Civil Contingencies Bill

[back to previous text]

Mr. Allan: I am interested in the amendment, introduced by the hon. Member for Newark in such a chivalrous fashion, but I am not sure that we can

Column Number: 92

support it. There is scope for a lot of people to engage in an activity under subsection (1)(b) of clause 5 for the purpose of

    ''reducing, controlling or mitigating the effects of an emergency''.

I agree with him wholeheartedly that volunteers will play a significant part in that. In our discussions in the Special Standing Committee, we had representations from volunteer organisations, and the British Red Cross made very effective points about the way in which it had been engaged in mitigating the effects of emergencies over many years in the United Kingdom. Its members are often the unsung heroes. I am not entirely convinced of the merits of introducing a new structure to deal with that. We have structures in place already.

The British Red Cross is functioning well and there are bodies such as the St. John Ambulance. The hon. Gentleman correctly referred to the position of volunteer medical staff; I am aware of that because a lot of medics living in Sheffield already volunteer for the Territorial Army. When the TA needs medical staff, they will be called up from within my constituency and, I know, many other constituencies up and down the land. However, I am not convinced that there is any spare capacity; in other words, my instinct is that everybody who wishes to volunteer already volunteers. I am not sure that we would get any new resources by setting up an extra force that would appear to be in competition with what already exists. We must co-ordinate the existing bodies, and I hope that there will be a clear duty on category 1 responders. We recommended to the Special Standing Committee that we should like to see the duty on the category 1 responders to the existing bodies more explicitly spelled out. The Government responded in the negative because they felt that there were different views among the voluntary sector organisations. However, there was probably consensus about the leading voluntary organisations, especially the TA. The TA is an extra resource that can be, and is, called up for military activity abroad. I assume that it would be used as a major port of call for any emergency activity that took place in the UK. All those bodies should be enmeshed in the emergency planning process, and I am not persuaded that an additional body would be the way to achieve that aim.

Patrick Mercer: I accept the points that the hon. Gentleman makes. The point that I was trying to make–I obviously did not make it clearly enough–is that an emergency volunteer reserve, if that is what we are to call them, must have some special form of training. I accept the points made by the hon. Gentleman about the voluntary organisations, including the TA, but I fear that the sort of specialist training needed for dealing, for instance, with contamination problems, will not be provided. The Red Cross–God bless it–at present has no training in dealing with such problems. Therefore, although such voluntary organisations would have some utility, my argument is that their use would not be a complete solution.

Mr. Allan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. There is a question about the extent to which all those organisations provide training for

Column Number: 93

the more extreme kinds of emergencies that are covered by the Bill rather than for their normal activities. However, I am keen to see a healthy voluntary sector that is regularly used–as happens at present. Organisations such as the St. John Ambulance, the Red Cross, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and many others that deal with different sectoral interests, carry out their business week in, week out. Those organisations will be ready, alert and willing to engage, although they might require additional training for a more severe emergency.

If the suggestion is that a separate force should be set up, my concern is that that force would never be used except in those most extreme circumstances. In other words, it would be sitting there unused, waiting for months or years until such an emergency happened. It would be better to focus on the provisions that require category 1 responders to reduce, control or mitigate the effects of the emergency, and to examine ways in which the relationships between the category 1 responders and the existing voluntary sector organisations or the TA could be meshed into that. I fully accept the hon. Gentleman's point about training. However, that is not a sufficient argument for setting up an entirely different structure, so we cannot support the amendment.

The Chairman: Order. I remind hon. Members that it is not permissible to bring refreshments into the Committee. Although the new sitting hours may mean that some hon. Members are still feeling hungry, having had an early lunch, I should be grateful if they would refrain from consuming refreshments in the Committee.

Mr. Pound: If that comment referred to the fact that I am currently masticating, I should say that it is on nicotine chewing gum, which is more medicinal than pleasurable. I apologise if I gave the impression of consumption, or even enjoyment.

I shall respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Newark, henceforth to be known as the blue knight of Newark. Other hon. Members have commented on the gentlemanly and chivalrous way in which he made his points, and I, too, appreciate that. However, I will make two points in response. First, the hon. Gentleman rather betrays the military mindset–albeit from a rather more junior branch of the service. There are 42,800 men and women in the armed forces trained in the three categories to which he referred–the men and women in the Royal Navy. The hon. Gentleman did not mention them, but they are all trained and many of them performed sterling work in the recent fire dispute.

Secondly, I have–sadly–had some experience of this type of disaster, because some years ago there was a huge Real IRA bomb in Ealing. Having lived most of my life in the shadow of NATO Strike Command in Northwood, I had long anticipated what would happen if there was a disaster. As mayor of Ealing, I was privy to the London borough of Ealing's civil contingencies. Fortunately, we declared the borough a

Column Number: 94

nuclear-free zone, and there was not one nuclear attack on the London borough of Ealing–the Tupolevs and the Ilyushins thundered overhead and did not pause. In fact, most of our civil contingency seemed to be built around the identification of mass grave sites.

If we have a disaster on the scale envisaged by the hon. Gentleman, it could go two ways. Either the whole city will collapse and only a few people will survive, or there will be many injured civilians, civil disorder and the need to respond in the same way as we responded to the bombs in Ealing. Oddly enough, in the latter case, the need is not for highly skilled men and women trained in nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, but for people to do the basic things such as those done by the scouts and guides, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the St. John Ambulance and the Red Cross: sweep up glass, take children out of houses, find temporary accommodation and keep the streets clear. Providing that support is essential, and if we tried to create a command structure filled with people trained to the highest level, we would lose sight of the need for a different but equally important level of support on the ground.

Jim Dowd (Lewisham, West) (Lab): I just wanted my hon. Friend's assurance on the success of Ealing's anti-nuclear policy. When the Tupolevs and Ilyushins went past at 30,000 ft, is he convinced that the pilots did not look down at Ealing and think that it had already been bombed?

Mr. Pound: Only a bounder from south of the river would make such a comment. I am already bitterly regretting the slur that I passed on the proud city of Liverpool, which I withdraw unreservedly. I register my admiration for that noble metropolis.

Mr. Allan rose–

Mr. Pound: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who comes from an equally noble metropolis.

Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Liberal Democrats now control Liverpool city council. His comment was most helpful to my colleagues there, and I will ensure that they receive not only the original comment, but his withdrawal.

Mr. Pound: A Liberal Democrat council is not necessarily a reason for a nuclear attack, but the idea has much to commend it.

To return to the point, a command structure already exists, and to duplicate it seems to go against everything that those of us who have a residual affection for the Conservative party hoped that it believed in–a removal of bureaucracy and a cutting away of the tiers of apparatchiks. However, the hon. Member for Newark seems to be proposing a system in which someone who wants to help on the day will have to go to a particular command centre or regional commander.

I remember receiving the phone call about the bomb in Ealing at 20 past 1 in the morning and going down to Ealing broadway to see the streets littered with glass, fire alarms going off and people milling around aimlessly. The people who wanted to help did so. They did not have to phone or write to someone or

Column Number: 95

work out where they fitted in the master plan; they merely came and helped. The official structure was in place, with the police as the primary commanders in conjunction with the other emergency services, and if people wanted to help, they could.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pound: I may regret it, but I will give way.

Mr. Evans: Of course the hon. Gentleman will regret it.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned one incident that happened in Ealing, which we all remember chillingly. It was an awful thing to happen, but it was limited in its nature, and we are considering all eventualities, which might include a dirty bomb or a smallpox outbreak in which specialist skills are needed, which some people, in the Red Cross, for example, have. Is it not right that they should be brought in at an early stage, even at the point of planning, to make suggestions? To prevent a terrorist attack, Ealing, North could clearly declare itself a smallpox or emergency-free zone. If the council puts up a few signs, Ealing will be all right, but what about the rest of the country?

3.15 pm

 
Previous Contents Continue

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


©Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 29 January 2004