REPORT TO PARLIAMENT

HL Deb 09 November 2004 vol 666 cc816-24

The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for an annual report to Parliament on the preparations made by government in relation to civil contingencies and on the performance of the persons or bodies listed in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule I in respect of their duties under this Act."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise to the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrat Party—I regard this sort of amendment as their territory. Indeed, I voted for an amendment like this in yesterday's debate on the Pensions Bill. Sadly, I was just in the minority. If anything along the lines of the amendment proves attractive to that Front Bench, I would be delighted if they would bring it back at Third Reading and I shall support them then.

The purpose of the amendment is to hold the Government to a promise that they made in Committee. They promised that they would consider how government would report to Parliament on the performance of their duties in return for their not being given any duties under the Bill. I look forward to the Government's response. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, annual reports are a popular amendment in your Lordships' House, and I can well understand why opposition parties seek to move them. Annual reports have that feel to them—as if to say, "We're jolly well going to hold the Government to account. Make them report annually to us. Have things placed on the record. Ensure that we extract every last piece of information from them, and then we'll move on and do something else". But what does this amendment seek to prove? It proves nothing. It would achieve very little.

We already have a clear and convincing strategy in place for developing our counter-terrorism and resilience capabilities. We know that we have robust contingency planning and exercising arrangements in place. Local responders understand how they fit into the wider picture. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, develops the theme simply by seeking to introduce a mechanism to ensure that the Government are transparent about their civil contingencies work. However, we are transparent. We have made clear what we are doing. We have set out our plans. There are more than ample opportunities for your Lordships' House and another place to debate and consider how we are working.

I understand why people call for annual reports to be presented to Parliament, but we make regular Statements on the issues that will undoubtedly be covered by an annual report. The Home Office regularly reports on these issues. The Home Secretary has made many Statements to another place on them. When an emergency has arisen in the past, account has regularly been made to Parliament. We do not see any need at all for an annual report in the form in which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is requesting it. Plenty of mechanisms are already in place in Parliament for reporting on the detail of the quality, quantity and robustness of contingency planning.

We provide maximum public information. In our earlier debate about providing advice and information, I thought that our comments were received well and our reassurances were to some degree accepted by Members of your Lordships' House. We are trying to be as open as we possibly can about our counter-terrorism and resilience arrangements. We have made available a large amount of practical and helpful information to businesses, voluntary organisations and individuals about emergencies. I believe that the regularity with which we report on these matters to Parliament gathers respect. We set out our plans and thinking in these matters in a whole range of documents that are appropriate to the issue. I am sure that most people would agree that, despite all the difficulties in this field, Parliament already has access not only to information about the Government's approach, but also to the tools to hold them properly to account.

I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, might want to have an annual and regular report. However, I suspect that, in the end, like all such matters, it will get lost among all the other annual reports in various guises that amendments down the years have proposed in order to hold government to account for the detail of their activity.

I do not think that the amendment is necessary. I think that we already have sufficient reporting mechanisms. We have transparency on the issue. That would be a far more effective and, ultimately, flexible way of dealing with this. If the issue is important enough for the Government to be held to account, then that needs to happen not just annually but at regular intervals and on occasion when there is a real cause to hold the Government to account for their activities in this field.

As much as I respect the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for proposing the amendment, I do not think that it takes us forward in any particular direction. I think that, ultimately, it is inflexible in its extent and operation.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, that is a fairly clear no. I shall let the matter lie there but I shall come back to it under the next group, which is where the consequences of this will come to light. If the Government will not tell us in any formal way how, for instance, they have been exercising to deal with a major flood, or a shortage of fuel, or whatever else it might be, I want to be sure that we shall be able to find out those things informally and that we shall not just be told, "It is none of your business".

In not involving themselves in this Bill the Government are saying that we can trust them to do all the exercising and the preparations. But how do we hold them to account if they just will not tell us what they have been doing? That is what worries me. The noble Lord says that there will be all these reports but I am not aware of any of them. I have never seen any of them. Perhaps the noble Lord could give me a list of the things that are available at the moment to say what exercises the Government have been doing. I asked him for that last time but I think I got an answer that they could not answer.

It is all very well saying that there is no need for a formal reporting mechanism, but it has to be very clear that these things actually are available when we want them and are not just bits of information that are not collected because the Government cannot be bothered. It is absolutely crucial to this whole thing working that the Government do their bit. If it is not in this Bill and they are not going to tell us about it in a formal way, I really would like to know where I go to find out details of the Health Department's exercising for civil contingencies. Where should I look? If the noble Lord can answer that question in writing, I shall not return to the matter at Third Reading.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I shall endeavour to invoke more Cabinet Office correspondence on the matter and put the noble Lord's mind at rest. Many publications outline what we do and plan and how we engage with the issue. I am happy to provide the noble Lord with that information.

Lord Lucas

My Lords, I am grateful for that but I should be clear that it is not the good intentions that interest me but what actually gets done. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18 [Interpretation, &c.]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 40: Page 12, line 23, at end insert— "terrorism" has the meaning given by section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (c. 11), and war" includes armed conflict.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]

Schedule 1 [Category 1 and 2 Responders]:

Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 43:

Page 23, line 5, at end insert—

"Central Government

1. 1 In relation to England and Wales
1. (a) a Government department or ministry,
2. (b) an executive agency or non-department public body,
3. (c) the National Assembly for Wales, and
4. (d) an executive agency or non-department public body of the National Assembly for Wales.
2. 2 In relation to Northern Ireland—
1. (a) the Northern Ireland Executive, and
2. (b) a Northern Irish executive agency or non-department public body."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 43, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 44. I am eager once again to address the crucial issue of central government's role as a responder in a major emergency.

I believe it is imperative that this legislation clearly defines central government's role in an emergency. While local responders and local emergency plans are certainly comprehensive and developed, the question still remains of what action central government are to take in co-ordinating the response to a large-scale emergency situation.

The very nature of an emergency is that it creates chaos and uncertainty. Therefore, should not this legislation include provisions to ensure that the Government have adequate resources to plan for such a situation? Is it not our duty, in addition to modernising the legislative framework for civil protection, as the Minister stated in Committee, to provide that national emergency planning, training and exercising are integrated with that of local responders?

With respect I do not agree with the Minister's statement that the Government do not need specific legislative authority to plan for an emergency. It would be irresponsible in our view to pass legislation that goes only halfway towards providing a solution for the management of emergency situations.

The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, remarked in Committee that devolved administrations and local government are in charge of emergency planning within their sphere of responsibility. The Minister also stated that the UK Government work very closely with the devolved administrations. I hope so. Therefore, I do not see the objection to amending this legislation to codify the Government's role in emergency preparations and in requiring the involvement of central government resources.

Recent examples where central emergency planning was lacking include the fuel crisis and the foot and mouth outbreak. Certainly those experiences have taught us only that central government play a central role—a key role—in containing emergency situations.

These amendments therefore, by widening the scope of category 1 responders to include central government departments and their agencies throughout all countries of the United Kingdom, would allow for far greater oversight of emergency response preparations and the efficient co-ordination of resources.

It is the strong opinion on these Benches that this group of amendments would greatly improve the legislation. Indeed, in proposing these amendments we are responding to what the Joint Committee said in its report: We recommend that the role and responsibilities of Government Departments, the National Assembly for Wales and regional government are outlined on the face of the Bill and that they are given a statutory duty to undertake their responsibility". I beg to move.

7.15 p.m.

Lord Garden

My Lords, we have looked at this matter in different ways at different stages and I still think that the Government have not addressed the concerns which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has outlined.

We are looking at the ways in which we can have joined-up government, both vertically and horizontally, for unknown emergencies. It seems very strange that each time we consider this the Government are unwilling to place themselves under the same requirements as they do local authorities and other category 1 and category 2 responders.

On the last occasion I tabled an amendment that specifically identified the Ministry of Defence as having a role in this matter. I have not tabled it this time but the rather neat amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, returns to the idea that we need local authorities to know what central government will provide so that there is no duplication. We need a whole range of joined-up activities that are missing at present as there is no reference to the central government area. I strongly support the amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, as both the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Garden, said, we have had this debate more than once already. I shall not disappoint or alarm the House when I say what I have said before; namely, that we remain to be persuaded. This is not a measure that we consider we can support.

Much has changed over the past three or four years. I return to a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, made a few moments ago about earlier crises. We have learnt a lot from those. In the time since the fuel crisis, the foot and mouth outbreak, flooding and so on, we have demonstrated a very clear commitment to the resilience agenda. That agenda is championed at Cabinet level by the Home Secretary, who gives a very firm and clear lead. I do not think that anyone would deny that our Home Secretary is very clear in his intent.

I consider it is almost unarguable that there has been a major change in the quality of contingency planning in central government since 2001. As I say, that was because we reflected on some of the weaknesses which had been exposed by crises. The previous foot and mouth outbreak occurred back in the 1960s. Flooding does not occur every year and a fuel crisis does not arise every year. However, we had to deal with those three major problems all within a fairly short period of time. We had to take account of changes that had occurred in the period that had elapsed since those crises arose in the past. We had to take account of things that had happened nationally, the way in which local government had been reorganised, the impact of technology, the way in which distribution networks work and so on. That caused us to think long and hard about our approach. As I said earlier, I believe that we now have a very robust strategy in place for developing our counter-terrorism and resilience capabilities based on wisdom accumulated over many years. We have detailed contingency planning and exercising arrangements in place within central government. As I said a few moments ago, local responders understand how they fit into the wider picture. More than that, they now have a clear understanding and a good working relationship with central government. This will, of course, be enhanced through the guidance supporting the Bill.

I can see why it might be argued that in future another government might attach less priority to the issue. We went through a period prior to this Government coming to power where civil defence—this is not a criticism of the previous Conservative administration—had a lower order of priority, as did some emergency work. We have moved on from that, due to the exigencies of events. We have set out our stall regarding what we want to do. We are establishing a clear legislative framework. It also has to be said that there are few precedents for imposing high-level duties on central governments. The Government do not consider that it is possible to do so in this case.

Government exercises a huge range of functions ranging from legislation to the delivery of essential services and the management of public finances and advisory services. Each department has different functions and exercises its functions in a different way. As a consequence of governments diversity, any duty would have to be extremely broad.

The noble Lord, Lord Garden, said that the amendment was a neat solution. I am not convinced. We solve the problem in relation to the local response through a heavy reliance on regulations and guidance. There is sufficient commonality between the functions exercised by local responders that it is possible to impose a single statutory duty them. If we applied the same principle here, central government would be regulating and guiding themselves. That would be an interesting conundrum.

Essentially, a future government would be free to take a narrow interpretation of any such duty on themselves. So, as is the case now, the key factor in central government's efforts would not be the shape of any duty but the level of ministerial commitment. That is why we do not believe that a meaningful contingency planning duty—one that would change behaviour—could be imposed on central government. What matters is ministerial will, which is of the utmost importance.

The Government are already committed to a clear performance framework for central government in this area. Noble Lords may be aware of the document The Lead Government Department and its role—Guidance and Best Practice. It was published recently and is a type of document that, no doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would like to see more of. I am more than happy to ensure that copies are made available. The document sets out a clear audit regime. Lead departments will be required to incorporate contingency planning into the annual assurance and risk control mechanism. That will form part of the central government corporate governance regime.

The process will require senior officials to ensure that contingency plans are adequate and that they are validated. It will form part of the department's statement of internal control. The Civil Contingencies Secretariat at the Cabinet Office will co-ordinate the work, ensuring that standards are maintained. However, the results will not be published. Noble Lords will understand some of the difficulties of exposing strengths and weaknesses to those who wish to do us harm.

We take counter-terrorism and resilience issues extremely seriously. We have invested heavily in that work and have in place much improved arrangements as a result of that work and that investment. It is not possible to craft a meaningful duty on central government to ensure that future governments match this Government's commitment to countering terrorism and enhancing resilience. Introducing a defective duty could even hinder effective contingency planning.

What is important at the end of the day is ministerial will. We have that will, and we have a framework that has been given a clear lead in Cabinet. That is the best way for us to organise our arrangements. For those reasons, I must resist the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness.

Baroness Buscombe

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, although it is deeply disappointing. Yes, the Minister has repeated what he said in Committee. It seems that it is one matter for local authorities and local government and another for central government.

The Minister talked about having a clear framework. I cannot understand why central government cannot be part of that framework. It might be the case that central government is at the moment taking counter-terrorism seriously, but the Minister said himself that previous governments had not necessarily treated the matter as a priority.

We live in a different climate from the one in which we lived even four or five years ago. What we are looking for is, as the noble Lord, Lord Garden, said, joined-up government. Surely, if we have any legislation at all, if we are to repeal all of the current emergency legislation, why are we not taking the opportunity in primary legislation to have in the Bill a primary duty on the part of our central government departments to do their duty, as local responders, local authorities and others are required to?

I mentioned foot and mouth disease and the fuel crisis. Yes, I hope that the Government have learnt from those experiences, but what if we have a 9/11 experience tonight or tomorrow? We are talking about the possibility of some unprecedented act or acts, the kind of which none of us has perhaps ever considered. I do not believe that anyone beyond those who make extraordinary horror films could have conceived of what took place on 9/11 in America. It is extraordinary. We have an opportunity here to place in the Bill, and to amplify within a framework, the role of central government and its relationship with local government in civil contingency planning.

I shall not divide the House on the amendment, but I am deeply disappointed. The matter illustrates the fact that the Government, on purely practical issues, are being entirely and unnecessarily inflexible. That is deeply disappointing. However, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 45: Page 25, line 6, leave out paragraphs 19 and 20 and insert— 19 (1) A person holding a licence of a kind specified in sub-paragraph (2) and granted under section 6 of the Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29).

(2) Those licences are—

1. (a) a transmission licence,
2. (b) a distribution licence, and
3. (c) an interconnector licence.

(3) Expressions used in this paragraph and in the Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29) shall have the same meaning in this paragraph as in that Act.

20 (1) A person holding a licence of a kind specified in sub-paragraph (2).

(2) Those licences are—

1. (a) a licence under section 7 of the Gas Act 1986 (c. 44), and
2. (b) a licence under section 7ZA of that Act."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 46 to 56 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 57: Page 26, line 6, leave out paragraphs 30 and 31 and insert— 30 (1) A person holding a licence of a kind specified in sub-paragraph (2) and granted under the Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29), in so far as the activity under the licence is undertaken in Scotland.

(2) Those licences are—

1. (a) a transmission licence,
2. (b) a distribution licence, and
3. (c) an interconnector licence.

(3) Expressions used in this paragraph and in the Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29) shall have the same meaning in this paragraph as in that Act.

31 (1) A person holding a licence of a kind specified in sub-paragraph (2), in so far as the activity under the licence is undertaken in Scotland.

(2) Those licences are—

1. (a) a licence under section 7 of the Gas Act 1986 (c. 44), and
2. (b) a licence under section 7ZA of that Act."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, given the hour, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.30 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.