meetings, discussions and negotiations as we develop the guidance that will supplement and underpin the Bill.

The work that is undertaken by voluntary agencies is crucial. It may, for example, include supporting the local ambulance service by providing first aid at casualty clearing stations and first aid posts. Voluntary aid societies also give valuable support to local authorities and the police by befriending and offering information to people in rest and reception centres following an incident. I pay tribute to the well-known and long-standing contribution that voluntary organisations have made to the effective response to civil emergencies. One need only think back to the response to the Potter's Bar and Ladbroke Grove rail crashes to appreciate what a valuable contribution volunteers can make to emergency response. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) mentioned the recent accident in Glasgow and the incident in Morecambe bay and highlighted the contribution that volunteers were able to make in those very distressing circumstances.

I am surprised that no hon. Member has mentioned this document that I have laid my hands on, which is entitled "Dealing with Disaster". It is in its revised third edition and is the seminal work on the relationship between the authorities and local responders, including civil protection, at a local level. I refer hon. Members to chapter 6, which, as I was heartened, although not surprised, to see, covers in great depth the role of the voluntary sector in relation to a whole range of issues—not simply acting in a supportive, befriending role once an event has happened, but planning at the outset and being involved in all the aspects that the statutory agencies will consider. As the document acknowledges right at the beginning,

"Major emergencies can overstretch the resources of the emergency services and local authorities."

The value of additional support from the voluntary sector has been demonstrated on many occasions, and chapter 6 deals with the planning principles involved.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Will the Minister explain why she objects to amendments suggesting that there should be a statutory duty to consult them? Will she also say from where, within the existing set-up, the Government expect to get, in a hurry, expertise in the nuclear, biological and chemical spheres if the incident does not happen to occur close to a regular Army base?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I will come to why the duty to consult should not be in the Bill. The voluntary sector is so diverse that it would be invidious to try to single out particular organisations for involvement, and there are practicalities involved in where to find the people who are able to help us in the dreadful circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes.

I am genuinely surprised that no other hon. Member referred to "Dealing with Disaster", which provides pretty extensive guidance.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

rose—

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

rose—

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I shall give way in a moment.

I have already given our commitment to build on that guidance to ensure that we continue to embed the voluntary sector in the heart of our civil contingency planning.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

As the Minister says, that document spells it all out. She did not say, however, that it also acknowledges that despite the existence of all these different groups and responsibilities, there are two problems: first, the lack of anyone with sufficient knowledge of the co-ordinated approach; and, secondly, how one readily brings all those people together when they are needed. That is the failure that we are trying to address and which is expressed in the document.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I do not accept that there is a failure of co-ordination, but I do accept that we need to improve our response in this changing world in which we live, where the threat is becoming much more serious than ever before. I certainly would not want to caricature as a failure the response of many good and able voluntary organisations, together with the statutory services. It would be wrong to talk down our services in that way, and I pay tribute to them for the contribution that they make.

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative, Huntingdon)

The Minister has referred extensively to a document that no hon. Members appear to have seen or heard about, and which none of the voluntary organisations referred to in their written submissions. Perhaps it should be disseminated a bit more widely.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I was made aware of "Dealing with Disaster", although I did not have the advantage of serving on the Committee. I am sure that other hon. Members have a much deeper and wider knowledge than I do of the seminal nature of that document, which is, I am sure, available from the Library. Indeed, it is a Cabinet Office publication, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could get access to it.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

Chapter 6 is familiar to me, as is the whole document. I am intrigued, though, by what the Minister is saying about the integration between the voluntary sector and, for want of a better phrase, the blue light services. I am heartened by her remarks. As she, more than anyone, will be familiar with the new threats that are evolving, will she be kind enough to outline the Government's plans to equip the voluntary organisations with personal protection equipment?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I will deal with the practical measures that we intend to take, as well as the legislative measures.

I should emphasise that voluntary sector liaison groups will be involved at the local level through the local resilience forums that are envisaged in the Bill. Local authorities already do a significant amount of work in training volunteers for their roles in emergencies and involving them in multi-agency exercises. The document highlights the need for joint training, joint exercises and joint involvement at every stage. Certainly, the voluntary sector is being involved to a very great extent in areas that have been visited by officials in recent months.

There is nothing in the Bill that prevents voluntary organisations from remaining fully engaged, and we will continue to encourage local responders to engage the voluntary sector wholeheartedly in local multi-agency planning and response through the guidance that supports the Bill. We will use that guidance to turn that vision into a reality.

Amendment No. 11 would impose a duty on category 1 responders such as emergency services and local authorities to consult voluntary organisations in the performance of their duties under the Bill, while leaving the manner and extent to which they are consulted as a matter for their own judgment. Under amendment No. 20, the identification of voluntary sector organisations would be a matter for the individual responder. Of course, I agree that, where appropriate, statutory responders should consult and involve voluntary sector partners to the fullest extent in the planning phase. Statutory responders accept that and are already so engaged. It is difficult to see what the amendment would add to this approach. It is of doubtful merit to impose a legal obligation on responders to consult the voluntary sector if the responder itself decides who must be consulted, the extent of the consultation, and the manner in which the consultation takes place. Moreover, I wonder how such a duty would be monitored and enforced. A legal duty that says to the person upon whom it is imposed that it is for them to choose whom to consult, when, how and to what extent is very fragile, and I cannot see what it adds to our current position.

Helen Jackson (Labour, Sheffield, Hillsborough)

I suppose that what hon. Members want to hear is that the proposals that may come out of the guidance, together with the Bill, will recognise in a new and more significant way the role of voluntary organisations across the board. Does my hon. Friend think that including the voluntary organisations in the guidance notes will strengthen their role? They have yet to be convinced of that.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I hope that I can convince them. I accept the spirit of my hon. Friend's amendments and I believe that it is shared. Although I am loth to praise the hon. Member for Huntingdon, he said that he wanted the nation's full contribution, not only that of the state, to be brought to bear, and that sums up our attitude in general. For civil contingencies, we are considering not simply statutory organisations but civil society. Renewal of civil society is the passion of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and the golden thread that runs through many Government policies. I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough that a legal duty is currently unnecessary because the guidance will help to put the voluntary sector much more at the heart of our planning proposals. I hope that she will realise that.

Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 and 17 would enable regulations made under the Bill to require category 1 responders to collaborate with the voluntary sector, delegate functions for which the measure provides to the sector, or have regard to or adopt the work carried out by it. Clause 2(5)(d) already permits such regulations to be made and the amendments would therefore have no practical effect. Amendments could be tabled—I do not want to mislead the House—because we do not yet propose to use the regulation-making powers in that way, but they exist, should their use become necessary. The amendments that we are considering are unnecessary to grant us that legal power.

Amendment No. 16 would enable a Minister of the Crown to require a category 1 responder to share information with a voluntary or humanitarian organisation. The Bill currently enables a Minister to require provision of information only between responders, not to voluntary organisations. Although I acknowledge the need for category 1 responders to share information with voluntary organisations when they are engaged in the planning process, it is not necessary to make provisions that require them to do that.

The voluntary sector plays a supporting role in emergency planning and response. It is inconceivable that, when a statutory responder chooses to make use of the resources and expertise of a voluntary organisation in its planning work, the information required to fulfil its role would not be provided. I cannot imagine for one moment that, if a local authority asked the WRVS to take care of people at an emergency reception centre, for example, the local authority would not give the organisation details of the location of the centre. Providing such details would involve the voluntary organisation in the planning at an early stage.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I wonder whether the Minister has thought about her comments. Does she genuinely believe that, throughout the country, bureaucracies will get it right every time? Will they always anticipate whom they may need in crises, consult each of them and include them in their plans? Surely it is a good idea to tell authorities that they must release the information, not least because many organisations may be able to contribute in ways about which local authorities do not know.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

We could hold an interesting debate on bureaucracy, especially in the light of the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I am trying to find the best way in which to achieve the result that we all want: good, well prepared, effective plans that can be implemented quickly without necessarily tying up organisations in a plethora of regulations that militate against our being able to act promptly and to a high and professional standard.

Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 76 and 77 would extend the duty on local authorities to provide business continuity advice to community organisations. Clause 4 tries to minimise the economic impact of an emergency and its focus is therefore on commercial activities. That does not mean that local authorities could not extend, if they wished, their business continuity advice to the voluntary and not-for-profit sectors. However, the provision is aimed at keeping the economy moving in the event of an emergency. It is therefore inappropriate to accept those amendments.

I want to consider new clause 1, which would establish an emergency volunteer reserve. I have spoken at length about the outstanding contribution that volunteers throughout the country make to contingency planning and response work. We must consider the arguments of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) in favour of some form of voluntary reserve force in that context and try to balance the benefits and the costs. Such a force would not be cost-free, and I share some of the concerns that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst expressed.

Existing voluntary organisations already employ a permanent cadre of staff and have permanent structures and an infrastructure. For example, I understand that the British Red Cross employs 3,000 permanent staff to facilitate its volunteers' work. Setting up a new emergency volunteer force could prove costly. There could also be other costs. Long-standing, tried and tested voluntary organisations could be undermined. Organisations such as the Red Cross, the WRVS, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, volunteer medical staff or retained firefighters, with proven track records, are already embedded in existing planning frameworks. I was therefore intrigued by the debate between the hon. Members for Newark, for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who was trying to tease out what "overlap" and "integrate" meant. They discussed whether the provision would establish a new force or strengthen existing forces. We did not get to the bottom of that.

Setting up a new force would be burdensome and bureaucratic and could undermine existing voluntary organisations. I agree with all hon. Members who said that people in this country rally round in an emergency and want to make a contribution. Our task as a Government is to make it as easy as we can for people who have the skills and want to volunteer to get involved, use their talents and make their contribution, without necessarily establishing a new organisation in the way that the hon. Member for Newark suggests.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

Will the Minister give way?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Let me first deal with a point that I believe the hon. Gentleman made.

Several hon. Members referred to the role of the Red Cross in the aftermath of the terrible events in Madrid. We should be a little wary; voluntary organisations in other countries sometimes have a different role because of the way in which those countries' public services have developed over many decades. I understand that the Red Cross in Spain is a mainstream organisation with facilities such as blood banks, ambulances and the ability to respond. That is slightly different from some of the voluntary organisations in this country.

We should not for one moment undermine the ability of our statutory services to respond to emergencies. I hope that not one hon. Member—certainly not the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—suggests that the ambulance service, the fire service, the police service or any of our blue-light services are not up to the job. They do a fantastic job in responding to emergencies and they have well established procedures and agreements for mutual aid, for example, to draw in ambulance services and the police service from neighbouring areas. I was worried when the hon. Member for New Forest, West appeared to imply that the statutory services were not in a position to provide an excellent service. I hope that he did not have that in mind.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I am sure that when the Minister consults the Official Report tomorrow she will find nothing in my remarks to lead to the inference that she has drawn. Will she outline the capability of the ambulance service and the fire service specifically to deal with nuclear, biological and chemical incidents?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the fire service has received an extra £56 million for the new dimension project for its new vehicles. I believe that 5 per cent. of the police service have been trained to respond in the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We recently doubled the number of gas-tight suits for the emergency services. The hon. Gentleman knows that we continuously increase the preparedness of those organisations.

I want to speak briefly about the civil contingency reaction forces—CCRFs—because much has been made of whether they could assist in an emergency. I know that the hon. Member for Newark has been concerned about that. Allegations have been made that many are deployed overseas and are therefore not in a position to respond. The CCRFs were up and running and fully mobilised by 31 December. I understand that there are 14 reaction forces, with 500 members each—approximately 7,000 people. I am told that 850 members are currently mobilised overseas or on active service in the UK. We are therefore considering a relatively small minority of those forces. I am also told that some of the CCRFs have a pool of reservists bigger than 500 members because they realise that operational and deployment capabilities might reduce them. The 51 (Scottish) Brigade uses an opt-out method. It says that everyone is in the CCRF unless they do not wish to be. Consequently, the pool of reserves is much higher.

It has 670 and 690 personnel available to serve in each unit; the fact that 78 are currently deployed on operations therefore has little impact. I am glad to be able to reassure the House that the CCRF will be able to carry out that work for us.

The points raised by hon. Members today have illustrated their real commitment to ensuring that we involve the voluntary sector in our work, and I am happy to give them an assurance that we shall do so. I very much appreciate the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough tabled her amendments, but I really cannot support their inclusion in the Bill.

Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; she is being very good humoured. I am sure that all hon. Members will be interested to read her speech tomorrow because, like many others, I am slightly bemused by how the Government are going to co-ordinate the voluntary sector. During the very long reply that she has given this evening, she has not once mentioned how that is to happen. The House is entitled to an explanation if she is going to urge us to vote against the amendments.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The amendments before us propose incorporating a duty to consult the voluntary sector. I have explained that that would be invidious, as the voluntary sector is a diverse area of 141,000 different charities, in which 69 per cent. of the activity involves only fundraising. Furthermore, in social services and education, voluntary activity is not necessarily focused on civil protection. It would therefore be inappropriate to include such a requirement in the Bill. New clause 1 proposes the creation of an emergency volunteer force, and I hope that I have explained why that would be a bureaucratic, extra imposition that would lead to a lack of clarity and consistency, rather than building on the capabilities of the voluntary organisations that we have already.

In response to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), I have made it clear that, in the preparation of the guidance that will form an essential part of the overarching framework of our civil protection, we will ensure that the voluntary sector takes on a central role, because we recognise that the people of this country want to make a contribution to looking after others and protecting the safety of our nation. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press the new clause to a vote.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am extremely interested to hear the Minister's summing up of the various arguments that have been put forward, and extremely disappointed to hear the Government's reaction to the amendments, whose provisions are sensible, practical and cheap. On 11 September 2001, one reason why the authorities were able to react so quickly and effectively to those unprecedented incidents was that there were widespread reserves of policemen, ambulance men, firemen and national guardsmen. One of the reasons why things were not worse in Madrid was that Spain had learned the lesson, over the previous couple of years, that additional manpower was necessary to deal with such events. Similarly, following the Bali bomb, Australia has raised a complete new force of people who will help its equivalent of the blue-light services to make headway in such situations.

With one or two exceptions, everyone who has spoken tonight recognises the need for the Government to be able to exercise and physically implement the plans that they are putting forward. The fact remains, however, that not one additional man or woman has been added to the Government's inventory to help in circumstances that will, frankly, be unprecedented.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

Does my hon. Friend share my dismay at the Minister's attempt to reassure us about the civil contingencies reaction forces? The example that she gave of 51 (Scottish) Brigade merely reinforced the fact that the numbers involved are purely notional, because anyone who happens to be a member is counted as being available, although in reality that capacity exists only on paper.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am sure that he will have heard that the motto for the civil contingencies reaction forces is "Overstretched and Overseas". The Minister would do well to ponder that not one extra person has been added to the Government's inventory to fight in such circumstances. I am particularly interested to note that she did not answer my question on why, if the voluntary sector was being further and further integrated in order to work with the blue-light services, as she claimed, no personal protection equipment had been introduced. The fact remains that this is utterly unsatisfactory. I cannot accept what the Government say, and shall seek to divide the House.

New Clause 2 — Emergency Public Education And Training Board

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 100, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, after 'maintain', insert 'resilient'.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

New clause 2 relates to two particular measures—informing the public about a threat and training them to deal with it.

This is not a new subject in the public forum. It was talked about during pre-legislative scrutiny before the Bill was considered in Committee, discussed endlessly in Committee and has had any number of outings both in the press and generally in the public place. It is interesting that the Government have continually denied the need for public information. For example, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was particularly vocal in Committee about there always being a fine balance to be struck between telling the people too much and panicking them and not telling the public anything at all.

When we talked in Committee about the need for public information, the Government made it clear that there was no further need for a campaign to tell people precisely what was going on. We mentioned that the level of national alert was never disseminated in a public place and that we had always to rely on the BBC, and particularly Radio 4's "Today" programme, to leak the fact that the level of national alert went up or down.

For instance, after the bombings in early November of our embassies in Turkey, the public were simply not told that the alert level had gone up to its second highest possible stage, until we were told of the situation on national radio. It was interesting that, despite having talked about the issue in Committee and despite the Government having resisted any attempts to inform the public about what the threat was, it was left to the British Transport police and the Metropolitan police to mount an effective and thorough poster campaign immediately after the Madrid bombing. That gives the lie to the assertions that information would panic the public or that information was not necessary.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Over new year I was in New York city. My hon. Friend may not be aware that Fox News, CNN and WCBS-TV—the local CBS affiliate—all had a banner across their news bulletins setting out the state of alert, which happened to be very high in New York city at that time. Does he think that that might be an indicator that could be employed in this country, given that there was no mass panic in New York and that the celebrations for new year's eve were performed well with many people attending them despite a high level of alert and the fact that they were informed of that situation?

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. We ran out of time when we were discussing the previous new clause, but I intended to say that, during the second world war, we had an organisation known as the Civil Defence. It gave timely warnings about the likelihood of attack. Clearly, that would have been a conventional attack, probably mounted by the Luftwaffe. A terrorist attack is rather different. None the less, I believe that my hon. Friend made a valuable point. For example, during my several tours of duty in Ulster, it was always clear to me that information was being given by the police to the public about precisely what the threat was. It was less full than the American system. We have a formal system, and I suggest to the Government that there would be no harm in allowing the public to know. Rather than using the media to disseminate the message, part of the public information campaign should be exactly as my hon. Friend suggests. There should be a proper and orchestrated way of telling the public precisely what the level of threat is.

The Society of Industrial Emergency Service Officers says:

"The experience of SIESO members in warning and informing the public of the potential dangers of living next to top tier COMAH sites"—

in other words, power stations and the like—

"gives the lie to the Government's belief that pre-education of the general population would cause panic. There is a need for people to know what measures they can take to safeguard themselves prior to the arrival of professional help."

Similarly, last year the Metropolitan police commissioned a report on possible co-operation between the Government and the private sector. That was known as Project Unicorn and it reported earlier this year, although the Government have chosen not to publicise the conclusions. Project Unicorn states:

"To the public at large the CBRN threat is undoubtedly the most frightening aspect of the 'new terrorism' . . . The Commercial Sector appears to be unanimous in its criticism of the present counter-terrorism Communications Policy prior to a major incident: they found it outdated, condescending, generally uncoordinated and at times incoherent."

I do not think that I need add to those two damning indictments of the fact that the Government are not prepared to tell us what is going on. I suggest that we might follow the example of the Australian Government.

Many people say that this country is extremely "proof" to terrorism, that the public are used to it and will be able to take it on the chin, and that living through 30-odd years of activity by the Irish Republican Army and similar organisations has made London and other large cities pretty resilient, if the Minister does not mind my borrowing that phrase, to the effects of terrorism. It is therefore interesting that, after the Bali bomb, which killed plenty of Australians but did not kill anybody in Australia, the Australian Government, who have no real experience of terrorism, chose to take the subject extremely seriously.

The Australian Government chose to spend the money that needed to be spent and to do the research required of a responsible Government. That is why every single Australian has received information from his Government and why the Prime Minister has written to every Australian, beginning his letter, "Dear fellow Australian". An information pack that is now in the hands of every Australian household contains practical little measures such as fridge magnets with all the emergency telephone numbers that any member of the public might want to refer to.

Why are we not doing that? Yes, it would cost and, yes, there would be opportunity cost, but have the Government failed to understand that the population are not a bunch of naughty schoolchildren, but responsible adults? I believe that knowledge dispels fear; it does not inspire panic, unless it is articulated irresponsibly or badly. Again, I speak from personal experience. The population of Northern Ireland were constantly told what the threat was and I never once saw panic over there.

Go back 11 years in this country, and just before the traditional IRA pre-Christmas bombing campaign, the Government chose to tell the population of London precisely what was going on.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

Just this past weekend, every pub in Bangor was advised of a threat, which was also newsworthy. The hon. Gentleman speaks about letting everyone know about the threat: the Government sent a booklet dealing with the Belfast agreement to every home in Northern Ireland, but this is a much more important issue because it involves life and death.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am most grateful for that helpful and perspicacious intervention. I hope that the Government pay attention to the words of an hon. Member who has clearly been at the forefront of the fight against terrorism for the past several decades.

It is interesting that the Government still continue not to take such action. The examples are there; other nations have tried those measures. I return to the point that, just before Christmas 11 years ago, we were told that if we owned lock-ups in London and saw suspicious groups of men, particularly if they were speaking with Irish accents, the police should be informed because there was a likelihood of a bomb or mortar attack.

To the best of my knowledge, there was no panic over that and no uprising among aggrieved Irish expatriates. People understood the difficulty and that the job was being done as properly as it could be. They understood that the Government cared and were concerned about their safety. I put the question again: why are this Government not acting on that particular point?

The next point that the new clause addresses is training of the public going hand in hand with the information that I have already addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mentioned the effects of what turned out to be a benign demonstration here in the House last Wednesday. I accept that it was difficult to know whether the attack could have been lethal, what agent had been used and whether the House reacted correctly or incorrectly, but that is not the point that I am trying to make. The point is that not a single person in the Chamber had received any training in what to do in the event of such an attack.

About two weeks ago, I received from Officers of the House an hour and a half of extremely effective training in what to do in the event of a fire. At the end of the training, I was much better informed and had been told precisely what to do. One or two anomalies had been ironed out and, having served as a part-time fireman and having been involved in several fires in my time, I felt that I was a much more useful member of the House of Commons community, in more ways than one, than ever before.

I said to the authorities, "Thank you very much indeed, but what do I do in the event of a bomb being discovered outside the House of Commons or a contaminatory attack?" Answer came there none. There is no training available that I am aware of. Even more depressing is that fact that, with one or two notable exceptions, no Member of Parliament who spoke in public in the media after that attack said, "That is all very well for what is happening in Westminster, but what about our voters—the people who send us here to represent them on these green Benches?"

Very few Members seemed to be able to spread their wings and say, "Don't we owe it to our voters to give them some training in what to do in such events?" The Government may say that offering such training would frighten people. Fine, but I would say that knowledge dispels fear. The Government may say that the training would be expensive, and I acknowledge that there would be a cost. They may say that we have never done that sort of thing before but that is nonsense. This nation has faced threats in the past—conventional and unconventional.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

It might be sensible for my hon. Friend to remind the Government that for many decades we have had a Health and Safety Commission, a Health and Safety Executive and safety representatives at work. People have not been frightened by the analysis of risks at work and ways to reduce them. What he suggests is not quite analogous, but it is pretty similar to what we face in our daily lives at work, and have for many decades.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes the point a thousand times better than I ever could.

The fact remains that the Government are willing to spend money and resource on health and safety issues, and even on anti-obesity programmes. They are willing to spend time training children in what not to do in a pan of boiling chip fat is tipped over them, but they seem unwilling to address this particular issue, although we have done it before.

In 1937, training started for the whole population in knowing what to do in the event of attacks by weapons of mass destruction—I am talking about aerial bombardment and poison gas. By 1938, the population were properly equipped, as far as they could be, and properly trained. My mother, as a 13-year-old in north-east Nottinghamshire, knew precisely what to do in the event of her being gassed. A game was made of it.

The fact remains that when the sirens went in September 1939—that siren system, I might add, has been completely scrapped—the population filed carefully, quietly and without panic into their shelters and got on as best they could with whatever business they could conduct from there.

There was no panic. The population were told what was going on and they were warned. It is impossible to say how many lives were saved by that training, but I am sure that many hundreds were saved who might not have been otherwise. Similarly, we carried out training of the population during the cold war, and to a much lesser extent—I am sure that other hon. Members will back me up on this point—during the Irish Republican Army campaign in Northern Ireland and in this country.

If the Minister believes that there is no need for information or training, I ask her to consider the impact of a terrorist incident on, say, the Madrid scale. Let us conjure with the idea that one of our major cities is attacked three weeks before a general election, and that only 200 are killed—that sounds blunt and cold, but the fact remains that only 200 were killed in Madrid, although more than 1,000 were injured. What would be the political ramifications of a lack of information and training? Will our population forgive any Government for such an attack, as, in many ways, the American population forgave their Government?

It is fair to say that 11 September came out of the blue. Despite the appalling casualties, the majority of the population were willing to indulge the Government's lack of knowledge and pull together as a nation. Will we do that? First, how many of our people will say, "No, we were warned and nothing was done. There was no campaign of public information and precious little public training. There was even precious little training of the emergency services"? Secondly, those who opposed the war in Iraq will say that we have brought it on ourselves. Thirdly, and most tellingly, let us suppose that, in that hideous attack, 100 people were killed instantly and another 100 died as a result of burns that could not be dressed, of being poisoned by gases released in the area from which they were not evacuated or of being unable to get blood transfusions through. It would not have been because the emergency services had failed—I, for one, am a great admirer of everything that our emergency services do—but because they have simply not been allowed to exercise properly.

Sergeant Roberts died because he did not have the right equipment in Iraq. The Minister will remember what the tabloid newspapers made of that. If 100 of our people die because the emergency services have not been able to train effectively, the press will blame the Government. They will say, "You have killed our children, our spouses, our uncles." I strongly suggest that, in those febrile conditions, the Government will not survive that kind of blow.

The Minister will say that exercises have taken place. During a debate some weeks ago on London—the debate concentrated on the preparedness of London—I put several points to her about the level of training that had occurred. She only partially answered the question. She made the point that many civil contingencies exercises are taking place, and I wholly concur with her that something is being done. How many exercises, however, are live? How many involve the full panoply of the blue-light services, at a rush hour, with traffic on the roads, people on the pavements and in the undergrounds, and when the blue-light services have not been warned that the exercise will occur? Only by doing those sorts of exercises will the lessons be learned. How many parts of London have removable road signs and road barriers so that ambulances, fire engines and police cars can travel along the pavements when gridlock prevents access to the site of the incident? I know that the Minister will say that endless exercises are going on, but not one, to the best of my knowledge, has taken place in those conditions. Even OSIRIS II, which was as good as it got, was done on a Sunday, with the blue-light services warned beforehand and already in place.

New clause 2 makes the case clearly for six members appointed by the Secretary of State to be representative of category 1 responders, another six to be representative of category 2 responders, and for up to six other members to be appointed by the Secretary of State. It would provide that the Secretary may by order make provision in respect of the duties undertaken by the emergency public education and training board. I commend the new clause to the House, because unless the Government get a grip of their public information and public training, this country will suffer when the inevitable attack happens, and it will do so needlessly.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I intend to speak primarily to amendment No. 100, which is grouped with the new clause. I also want to respond to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Mercer).

I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this issue, as I have been involved in considering the Bill with him throughout its progress. I was concerned about the direction in which he was taking us, as his argument seemed to be that the Government should commit themselves to an education and training programme so as not to be blamed if something goes wrong. Another perspective is the concern that all this is political, and that it would over-stress the population and create too much of a sense of alarm.

I recognise that the balance is somewhere in the middle. We all want to give the appropriate information, but I want to put on record my concern that we can end up politically creating a climate of fear. My perception is that the United States Government, through some of the legislation that they have passed, have started to create a climate of perpetual warfare and threat. There are equal dangers in that. That is a counter-perspective, and I recognise that we need to occupy a sensible position in the middle.

Amendment No. 100 would insert the word "resilient" in relation to the kind of public information systems that we are asking local authorities to maintain to warn people about an emergency that is about to happen or is happening. I can predict the Minister's response—I am sure that she will say, "Of course, the Government would expect those networks to be resilient." My concern, however, is that that is not currently the case.

When the Government are asked what they are doing to inform the public, we are frequently told that they rely on websites. As hon. Members may know, I am keen on the development of the internet, and spend a lot of time using it. I would not describe it as always resilient, however, and there is something of a myth about the resilience of the internet in the context of some of the emergencies that we are imagining. Its resilience depends on peering points, where peers get together—not the House of Lords, but usually a warehouse somewhere in east London where computers "peer" with each other. Increasingly, those may be the subject of attacks, both deliberate and accidental, given their complexity, and my concern is that we are starting to depend on technologies that may be less resilient in an emergency than some of the older technologies such as radio broadcasts, which may be more appropriate in those circumstances.

Because of the multiplicity of different media types, we are ending up in a situation in which resilience needs to be at the forefront of planners' minds. It may not be deliberate, but the kinds of assumptions that we have made previously about how to get information out may no longer apply. For example, if we wanted an all-channels television broadcast, it used to be the case that we would negotiate with a few major broadcasters. Now, an all-channels television broadcast must go out on 900-odd different channels, involving many different broadcasters. A range of media outlets creates additional complexity.

My concern in putting the amendment forward is to establish that local authorities need to think about the question of resilience far more than they have done to date. Although there are a lot of communications methods available, they must not simply rely on the fact that those will work at a time of emergency.

I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I am looking for a strong statement that there will be an attempt to tease out failure points, and that local authorities will be required to address potential failure points rather than being allowed to get away with lazy assumptions about communications mechanisms that may work in emergencies.

Lewis Moonie (Labour/Co-operative, Kirkcaldy)

The watchword in this debate, and in all debates on our response to potential acts of terrorism or disasters, is resilience. It is used advisedly, and I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that we should always remember that it is the key.

I speak as one who has spent not inconsiderable time over the years looking at the way in which we respond to disasters—and often respond very inadequately. One thing is certain: we should not do anything to reduce resilience. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said earlier, one way of ensuring that it is reduced is adding to the number of committees and other bodies that must be consulted on what is, after all, a series of hypothetical situations.

That is the great danger. I think that the IRA analogy, for instance, is quite wrong. In that case we were dealing with a predictable set of actions and a reasonably predictable set of responses that could be handled by any fairly intelligent person. Given the greater complexity of the asymmetrical threats that face us now, we cannot predict the form of an attack—if it occurs—and we must therefore ask what exactly we should educate people about. Many of the responses are basic common sense. I do not think the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) is suggesting that in the event of a disaster, we would need hordes of ill-trained and semi-informed actors milling about trying to be helpful. That is the last thing we would need. What we do need is people responding quickly to information.

Setting up emergency numbers in advance may seem a sensible idea, but our experience of disasters around the world suggests that it is most important to establish a clear line of communication with the public, separate from anyone dealing directly with the disasters. That cannot be done in advance; it can only be done after the event, once the extent of its severity has been calculated by those capable of such a calculation. I am suspicious of any attempt to impose a public education gloss on circumstances that do not lend themselves to the type of education that is being suggested.

If we intend to be resilient, and set up a multitude of plans—which seems likely, as every area will set up its own plan—the civil contingencies unit must monitor events carefully, in order to recognise and implement best practice and generalise from it. Over the next few years we will generate many different ways of coping with potential disasters, but until we have to cope with a real disaster we will not know whether any of them will work. I recommend a book by Patrick Lagadec called "Preventing Chaos in a Crisis". If Members read about all the mistakes that have been made, the last thing they will want to do is repeat them.

The whole point of the exercise that the Government are conducting—with the broad support of Members on both sides of the House—is to try to avoid chaos when crises develop; for they will develop. I believe that adding to the complexity of what we are trying to do will not help to alleviate chaos in a crisis.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

I hope the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) will not mind if I do not follow his line of argument. Let me say, in the gentlest possible way, that I disagree with him entirely.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), with the assistance of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), raised an issue that goes beyond the contingency planning that is best represented in clause 2, which refers to

"preventing the emergency . . . reducing, controlling or mitigating its effects, or . . . taking other action in connection with it".

The matters that we are contemplating are not just for the professionals; they are for members of the public as well. We should be letting the public—individuals as well as groups—know what they can do to help reduce the incidence, impact and consequences of events. If those events do not happen, it will be fine—the best job that can be done by the blue-light services is not to turn the blue light on—but when they do happen, more people should know what they can do in order to make a significant difference. They need to know what they should avoid doing because it would do more harm, and what should be done to improve the situation.

I do not claim to be an expert, but for various reasons I have been around when a number of small disasters have taken place. I was beside the coffin of Oscar Romero, on the occasion of his funeral service on Palm Sunday 1980 in El Salvador, when a number of bombs—or demonstration bombs—went off in a crowded square containing 20,000 people. There was a lot of shooting from the military headquarters on one side of the square, and people sought refuge in the cathedral. There were two problems. The archbishop's coffin was blocking the doors; and the impact of a crush at the doors, straight away, would have made even the Hillsborough disaster look modest. A small number of us tried to make sure that there was enough space to get the coffin out of the way, and we ended up with about 5,000 people inside the cathedral.

Fourteen people did die through crushing, which is one of the big panic problems in a disaster. The immediate problem is the rush. I suspect that the number of deaths would have been significantly greater if we had not managed to clear at least a pathway. In the Heysel stadium in 1985, the problem was caused by British louts attacking Italian fans. Because the other British fans were too squashed together, they took the space that was liberated. Plainly what was needed was an English voice on the loudspeaker system telling those not involved in the disturbances to stay where they were, and not to move into space that had become free. If that had happened, there would not have been the push, push, push and the 39 dead Italians.

It took 20 minutes to find someone with authority to enable microphones and loudspeakers to be used. It is not necessarily the authorities who spot what should be done first; it may be a member of the public. In this case it was me, and I did not succeed in getting it done fast enough, but another 200 or 300 people there might, with some foreknowledge, have been able to say, "This needs to be done". They might have passed on the message, so that someone with the necessary authority and control could take effective action.

Then there was the King's Cross disaster. People were brought out of the underground after a fire that was not—so to speak—necessary, and had consequences that were not necessary either. I suspect that, as in the case of the fire at the Bradford football stadium, many people knew that there was rubbish around that could be set alight. The cause of the fire might not be known, but the existence of fuel that need not and should not have been there was something of which any member of the public should be aware.

We learned from the Windsor castle fire that breaking up roof spaces stops a fire spreading. As a result of explosions, gas can be ignited. If ordinary members of the public were aware that the presence of unnecessary combustible material is wrong, public emergency training and education could greatly reduce secondary consequences, although it might still be impossible to prevent the primary cause.

So generally raising people's awareness of the practical steps that can be taken is important. If the Government do not accept the new clause today, it is fairly safe to say that they will have to answer some of the arguments in detail now and later, and that they are almost certain to say within six weeks or six months, "Well, perhaps we will adopt it in a modified form." I would much prefer them to say today that they have authorised the Minister to accept it, and that they have tried to work out the consequences. However, my experience is that Ministers who agree with a particular proposal often have to put the argument against it because of the process of government.

According to this process, a good idea is first ignored, then people just say "no", bringing up the historical negative whereby one cannot do something in a new way because it has not been done that way before. But when the Government of the day produce a two and a half page argument against the proposal in question, they actually engage with the arguments, and within six weeks or six months they say, "It was our idea in the first place and we always intended to do it, so we aren't going to share the credit with others."

My hon. Friend the Member for Newark and I would not mind if the Government did not share the credit for this proposal, so long as they introduce such a board. The proposal is a sensible one, involving as it does category 1 responders such as local authorities and the emergency services, category 2 responders such as the utilities and the transport agencies, and independents. Such a structure is very similar to that of the Health and Safety Commission, which is also a tripartite body. Of course, one reason why our performance in respect of injury and death at work is about the best in the world is the existence of a tripartite system that involves independent experts and the two sides of industry. Combining the two sides of the emergency services—put simply, local government, and the blue light services—with the utilities and the transport agencies would be a good way of achieving the same thing.

Moreover, having a public discussion is probably the best way of dealing with the ghouls and the real worries. The worst worry is the darkness; having light is not actually a serious worry. Each of us, whatever our station or responsibilities in life, will at some stage be told that we or someone dear to us—a parent, spouse or child—will have our date of death known rather more accurately than we anticipated. Nothing can bring death where there would otherwise be unending life; the question is whether death is to be brought forward. If each of us can cope with such information, I suspect that we can cope with anything that might emerge from an emergency public education and training board.

It is open to the Government to say that their civil contingencies system will be able to absorb the kind of work to which the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark relates. That argument is perhaps slightly better than the one offered by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, but it is not good enough. There could be an overarching national body and a body for each of the nations of the United Kingdom, and certain groups could be given the task of working on particular issues. However, my belief is that we ourselves know more about what we can do, and that we could contribute our knowledge.

Let us consider the Kegworth air disaster, in which an airliner landed on the M1. Some four or five hours after it happened, I said to Sir Michael Bishop—this sounded a bit odd to say so in the middle of a disaster—that I thought he was doing rather well. He said that he had gone through what his and his team's reaction ought to be to such a disaster. Although one hopes that planes will always land safely, one has to plan for when things go wrong. He and his people knew what to do. I am not sure that the general public always know what to do, which is one reason for having the kind of board that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark has proposed.

I am very pleased that we are having this debate. Contingent on a serious approach to our growing knowledge and anticipation of disaster—be it man-made or natural, deliberate or accidental—is the beneficial and open discussion that such a board would enable. I hope that the House will agree to the new clause without Division. If, by chance, the Government have instructed the Minister to resist it, I hope that such resistance will not be offered on the basis of poor reasoning.

Board after board, forum after forum and organisation after organisation have been introduced in the past seven years, although I shall not take this opportunity to discuss my current pet worry, which is the proposed substitute for the community health councils. The House should reject the argument that we should not create this board, which has a real purpose and could be made to work. The people expect us to anticipate what will be helpful, and such a board would be.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

If ever we needed to remind ourselves that education and instruction are extremely important, what happened last Wednesday must surely remind us. Nobody in this Chamber knew what was going on, and, more to the point, nobody knew what we should have been doing at that time. I was told after the event that we should all have sat down to await decontamination. I was one of the last to leave the Chamber—not because I am brave but because I was not sure what the hell was going on. However, everybody left the Chamber.

Martin Smyth (UUP, Belfast South)

I notice that Government Front Benchers were nodding agreement at the point about decontamination. The amazing thing was that even those at the very top of Parliament did not know what to do. It was the recipients of the attack who were in the most danger, and it was they who should have stayed put until they were decontaminated. Opposition Members should have got out of the Chamber as quickly as possible, before the powder spread. That incident highlights the very point that we are trying to get across: education is necessary in every eventuality.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; indeed, I could not have put it better myself. Of course, if we in this place are not sure what is going on, how can we expect the public to behave in the safest manner in a civil emergency?

In the days of the cold war, I remember receiving leaflets on what to do in the event of an attack. They made people think about such things, but they did not strike fear into them. I certainly do not recall a wave of panic around where I lived, and I doubt whether we are more resilient than the rest of the United Kingdom. Such a public information campaign was undertaken even back then, but we have moved on a bit since. We have a Government who are very keen on imparting information—albeit selectively—and on using all manner of media to do so. It has been suggested that websites be used, but some elderly people do not even know what a website is. Indeed, although some of us who are less elderly know what they are, we are not very good at using them.

Last year there was a severe flooding problem in my constituency, which affected two or three villages. There was the odd newsflash on television, and apparently a limited attempt was made to telephone people. The Environment Agency decided that although the incident might be severe, it would not treat it as severe because fewer than 100 houses were affected. I do not know what kind of message that sends. Of course, the Environment Agency denied at the time that it got it wrong, but it has since realised what happened and has publicly announced that things have been tightened.

As I said, there were some newsflashes on television, but I know of some elderly people who did not really want to watch the television that evening; they preferred instead to read the newspaper by the fireside. They and all their furniture were badly affected, and although their neighbours came to help, it was a bit late in the day. The example of those three villages shows that we needed to tighten procedures in respect of risks of which we were already fully aware. They had been flooded before, yet still the Environment Agency did not get it right.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest, but surely he is running up against the counter-intuitive wall. On the occasion of the purple powder-packed prophylactic projectile, everyone's natural instinct was to flee, when it would have been logical to stay and die for one's country and avoid spreading the problem. It is that measure of seriousness. How on earth can we educate people that it is better to stay and die than to go and spread the problem? That will be difficult. With the best will in the world, it will be beyond websites.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I agree entirely. I have no doubt about that, but there are other scenarios in which, although there may a serious risk, some steps that could easily be taken will minimise the risk for some people. Let us save them at least for heaven's sake, if we can.

I have a particular interest in the dirty bomb scenario. As the crow flies, I live about 15 miles from a decommissioned nuclear power station. It does not take a genius to work out that that is a real threat. Of all UK constituencies, mine was the worst affected by the Chernobyl fallout, and it is still affected. I have been to Chernobyl and unfortunately seen the effects there, too.

Lewis Moonie (Labour/Co-operative, Kirkcaldy)

In the absence of any radiated fuel on the site, as is the case with a decommissioned power station, the risk from explosion is relatively minor.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The fuel is kept on-site. It has not been moved.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

To move from a decommissioned nuclear installation to one that is active—Hinkley Point—in the 1980s I had a protracted argument with the Central Electricity Generating Board about whether local communities should be issued with potassium iodide tablets, so that they were ready for an emergency; whether there should be muster points in village halls, which there should have been; and whether people would know about what was going to happen and which radio station to tune into to get local information. We eventually won that argument in respect of Hinkley A and B but I am not sure of the position in the rest of the country.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The point that I was trying to make was that the rods have been taken away but the medium and low-level waste remains on-site. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) agrees on that.

Where I come from, we are living with a real danger. The local council has set up its own liaison committee. It has had a civil defence committee type of thing for many years, but no one in the local council seems to know what would happen if there were an incident, apart from one or two council officials, so again that is a failure.

I am not making any political point. If the Minister tells the House that the training board is not necessary, will she please say how we will get up to speed to ensure that the information is available, and that everyone knows in a given set of circumstances what they should be doing. How will we ensure that the public are properly protected? That is her concern, it is my concern and it is the concern of the whole Chamber.

The whole point of the Bill is to update and to strengthen existing legislation, and I fully agree with it, but if she says that it is otiose—to use the usual parliamentary word—or if she uses a similar parliamentary word, will she please explain how that important information will be disseminated? How will we ensure that we reach all the countries of the UK to ensure that any risk—heaven knows, we do not want it to happen—is minimised as far as possible?

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) asked a key question: how can information be disseminated? Even the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who disagreed with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) made, said that lines of communication are important. My question to the Minister is: how will those lines of communication operate? If there is a flood, generally, one is aware of the problem, although, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy pointed out, that is not always the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) pointed out in a series of examples of catastrophes he has been involved with, witnessed or knows about, communication can break down even when a catastrophe is happening before one's very eyes.

If a dirty bomb were to go off 100 yds from here, we would not know. When I asked the Home Secretary—I have only just received his written response—about what training there would be, he answered:

"In the event of an attack, unless people are under the direction of the emergency services, they should go indoors and tune into the TV or radio for further instructions. The media is the main system through which the government and the emergency services will alert the public. The message is 'go in, stay in, tune in'".

That is all very well if one knows that an event has happened. When we were in Chamber, we saw the purple dye come down. We knew that the event had happened, but if a dirty bomb with a small amount of Semtex spreading radioactive material were to go off, unless—

Lewis Moonie (Labour/Co-operative, Kirkcaldy)

You are not going to die of purple flour.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

The hon. Gentleman shows his ignorance. A dirty bomb may consist of a conventional explosive in which radiological material is embedded. He was a Minister. He knows that. If a bomb were to go off and radiological material were spread by the wind, unless one were in earshot of the bomb, one would not know it had gone off. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newark said, the siren system has been dismantled. How would we know that we had to go in, stay in and tune in?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

A regrettably large proportion of people in eastern Wales cannot receive television transmissions and many valleys throughout the whole of Wales cannot receive radio. Therefore, I am a bit concerned about the Home Secretary's response.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Please God, Meirionnydd will not be a key target but other things may happen, and we know that terrorists often go for soft targets. Dolgellau and other areas could be regarded as a soft target. He is absolutely right. There are areas where there is no local radio, where national radio is difficult to receive, even on long wave, and where television signals are very weak.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument, which I think I am correct in thinking shows his strong support for the amendment that I have tabled. The decision on the most appropriate form of communication in each area should be made locally. In mid-Wales, it may be different because one cannot get TV and radio reception, but the key test is that networks should be resilient for their areas. That is the test that we must apply.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

Again, I quote the point made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy: lines of communication have to be established. The question I ask the Minister is: if a bomb were to go off, but we did not know that it had gone off, how would we know that we had to go in, stay in and tune in, even if there is something to tune in with?

What is the Minister frightened of? What are the Government so frightened of? Does she have such a low level of trust in the British people that she thinks people will panic if they know about these issues? Why does not she do what they do in the United States of America? Why does not she do what they have done in Australia? I hate to reduce the matter to political phrases, but education, education, education in this instance could be a matter of life or death.

I should quote another phrase: "trust the people". As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West said, people perform better in the light of knowledge rather than in the darkness of lack of knowledge.

Let us reflect more on the detail of the message to go in, stay in and tune in. If people are not trained to know exactly what to do, what do they do once they are in? Do they block the windows to ensure that no dust or ricin contaminant comes in? It may be common sense to do that. I do not know: no instructions have been given. As for tuning in, will the Minister tell us whether there is a national emergency system in place now—there certainly was not a few years ago—whereby every single radio channel and every single television channel goes to one source, so that the same message is sent out?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

indicated assent.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

The Minister nods, so I hope that that means that whatever station one tunes into, a network feed will tell people exactly what they should do. Again, the problem is that if people do not know that an event has happened—whether it be a dirty bomb or whatever—they will not tune in. Who outside the Chamber—apart from those watching our proceedings on television—knew at the time that the purple dye had come down? No one in the Tea Room knew. When we all went in there, potentially to contaminate people working there, they did not know what was going on. All they knew was that the House had been suspended because that is what it said on the Annunciator. If we in this small area do not know what is going on, what about the whole of Whitehall and its surrounding area, which would be affected by the wind blowing in any direction?

I ask the Minister to trust the people, to have faith to educate them and to consider how best to announce to a given area that an incident has happened. The problem is not as obvious as the Blitz in the second world war; it is far subtler than that. The Minister should believe in the fact that, if people know what to do, they will be confident in doing what they have to do.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I can see and hear for myself how passionately Members feel about these issues, and I understand that there was a wide-ranging debate in Committee on this very subject. I know that people have strong views, which has been evident in this evening's debate.

The amendments raise important questions about the level of information, training and advice that the Government can usefully give the public in advance of an emergency, as well as during it and after it has happened. Those three stages are all important. We recognise that the behaviour of the public in all three stages is absolutely crucial. In some circumstances, facilitating self-help by the public could reduce the burden on the emergency services, helping them to act in a way that does not exacerbate their problems. Equally, the public can help to add capacity to the emergency services' ability to respond. The public should, first, do good things to help the emergency services, and, secondly, desist from doing bad things that would hinder them.

We take these issues seriously. As hon. Members have anticipated, I am not about to agree that the

"Emergency Public Education and Training Board"

in the form recommended in the new clause should be established. I do not believe that that is necessary to ensure that the public are properly informed. I direct hon. Members to clause 2(1)(g), which provides that the responders in part 1 or 2 of schedule 1 shall

"maintain arrangements to warn the public, and to provide information and advice to the public, if an emergency is likely to occur or has occurred."

That provides for a clear duty to ensure that arrangements are in place to warn the public and to provide information in advance.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

What, then, is in place if the dirty bomb, ricin contaminant or whatever were to go off up Whitehall or wherever? How would we know about it, unless we were tuned in to the radio at the time?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The hon. Gentleman has raised his point before I have responded to those of other hon. Members. I had him on my list, but he has raised the issue now. We believe that "Go in, stay in and tune in" is the best first piece of advice that we can give people, but it would obviously not be appropriate in all circumstances. If there were a fire and a building were collapsing, for example, it would be entirely inappropriate, and the best advice would be the fire service's demand to get out of there.

The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically whether a national system was in place to ensure that all the emergency broadcasting systems would disseminate the same message, and I can tell him that the UK does have an emergency broadcasting system, and that arrangements are in place to ensure such rapid dissemination of public warnings through the whole range of communications—radio, television, Ceefax, teletext and websites. My experience of last week's event in Parliament was that all the breaking-news agencies—Sky and others—immediately recognised what had happened. Indeed, members of the public contacted us immediately. Our friends and family were contacting us to express their concerns.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

rose—

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am going to press on because we have dealt only with part 1 of the Bill and we have to move on to Third Reading at 9 o'clock. A whole range of amendments has not yet been covered.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

If it is an emergency to try to cover the ground in the Bill, will the Minister send a message to the Leader of the House requesting more time to debate this important measure?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

We will have had five and half hours to debate the Bill this evening, and we had a lengthy debate on the previous group of amendments dealing with the voluntary sector. That is why I am anxious to press on.

Clause 2(1)(g) provides the duty, as I explained. Amendment No. 100 is connected and I shall deal with it briefly. It was ably proposed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who brought out the key point that the responder systems must be resilient if at the end of the day they are to protect the public. I refer him to the Act—no, the Bill, I must not be so presumptuous—particularly to clause 2(1)(c), which states that the responders have to

"maintain plans for the purpose of ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, that if an emergency occurs the person or body is able to continue to perform his or its functions".

That embeds the resilience point. If plans were not in place to carry on and warn the public, there would be a breach of duty under that provision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the Bill meets the requirements that he set out in the amendment.

I have already pointed out that clause 2(1)(g) deals with the responsibility to ensure that the public receive proper information. The clause also requires responders to publish aspects of their civil protection in so far as it is necessary or desirable for preventing an emergency or mitigating its effects. That includes the provision of information about the risks before an emergency happens, the actions to be taken by the authorities and, crucially, the actions that the public can take in the event of an emergency.

I would like to point out a couple of ways in which that can happen. Several hon. Members have asked about floods—an issue close to my heart, because there is an area in my constituency that was flooded disastrously in the 1930s and people there are currently examining various flood defence schemes. There is a variety of methods, depending on the nature of the incident, through which we can inform people of what is going on.

For flooding or severe weather, the Environment Agency and the Met Office have well established systems to inform the general public through broadcasting. They also have an automatic telephone dialling system, a fax system and, for hazardous industrial sites and nuclear power stations, there is an obligation on the operator to warn the public within a specified distance. Fixed sirens are often relied on in those circumstances. Water companies will inform their customers about loss of water through loudspeaker vans—we have all heard them: in the old days, they used to tell us to fill the bath up, but I am not quite sure what they are telling us now—and health authorities will contact vulnerable groups if there is a health risk. More generally, the police are likely to warn members of the public if there is an immediate threat to life. That could be done in person by constables, or by a helicopter using sky shout—a system that enables warnings to be sent down from helicopters.

On Friday, I visited the Home Secretary's constituency, where there is a new van that has both cameras and a loudspeaker system, to alert people if an incident should occur.

There is a wide variety of emergencies, so there is a wide range of ways of alerting the public. There is not one simple, uniform method.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am part of the system, because my constituency floods every year and I am the village contact who is telephoned by the automatic dialling system—which is not terribly resilient, because if I am here when there is a flood, I am out of touch.

My point was that there should be commonality of systems wherever possible. For instance, would the Environment Agency system be available to other emergency services, to give advice, because it makes common sense for that to be the case, so that we do not have a variety of systems reaching the wrong people rather than a single system reaching the right people?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

There is a balance to be struck, and I am sure that there is common sense about using systems that are already in place, but we must also have the right people in charge of the right area, and in seeking a completely homogeneous system, we could lose out on the particular skills and knowledge of the various agencies. We want to keep the lead agencies for their expertise, and we should not overlook the possibility of using their infrastructure—avoiding the cost of creating new infrastructure. That needs to be developed through guidance and regulations, which are part of the framework that we need to set up. It cannot be right, however, to have only one system, when the threats are various. That is why clause 2 makes it a local duty to have proper arrangements in place to inform the public.

We see no real merit in setting up the board proposed in the new clause, because there is no such thing as a standard terrorist threat or incident, so there can be no standard response. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) said in his thoughtful and insightful contribution that resilience should be flexible enough to respond to threats that we had perhaps not even contemplated. The responders need to co-operate, as there is not one size that fits all.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

In at least three newspapers recently, there have been reports that the Government intend to produce a leaflet for every household. Indeed, a draft of it was leaked to one of the newspapers. It certainly was not perfect, but it struck me that it was better than nothing. Do the Government intend to do that?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

We have considered the matter over the past 18 months, and a range of issues is under consideration. I do not intend to comment on individual leaks at this stage, but as well as leaflets we have done a huge amount with the websites and we are considering a whole range of ways of being in contact with the public.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam asked about the resilience of electronic infrastructure. Clearly, that is a key issue for our capabilities programme, and we are very conscious of it. It is vital for our resilience to keep up to date, as we are far more dependent on electronic communication than we were in the past.

The Home Office site contains advice on the threats and what to do at home, at work or when travelling, and information on what the Government are doing to help. The MI5 site, which was launched fairly recently, contains much more detailed advice on the threats that we face and what businesses can do. It describes how individuals can help combat the threat, acting as our eyes and ears.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office site provides constantly updated advice on threats abroad. "London Prepared" provides detailed advice on business continuity planning, with links to many other organisations. Many other departmental sites also include resilience and counter-terrorism advice and information.

There are 15 Government reports on resilience-related issues, and we have guidance for schools and teachers, through the "TeacherNet" site. There is a whole range of public information resources to ensure that the messages are accessible to as much of the public as possible.

Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)

If a biological, radiological or other weapon of mass destruction was let off near a school, say, how would people know to log on to one of those websites? How would they know to tune in to the radio, without there being a siren system or another system to let them know that an event had happened?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The response would vary depending on the incident. For example, in a nuclear installation there would be sirens, and on the street the emergency services would be the first there and would set up a cordon and instruct the public, and our normal systems of responding to emergencies would be in place.

We need to have some perspective and get the balance right. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) asked about live exercises. As he well knows, numerous exercises are taking place, both table-top and reality, and there was Operation Magpie just a couple of weeks ago. No-notice exercises such as he suggested would simply cause chaos and create the effect of an incident—almost doing the terrorists' job for them. None of the emergency services advocates such exercises. I urge the House to resist the new clause and the amendment.

Patrick Mercer (Conservative, Newark)

I am extremely disappointed but not surprised by the Government's reaction. Let me say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that the points that I was trying to make were not political, but in fact supportive of the Government, because the last thing that this nation needs in the aftermath of a terrible incident is a Government put under intolerable pressure by the media about things that could have been avoided before the incident rather than being revealed by it.

The Minister's response on training is especially disappointing. The fact remains that if the Government follow any of the precedents, they must realise that there will be an opportunity cost for getting people and society prepared.

Only by so doing will we avoid the unnecessary loss of life and the political ramifications that will result. I am very disappointed by the Government's response and I shall seek to divide the House.

New Clause 3 — Emergency Powers Committee

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 49, in clause 21, page 14, line 31, leave out 'whether written or oral', and insert—

'in writing to the Emergency Powers Committee'.

No. 63, in clause 26, page 17, line 22, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

'(a) these regulations shall be put to a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament consisting of members of the Privy Council chosen to reflect the political balance of the House of Commons (hereafter to be known as the Emergency Powers Committee), before their acceptance, to provide an initial and acceptable parliamentary check.'.

No. 70, in clause 26, page 17, line 22, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

'(a) (i) these regulations shall be put to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament consisting of members of the Privy Council chosen to reflect the political balance of the House of Commons (hereafter referred to as the Emergency Powers Committee), before their acceptance, to provide an initial and acceptable parliamentary check.

(ii) a senior Minister of the Crown shall then, as soon as is reasonably practicable, lay the regulations before Parliament, provided that he believes on reasonable grounds that he has used his best endeavours to consult the Emergency Powers Committee.

(iii) a senior Minister of the Crown may dispense with the requirements of paragraph (a) above if he believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so by reason of urgency.'.

No. 3, in clause 26, page 17, line 43, at end insert—

'(3A) Paragraph (1) of House of Commons Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union Documents) shall not apply to proceedings in the House of Commons under this section.'.

No. 74, in clause 26, page 17, line 45, leave out paragraph (a).

No. 75, in clause 26, page 18, line 1, leave out 'affect anything' and insert 'render unlawful'.

No. 4, in clause 29, page 18, line 41, at end insert—

'(3) Emergency regulations may make provision to disapply or modify an enactment under section 21(3)(j) only if a draft of the regulations or order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

It has taken some time, but we are now examining part 2. You will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the concern expressed by many people, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights, about the progress of the Bill and its scrutiny. In its most recent report, the Committee was optimistic that the Minister for the Cabinet Office would change his position in an amendment to be tabled on Report. Government amendment No. 93, which we may reach later, would require emergency regulations to include a statement that the person making them

"is satisfied that the regulations are compatible with the Convention rights".

The amendment refers only to section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which may be problematic, but it certainly represents progress. At the end of page 8 of its latest report, the Joint Committee says:

"We remain concerned that clause 21(3) of the Civil Contingencies Bill may be interpreted as allowing regulations to be made which would relieve a public authority of its duty under section 6 of the Human Rights Act, with a . . . risk of violating Convention rights."

Once again, the Committee draws that matter to the attention of the House.

There is still concern about the Bill's compatibility with the Human Rights Act. New clause 3 proposes a small joint committee of Privy Councillors to consider emergency regulations before they are laid in the House with the aim of achieving consensus, all-party support and scrutiny. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) for proposing such an arrangement on Second Reading. We pursued it in Committee, and its purpose is to provide a quick but effective parliamentary check of proposed emergency powers. In Committee, the Minister for the Cabinet Office was sympathetic to

"the principle of wider consultation with representatives of key parties when emergency powers are to be used".

He spoke of

"the long-standing convention that the Government should seek in times of serious emergency to build consensus".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 10 February 2004; c. 299.]

He would not, however, accept our amendments. We have therefore revisited the issue in new clause 3 and I hope for a better response this time.

Given the number of others who wish to speak, there is not time for me to outline each of the other amendments, but all have a bearing on the emergency powers committee, as we call it, and all of them are designed to put into effect a structure whereby the emergency powers committee—a joint committee—could have a role and we could bring to the issue of emergency powers that element of consensus.

The idea behind amendment No. 3 was suggested on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who properly argued that for our normal Standing Orders to apply to the emergency regulations and to have only 90 minutes to debate them is wrong. Although he did not use the words, I would say that that is approaching a constitutional outrage. The Government accepted in Committee that 90 minutes

"is unlikely to be sufficient to debate regulations as important as these will be.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 10 February 2004; c. 301.]

If they think that that is true, they should put their money where their mouth is and introduce the change in the law that we propose.

Amendments Nos. 74 and 4 are also proportionate measures to prevent the Government from having too much power in these matters.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I fully support the intention behind the amendments moved by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). It is more than desirable, it is essential, that at a time of emergency, that the broadest possible consensus in the political sphere and on a wider front be achieved to command the agreement and consent of the British people. The hon. Gentleman suggested one mechanism, but there are others. Making that a requirement means that it is not left to the whim of a Minister of the day to implement proper consultation with all parties, which we would all agree is a desirable state of affairs.

I will not speak to amendment No. 3 tabled by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), other than to note that my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) thought it right to attach their names in support of it. It is entirely inappropriate that debate of such important regulations in the House should be abbreviated. It is important that we have a proper debate. I hope that the amendment will achieve that and that the Government will see fit to support it.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

I shall be very brief and make only four points.

First, we need to be aware how wide-ranging the powers to make emergency regulations are. Their scope is extensive and is provided for in clause 21. Secondly, we need to keep it in mind that we are discussing emergency regulations—that is, those that have not been through the parliamentary process. Thirdly, we should keep it in mind that the Ministers thought capable of laying the emergency regulations include very junior ones—namely, Whips. It is extraordinary that Whips should be in a position to lay such draconian provisions before the House.

I therefore support the purpose behind new clause 3 with this proviso: I would not make the committee a consultative committee. I would make its consent a pre-condition to the emergency regulations being issued. There is much more that I could say, but I do not consider it appropriate that I should at this late hour.

Richard Shepherd (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills)

The lateness of the hour and the fact that there are six minutes before a guillotine falls give urgency and emphasis to amendment No. 3, which states that paragraph (1) of House of Commons Standing Order No. 16

"shall not apply to proceedings in the House of Commons under this section.'."

There is a 90-minute guillotine on such motions and as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and acknowledged by the Government in Committee, 90 minutes would be an unconscionably short time to debate regulations that might touch on some of the most fundamental political and civil liberties that have been at the centre of the life, vitality and purpose of the House over its history.

Therefore, amendment No. 3, which has all-party support, seeks to remove by statute the recourse that the Government could have to Standing Order No. 16. We now live in a time when even this Bill, which touches on some of our most fundamental liberties, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, does not receive proper scrutiny. We must have the ability to discuss these matters for longer, if that is what the House determines by the will expressed in the course of the debate, and that should be set out in legislation. I become cynical and distressed because of the way in which even on this important measure, under the guillotine, Back Benchers have not been remotely able to make a contribution on the areas of part 2 that are fundamental to the purpose of many of us.

Fiona Mactaggart (Labour, Slough)

I am grateful to hon. Members for trying to make their important points briefly and I hope to address each of them in the very short time that is left to me.

The Government are sympathetic to the principle of wider consultation with representatives of key parties, which is inherent in new clause 3, if emergency powers are to be used, but we do not believe that the proposed mechanism is the appropriate or best way of going about conducting that process. The House is aware that there is a long-standing convention that the Government will seek in times of serious emergency to build consensus across the political spectrum. The Prime Minister regularly briefs senior figures from all the major political parties on a Privy Council basis. The Government's commitment to that approach was most recently demonstrated in relation to the conflict in Iraq. That tried and tested procedure allows the Government to take the views of senior parliamentary figures in a flexible and efficient way that is tailored to the needs of the situation at hand. It is our view that continuing with that tried and tested procedure is a more appropriate way to ensure that the collecting of opinion is properly done.

Of course, we know that we will use the part 2 powers only in moments of extreme emergency. Establishing a pre-set committee may create greater delay, and we need the most flexible possible way to achieve what is needed. That is why we are anxious to avoid a proposal that could delay response efforts without adding anything to the process. Unnecessary delay in situations in which lives may be at stake would be unacceptable.

Hon. Members have raised concerns—they are largely dealt with in later amendments—about the impact on human rights of other constitutional matters that could arise as a result of the regulations. We have sought to take into account the concerns of the House, and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) was kind enough to refer to Government amendment No. 93, which seeks to make that clear. We believe that it would be impossible to amend the Human Rights Act 1998 through the regulations that we propose.

I understand hon. Members' concerns about the length of time provided for debate, but it is unfair to make much of the fact that very junior Ministers might be in a position to move regulations; the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire knows perfectly well that they will be acting as Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, and that there are clear routines around which they could carry out that function. Fundamentally, the regulations are to be proposed by Secretaries of State and senior Ministers of the Crown.

There is a key point, however, about properly debating the regulations, and I understand why the Opposition are seeking to amend the Standing Orders of the House to guarantee a long enough and proper debate. It is clearly unacceptable to expect to be able to amend regulations in a 90-minute debate. That 90-minute period is established—

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The result of the guillotine imposed on the Bill has been that six new clauses, one new schedule and 87 amendments—including important Government amendments—have not been reached or debated. You will know that the Opposition voted against the programme motion. Would it be possible for you to report this matter to the Chairman of Ways and Means—who is called upon from time to time to give evidence about the effect of programming to Committees such as the Procedure Committee—to ensure that he is fully apprised of the disaster that has occurred today?

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

That is not a point of order for the Chair. We are following the provisions of the programme motion to which the House agreed. I have no doubt, however, that the Chairman of Ways and Means will read the hon. Gentleman's comments in Hansard.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the conclusion of the Report stage, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), was unable to complete either her sentence or her speech, but it sounded as though she was about to make an important announcement. Although it may not have happened often, I believe that there is a precedent for two Ministers speaking at the beginning of a Third Reading debate. Would it be possible for the Under-Secretary to complete her speech before the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety moves the Third Reading of the Bill? It really is a sadness—I do not want to use a pejorative word—that the Under-Secretary was unable to complete her speech at the previous stage.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. That is not a point of order. The issue is entirely up to the Ministers concerned.

Order for Third Reading read.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contribution to the development of the legislation. The principles of the Bill command the broad support of all parties, and I am genuinely grateful to hon. Members for the constructive and sensible way in which the Bill has been scrutinised and debated.

As I said at the outset, a joint Committee subjected the Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny, and two public consultations have taken place. When the Bill was introduced on 7 January, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is unfortunately not with us this evening, said that it was stronger as a result of the pre-legislative scrutiny, and I am sure that hon. Members share that view.

The Bill's subject matter is not party political, and all hon. Members have been keen to examine possible improvements and to make sure that that process is rigorous and evidence based—we all agree that it is important to get the Bill right. The Bill deals with serious issues, particularly given the heightened threat from terrorism that we all currently face. Although we have occasionally disagreed on the detail, I hope that we all support the broad thrust of the Bill.

As the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said on Second Reading, the legislation's purpose is clear. The aim of the Bill and its accompanying non-legislative measures is the delivery of a single framework for civil protection in the United Kingdom that will hopefully meet the challenges of the 21st century—in some cases, the legislation that is being replaced dates back 80 years. The Bill establishes a proper framework, which will hopefully last for a similar length of time.

We are all familiar with the challenges. Recent events have shown how emergencies can disrupt our way of life, damaging human welfare, the environment and national security. Even now, the events of 11 September 2001 are still fresh in many people's minds, but so are the fuel crisis, foot and mouth and the floods of 2000. The floods of 2000, which predated 11 September, were the catalyst for the emergency planning review, which was set in train by the Deputy Prime Minister and provided the foundations for the legislation.

The Bill will end our reliance on legislation dating from the first half of the last century, which has stood us in good stead but is increasingly unsuitable in today's world. Modernisation is timely—some hon. Members disagree with some of the modernising measures that the Government have introduced—but I am glad that the Bill has all-party support.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Devolution is one element of modernisation, and I note the marked difference in responsibilities and authority between Scotland and Wales. Does the Minister feel it appropriate that Wales will effectively have less autonomy to make decisions relating to the Bill, after the Bill is enacted? Does she have a view on the need for a little more devolution to Wales on such matters?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman raises devolution. We had an interesting debate on devolution, in which one right hon. Member, who is not in his place, sought to undo the devolution settlement. The provisions relating to Scotland and Wales mirror the devolution settlement, which is why the Scottish provisions discuss action taken by Ministers, who are clearly separate from the legislature in Scotland, whereas the Welsh provisions concern consultation and deliberation with the Assembly, reflecting the different tenor of the devolution settlement in those two countries.

On Report, I pointed out to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) that the relationship with Wales is important. Matters that have been devolved to Wales, such as health and transport, are key to making sure that the response to civil contingencies is accurate, integrated and coherent, and the relationship with Wales will continue to be important.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Of course, we did not have a chance to discuss amendments Nos. 93 and 94, which the Government introduced following discussions in Committee on the role that they should play in terms of emergency powers to restore the Government and the declaration on human rights. I hope that the Minister will say a word about each amendment.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I will certainly do my best to cover all the areas that are dealt with by the Bill, because I recognise that we did not have time to deal with issues that are important to Members.

It is right that the legislation should tackle the local and national levels. Part 1 will ensure that the framework for planning at the local level—already strong in many respects—is brought on to a more consistent basis. It enshrines the concept of integrated emergency management, which is that emergencies should be considered along a spectrum rather than being planned for in isolation. That is a departure from the Civil Defence Act 1939, and the analysis has drawn wide support from civil emergency protection practitioners. The Bill will deliver clear roles and responsibilities for local responders, and local communities across the country will see the benefit.

The renewal of the emergency powers framework in part 2 is equally important. The Emergency Powers Act 1920 has served the UK well in times of national crisis, but it was last used more than 20 years ago and it has reached the end of its natural life. The fundamentals of the legislation remain the same—an ability rapidly to make temporary legislation for the purpose of dealing with the most serious of emergencies—but the Bill offers a more flexible, deployable and resilient model with stronger safeguards and better procedures than the original legislation.

Nevertheless, we are all conscious of the difficult balance to be struck in these matters. I recognise how strongly Members felt about that in Committee and it is perhaps a pity that we have not had chance to debate them, but clearly Members—

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Whose fault is that?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

There were no knives in the programme motion, and Members could have sought to prioritise whichever amendments they wanted to. Perhaps we could have had more focused debates on the other amendments. Then we would have had a chance to consider other parts of the Bill.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

It has been put to me by a constituent who is a member of the human aspects group of the Emergency Planning Society that the definition of "emergency" is not sufficiently broad. Throughout the Bill, "emergency" is an event that presents a serious threat to human welfare and is explained in terms of loss of life, illness or injury. She tells me, and I put it to the Minister, that there needs to be much more of a

"recognition that human welfare also includes human suffering (social and psychological) both in the short term and longer term."

Does the Minister agree that the Bill deals with that adequately, and therefore that the definition of "emergency" is sufficiently broad?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but "human welfare" is a broad term that can encompass physical welfare, but which may have an impact on people's emotional, mental and psychological well-being. The definition was subjected to a lot of debate during pre-legislative scrutiny. Indeed, one thing that Members across the House are pleased about is the fact that the reference in the original definition to a threat to economic, administrative and political stability was taken out because people felt it could perhaps be misused under a particularly ill-inclined Government.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Will my hon. Friend write to me on this matter?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I shall take advice on the breadth of the definition. My instinct is that it could cover the circumstances outlined by my hon. Friend, but I am happy to write to him.

We are conscious of the difficult balance to be struck and we recognise the sincere and heartfelt concerns of many in the House about the need to ensure that robust safeguards are in place to prevent misuse of emergency powers. We have made important changes to the Bill to meet those concerns as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny and during consideration in Committee and on Report, and especially in relation to parliamentary scrutiny and the operation of the Bill alongside the Human Rights Act 1998.

Members were concerned about whether it would be possible to use the Bill to amend the Human Rights Act, but my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office made his statement of compatibility with that Act when he signed off the Bill and when he referred to this in Committee. I hope that Members will accept that assurance.

Hon. Members have also taken the opportunity to use the debates to air other points of concern, both about the specifics of the Bill and the Government's wider civil contingencies and counter-terrorism work. We have had some useful discussions, and I hope that we have offered full explanations of our position. We tried to provide as much information as possible during the debates, and I hope that hon. Members have found that helpful in informing our deliberations.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

But can the hon. Lady assure us that in all the training that will be necessary for the public, institutions and organisations, the resources will not be wanting? I am talking specifically about local authorities, which will want to take lead roles, as they will be required to do under the Bill as enacted. Can she assure the House that they will get the resources necessary to ensure that the training takes place?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

If the hon. Gentleman had been present during the previous consideration—I make no criticism of him for that—he would have heard that we had a robust discussion about the funding position for responders. Clearly, I made the point that in the last seven years, the civil defence grant has increased by 31 per cent., whereas in the last seven years of the previous Administration, it decreased by 42 per cent. I entirely acknowledge that local government has concerns about additional pressures. That is why we are in discussions with it now. I have said clearly that there must be a proper business case, properly set out, for any increase, but clearly, we will try to consider those matters properly within the spending review settlement for 2004. I also ask Members to take into account the fact that local government has received substantial real terms increases over the past few years in its basic revenue support grant settlements. In that overall funding context, I take on board the idea that we need to try to resolve any genuine issues so that people can do the job properly that we ask them to do.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Not unless it is on a similar point.

I want to return to the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about the Human Rights Act 1998. As I understand it, section 6 clearly states that should Her Majesty or a Minister make regulations that are incompatible with the convention rights, that would be unlawful, so it is not necessary to provide for that in the Bill.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I have already quoted from the eighth report of the Joint Committee. The hon. Lady has acknowledged that there is a point in amendment No. 93—which, unfortunately, we did not reach—meaning that the Minister must make a statement before making regulations that they are compatible with section 1 of the Human Rights Act.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Yes, I suppose that it could be a belt and braces provision. There is merit in requiring the maker of the regulations to give a clear statement that the regulations are compatible, because given the exceptional nature of emergency regulations, it is appropriate to make exceptional provision. The Human Rights Act does not require a statement of compatibility in relation to secondary legislation, but such emergency legislation is likely to include provisions that at non-emergency times would be included in primary rather than secondary legislation.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Will the Minister give way?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am anxious for other Members to be able to make a contribution to this debate. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall press on. I have given way a great deal.

I hope that we have developed the Bill in an open and consultative way. I want to pay tribute to the organisations that have made that possible by getting involved with the consultation. Practitioners such as chief officers of police, fire and local government, the Emergency Planning Society and pressure groups such as Liberty and Justice have helped us to develop the Bill in a proper fashion. We have benefited from the active engagement of thousands of individual civil protection professionals, and I hope that they have helped us to develop a Bill that is both principled and practicable.

The process of pre-legislative scrutiny helped to ensure that the Bill that was introduced in January was much stronger than it would otherwise have been. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) for his work in chairing that committee, and for the contribution from Members of all parties. We have not, I am sure, resolved every issue, but we have a Bill that delivers our aim, and that has stood up to parliamentary scrutiny thus far. We are sending this Bill to the other place in good shape, although their lordships will doubtless wish to review many of the issues that we have discussed. In particular, we can look forward to their experience being brought to bear on some of the technical aspects of the Bill, as well as on fundamental questions about the balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the community.

This is important legislation. The Acts that we are replacing are, in parts, more than 80 years old, and for us, as legislators and representatives, the safety and well-being of the people of the United Kingdom is the highest priority. I think the Bill is a substantial step towards progress in that direction, and I commend it to the House.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I will not speak for long, because others wish to speak as well.

Let me begin by saying what a disgrace it is that we have lost the chance to debate six new clauses, one new schedule and 87 amendments. That really is not good enough. We voted against the programme motion; as a result of the Government's insistence on their programme, we have been unable to debate some very important matters. We have said from the outset that the Bill is overdue, and that our response to emergencies at local and national level should be provided for in a modern Bill. The measures in part 2 allow Ministers wide discretion to make emergency regulations, but protection for human rights is still inadequate.

I welcome amendment No. 93, which does at least ensure that the Minister must issue a certificate when making regulations stating that they are compatible with section 1 of the Human Rights Act. We argued for that in Committee, and I think we are entitled to take some credit for having moved the Minister on it. I note from its latest report that the Joint Committee on Human Rights welcomes it too, describing it as a step in the right direction.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

A step.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

A step, as my right hon. and learned Friend says. The Committee says:

"We welcome these moves, which serve significantly to improve the safeguards for Convention rights under the Bill."

However, it also says:

"We remain concerned that clause 21(3) of the Civil Contingencies Bill may be interpreted as allowing regulations to be made which would relieve a public authority of its duty"

—to which the Minister has just referred—

"under section 6".

It is that concern that we continue to express.

Douglas Hogg (Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Under the emergency regulations, for example, property can be confiscated without compensation. That flies in the face of the relevant article.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

My right hon. and learned Friend will have noted that amendments were tabled on compensation and the costs of compliance. I know that he would have wanted to speak if we had reached that group.

Although we welcome the structure of the Bill and the duties placed on local authorities and other responders, we question whether enough has been done to protect human rights, and to make a practical reality of the necessary response to an emergency. We called for a volunteer reserve to deal with emergencies, and we have debated that today. I believe that there is a mood in all parts of the House in favour of a greater role for volunteers, and the Government should have conceded the point.

We called for proper public information and training. The Government seem to be moving on that—all too slowly, but I predict that they will produce a booklet for every household in due course, setting out some of the threats and some of the necessary information. [Interruption.] I am told that they will have to do so, now that I have predicted it. It is a pity that a Minister could not just stand up at the Dispatch Box and say, "Yes, we will be doing that." We would have liked to see a senior Minister in charge of homeland security and the response to terrorism, rather than the current Home Office/Cabinet Office/Ministry of Defence mishmash.

It is true that we have seen some improvements in the Bill as a result of the Committee stage—for instance, the provisions on cross-border issues and on not treating the protection of Government activities as an emergency in itself, the improved drafting in clauses 1, 2 and 18 on the meaning of "emergency"—although there was more to discuss—and of course amendment No. 93, which improves protection for human rights.

At the end of our deliberations in Committee, I said that we had not had a sausage from the Government. Perhaps by now we have had a cocktail chipolata; none the less, there is more work to do in the other place. [Interruption.] I am told that they do not have cocktail chipolatas in Wales, and I believe it; perhaps I should have said "a lamb chop".

On Second Reading, I said that there was much in the Bill to probe, challenge and improve. There is also much in the Bill to welcome, and we have made limited progress in trying to improve it. However, there is a lot still to do and the battle will go on elsewhere. Many of the matters that we have been unable to discuss tonight will be returned to in another place: the issues dealt with in new clauses 4, 6, 7 and 9; the important issues of ministerial responsibility, compensation and what really constitutes an emergency; procedure; human rights; and the question of emergency co-ordinators being competent people for the task.

Peter Bottomley (Conservative, Worthing West)

To those who expected the House to have lengthier debates on these issues, it is worth emphasising the importance of the leaflet to which my hon. Friend referred, and of the Minister's description of the serious issues being considered. In doing so, we should consider the ministerial answer that she gave—my hon. Friend will have seen it—concerning feedback on Home Office guidance on mass fatalities. That is serious information, and in the light of the Government's concern about how people should respond to mass fatalities, in terms of coroners and the disposal of bodies, we begin to understand why this Bill and the debate matters, and why the debate in the other place will matter even more than ours, given that we have been unable to go through everything in detail.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

I agree with my hon. Friend. These are very serious issues, and it is wrong that the House of Commons should be unable to debate them in the detail that they deserve. For my part, I would nevertheless find it impossible to vote against a measure that establishes for future emergencies a new structure with which I agree. This is the sort of dilemma that one sometimes faces: on the one hand, the Bill does some good things, but on the other, we as an Opposition have not been treated as we should have been.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.