EMERGENCY PLANNING (Hansard, 10 July 1991)

Earl Ferrers

My noble friend Lord Waddington, the then Home Secretary, said in his Statement on 16th October last year that he had received a report from Mr. David Brook, his Civil Emergencies Adviser, on the role of local authorities in peacetime emergencies; and that he would be considering the report in conjunction with a review of the options for the future of our civil defence arrangements in the light of developments in East-West relations. This would enable us to consider whether a more coherent approach to emergency planning for the protection of the public in both peace and war could be achieved.

The Government's commitment to civil defence remains firm. For our civil defence arrangements to continue to be relevant and effective the planning assumptions on which they are based must reflect the realities of international relations. Current civil defence planning concentrates on the effects of a major nuclear attack on the United Kingdom. The Government have decided that in future such civil defence plans should be maintained in such a state that they could be brought to full readiness within a period of three months. Essential plans should be capable of being put into effect within seven days. These assumptions will be kept under regular review.

This change has to be viewed in the wider context of an international situation that remains troubled and far from risk free. With the now reduced risk of nuclear conflict the Government believes that the time is right to develop more flexible civil defence arrangements. This approach will require a closer correlation between contingency plans for civil defence and peacetime emergencies.

In his report, Mr. Brook, the Civil Emergencies Adviser, points to a number of shortcomings in local 93WA authority arrangements for dealing with peacetime disasters. Some local authorities are effective in their planning; others less so. Mr. Brook has identified particular problems of inadequate planning and co-ordination in some metropolitan areas. He has recommended that there should be new legislation on civil protection which would include a statutory duty on local authorities to plan, train and exercise for their role in mitigating the effects of peacetime disasters.

A summary of Mr. Brook's report has been placed in the Library.

It is clearly unacceptable that some local authorities should be inadequately prepared to deal with a major peacetime emergency and we agree with Mr. Brook that the shortcomings he has identified must be rectified. However, while we do not rule out the possibility of legislation in the longer term, there are obvious difficulties in introducing legislation affecting the duties of local authorities at a time when local government reorganisation is in prospect. We propose, therefore, to seek improvements in peacetime planning in the first instance by measures which are open to my right honourable friend under existing legislation. These changes will also bear positively on our arrangements for civil defence.

It is against this background that my right honourable friend has taken the following decisions.

We will seek to achieve improvements in local authority planning for emergencies in peace and war through a package of measures. These will include the issue of central guidance on the handling of peacetime emergencies; a review of the organisation of emergency planning within metropolitan areas; and a more flexible use of civil defence grant for local authorities to ensure more broadly based planning. Mr. Brook already has the first of these measures in hand. On the second we will be asking officials to consider how arrangements in metropolitan areas can be improved within the existing statutory framework. The aim would be to involve the metropolitan districts and London boroughs in the planning process more than is sometimes the case at present.

Local authority civil defence planning will in future be based on the more flexible approach I have already described. Its aim will be to ensure that all local author ties are able to continue to deliver the services for which they are responsible in peacetime in a wide range of possible civil defence emergencies. It will therefore be more relevant to peacetime disasters. We also propose to encourage local authorities to take full advantage of the provisions in existing legislation which permits the use of civil defence resources to carry out planning for peacetime disasters, provided that the Home Office is satisfied that they are making reasonable progress with civil defence planning.

This approach should secure better value for money from civil defence grant to local authorities and, provided that this is forthcoming, we shall give a measure of protection to the grant within what will inevitably be a diminishing total expenditure on civil defence. But we shall expect local authorities to 94WA continue to make a contribution to emergency planning from their own resources; and my right honourable friend will be ready to withhold grant from any local authority which is inefficient in its use of grant or seeks to evade its civil defence responsibilities.

A new system will be developed to monitor the changes in local authority planning, for which new objectives will be set. Local authorities will be given guidance in due course.

My right honourable friend has concluded that, while there is a continuing need for protected local authority emergency centres, the existing requirement for two such emergency centres in each county and one in each district is no longer realistic. My right honourable friend therefore intends to set a new minimum requirement of one protected centre per county. We shall give further consideration, in consultation with local authorities, to the future of existing protected centres above this new minimum.

The new civil defence planning assumptions, and the more flexible approach to civil defence which we wish to see developed, will require the further development of the emergency communications network. My right honourable friend is now prepared to extend the network to district council offices and to county council offices in those places where the protected emergency centre is remotely located. The rate at which this can be achieved will depend on the availability of resources.

My right honourable friend has also looked at the role of the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation, including the Royal Observer Corps, taking into account changing civil defence requirements. We have decided that the arrangements for monitoring details of nuclear bursts and radioactive fall-out in wartime must be restructured. Certain of UKWMO's functions in this area will be carried out by central government and integrated with existing local authority plans and responsibilities for monitoring in the field. We will be discussing with local authorities the implementation of these proposals.

My right honourable friend has therefore concluded with regret that the Home Office can no longer justify the continued use of the ROC and Home Department volunteers for the monitoring task. It has therefore been decided, following consultations between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, who share responsibilities for the ROC, that the corps will be stood down in its operational role.

I must take this opportunity to pay tribute to the loyal and dedicated service that the full-time officers and volunteers of the ROC have given over 36 years. The considerable time and effort invested by the members of the corps is a measure of their commitment and professionalism. I should also recognise the dedication and hard work of the Home Office volunteers who have been involved in monitoring. We did not take lightly the decision to dispense with their, or the ROC's, services. I am aware that they have all earned our gratitude and respect.

95WA

Home Office officials are currently reviewing the arrangements for warning taking into account possible peacetime needs and costs. We hope to make a further announcement soon.

Since more time will be available in future to activate civil defence plans, the level of day to day police and fire service war planning can be reduced. 96WA Preliminary discussions have already been held with the relevant police and fire service committees to work out how this is best achieved.

These new arrangements will provide a major opportunity to improve arrangements for the protection of the public in peace and war. They will be developed by the Home Office in full consultation with those responsible for putting them into effect within the broad framework I have set out in this statement.