Memorandum from City of London Police
The City of London Police (CoLP) is grateful
for this opportunity to comment on the Draft Civil Contingencies
The CoLP welcomes the publication of the Draft
Bill and recognises the need for revised and new legislation to
face the challenges of modern times.
During the review of this document several issues
have become apparent.
(a) It is accepted that the Bill is designed
to be enabling legislation and so consequently detailed regulations,
responsibilities and powers will be provided at a later stage.
Unfortunately, without the correct level of detail being available,
it is very difficult to state authoritatively whether or not the
Bill would be adequate for the purpose envisaged.
(b) The Bill sets out the responsibilities
of most of the major stakeholders, but omits to include the obligations
placed upon either the Central Government or the Military, when
faced with a situation that would require the enactment of the
powers contained within the Bill.
(c) When referring to enactment of Emergency
Powers, it is interesting to note that there is no mention of
scale. The reference to a "Catastrophic Incident" as
defined by the London Resilience Forum is completely omitted from
the draft legislation.
(d) Although it has already been stated that
the Bill lacks detail, it is apparent from the draft legislation
that there will be a greater burden placed upon all agencies,
affected by the legislation, in both fiscal and work terms.
1. Is the definition of emergency the
right one? If not, in what ways should it be tightened or expanded
to exclude certain classes of event or situation?
The definition of an emergency is adequate,
but it is felt that there should be a level of scale incorporated
within that definition.
2. Do you agree that the obligations
posed on both Category 1 and 2 responders by or under the new
framework will ensure operationally effective and financially
efficient planning and response to emergencies at the local level?
If not, how should these obligations be increased or reduced?
(a) Without having sight of the final regulations,
that will emerge from the enabling Bill, it is felt that it would
be imprudent to try and provide any sort of objective answer to
(b) There are concerns about the requirement
to carry out Risk Assessments and then make planning assumptions
based on the result of those assessments. There is currently no
universally accepted method of Risk Assessment and so, potentially,
one could be faced with different organisations using disparate
methods of Risk Assessment. Added to this, it is proposed that
there will be an audit process. Bearing in mind the previous statement,
it will be interesting to see how such an audit could ever be
It is accepted that there should be a hazard
identification process, as conducted presently, but the envisaged
response should be in a generic format.
3. Do you agree that the membership
of the categories 1 and 2 is right? If not, which organisations
should be added, moved or removed?
The CoLP is surprised by the omission of the
Nation's Financial Controllers (such as the Bank of England, The
Stock Exchange and The Financial Services Authority). Any incident
that reduced this Country's ability to participate actively in
the World's Financial Markets would have a serious impact upon
the nation. This point is apparently acknowledged by the fact
that the proposed definition of an "Emergency", within
the proposed Act, includes the reference to Economic harm.
4. Do you agree that the Bill gives
the Government the right balance of regulation making powers to
meet its aims of consistency and flexibility? If not, please explain
how the powers should be expanded or constrained.
Please refer to response at 2(a).
5. Do you agree that consistent arrangements
for multi-agency working would be established, through the creation
of Local Resilience Forums? If not, how else should consistency
The CoLP endorses this concept, but wishes to
note the following points.
(a) There is concern that the process may
become tautological in its delivery.
(b) The CoLP would also like to raise the
issue of accountability of the Local Resilience Forums.
(i) There is no clear structure of ownership
or regulation of the Forums defined or proposed.
(ii) As it is proposed that all category
1 & 2 agencies will have their activities in this arena audited,
bearing that premiss in mind, it seems paradoxical that the activities
of the local Resilience Forums are not subject to the same "Best"
6. Do you agree that the partial Regulatory
Impact Assessment accurately reflects the costs and benefits of
the Bill proposals? If not, how should it be changed?
Bearing in mind the answer at 2(a), it is impossible
to then guess the fiscal implications and the CoLP are surprised
that any sort of objective calculation can be provided on the
basis of the current scant information.
7. Do you agree that funding for Category
1 local authorities should be transferred from specific grant
(Civil Defence Grant) to Revenue Support Grant? If not, why should
specific grant be retained?
8. Do you agree that the level of funding
to support the Bill is sufficient? if not, please explain why
you believe it to be too high or too low.
Please refer to answer previously provided at
9. Do you agree that performance should
be audited through existing mechanisms? If not, what mechanism
would you like to see established?
The value of such an audit process would be
questionable, as stated in the answer at 2(b). The question of
the qualifications of such an auditor would also be an issue and
this process would also place a further fiscal and work burden
upon the CoLP.
10 Do you agree with the role of the
Regional Nominated Co-ordinator? If not, who should take responsibility
at the regional level, and with what responsibilities?
11. Do you agree with the principle
of applying special legislative measures on a regional basis?
Please explain your answer.
12. Do you agree that the current emergency
powers framework is outdated and needs to be replaced? If you
do not think that it should be replaced, please explain why.
13. Do you agree that the circumstances
in which special legislative measures may be taken should be widened
from limited threats to public welfare to include threats to the
environment, to the political, administrative and economic stability
of the UK and to threats to its secuirty resulting from war or
terrorism? If not, how would you like to see the circumstances
narrowed or extended?
14. Do you agree that the use of special
legislative measures should be possible on a sub-UK basis? If
not, please explain.
15. Do you agree that the authority
to declare that special legislative measures are necessary should
remain with The Queen as Head of State, acting on the advice of
Ministers? If not, who should it sit with?
16. Do you agree that in the event the
process of making a Royal Proclamation would cause a delay which
might result in significant damage or harm, a Secretary of State
should be able to make the declaration in the place of the Queen
as Head of State, acting on the advice of Ministers? If not, is
delay acceptable or is there an alternative mechanism?
CoLP has no objection.
17. Do you agree that the emergency
regulations should be treated as primary legislation for the purposes
of the Human Rights Act? If not, please explain why.
18-22. Not applicable to London.
23. Do you agree that London should
have different arrangements for co-operation, and that the proposals
set out are the right way to deliver this? If not, what arrangements
should be put in place?
The CoLP would welcome the creation of an Office
of Emergency Management (based on the New York model, for example)
that had sufficient funding and suitably qualified staff. Since
the abolition of the Greater London Council, there has been no
single agency with the strategic overview for Emergency Planning
across the whole of London.