Why Are the UK's Emergency Planning Arrangements Fundamentally Flawed - Essay Example

The U.K.s Emergency Planning arrangements are fundamentally flawed, because of the failure to make government departments category one responders. Introduction An emergency is defined as a situation that has the potential to cause enormous damage to environment and human welfare in human welfare. This includes terrorist attacks, adverse weather, diseases and severe flooding. These are occurrences that can disrupt provision of essential services and infrastructure. In the United Kingdom, the locals form category one of the response. They are the basic fundamental blocks of response to emergencies. The central government makes minimal intervention in case of emergencies. There has been deliberate effort to make the central government involved to a larger extent complementarily. The concept of principle of subsidiary tends to emphasis the need to have locally supported decision making systems. The systems should be supported by the central government through planning and resource provision. This can be done in three levels. Quality of response from central government The first level necessitates the central government in the United Kingdom to get involved through LGD i.e. lead government department1. The second level is referred to serious emergency. This stage demands a sustained coordination of the central government efforts. This is done with support to a number of agencies. This level involves the use of cabinet officers and devolved administrators. Some of the disasters dealt with under this level include flooding and terrorism. The catastrophic emergency level demands immediate intervention of the central government because of the widespread impact and the consequences of the occurrences. When the local response has been overwhelmed, the top-down approach is used. Such efforts are led by the prime minister. The United Kingdom’s emergency planning can be perceived as fundamentally flawed. This is attributed to the failure to make government departments first level responders. The three levels have caused the central government to have minimal or no involvement in case of emergency planning arrangements. The bureaucratic nature of the emergency planning arrangements has caused a knock-on effect even in cases where the central government should intervene naturally and dutifully. The central government in the United Kingdom tends to act with restraint in offering guidance, expertise and specialized equipment at the time of disaster. This has an effect of making emergency planning arrangement in the United Kingdom fundamentally flawed. The involvement of the central government is subject to demands and the nature of the emergency happening. Failure in emergency planning In the UK, the departments of the government deliver responsibilities and are accountable to the parliament2. There are instances when there is no clear lead in emergency management and planning. The failure of the government to be the first respondent creates a room for uncertainty or unnecessary bureaucracy. The central government only responds through intermediaries. This means that the government is not required to play a full role in handling emergencies. The competence of the devolved government has affects the quality of response to emergencies. This has caused the central government to have a secondary role rather than be on the frontline. The central government is expected to be effective through cabinet offices. Through cabinet offices, the central government maintains a state of readiness and management of facilities. The emergency services in the United Kingdom appear to be subject to procedures that affect the quality of service and response. The process of maintaining the alert mechanism for government response and planning is subject to uncertainty owing to the different levels and structures that have been instigated3. The cabinet office is not entirely independent when it comes to deciding the level of activation and response. The populace expects the central government to maintain readiness state in the management of crisis. However, the nature of emergencies has caused the regional and devolved organization to appear to be taking the forefront leaving speculation of the role of the state in disaster management4. The government is expected to broker solutions that benefit the citizens. The citizens of the United Kingdom expect the government to understand that emergency response is a right delegated through popular vote. This have made people to question the government approach to have a minimal intervention strategy and over relying on agencies. The central government is expected to initiate the support structures that are responsive to emergencies. This includes mobilizing and supporting staff with resources and competencies. In the case of terrorism incidents, the government of the United Kingdom is expected to be resolute on the protection of the interests of its citizens. The conceptual framework of emergency response services is fundamentally flawed based on the strength and effectiveness of the central government participation5. The ministers are duty bound to assess emergency occurrences and the effective response to decision making in such cases. Within the COBR there is a committee that oversees the progress of the government in disaster management. The efforts to have devolved administrations in disaster management and the expected response demands that the central government needs to take entire responsibility for local responses to emergencies in the United Kingdom. The strategy of ensuring the central government only responds when the local rescue teams are overwhelmed is exposed the weakness of emergency responses. The agencies and local authorities that are first level responders in cases of disasters need to operate under the central government of the United Kingdom. The role of coordination when it comes to responding to emergencies is under the home office. The home office is entirely answerable for civil protection in the United Kingdom. The central government is expected to take a lead role when it comes to response to civil emergencies. The process of civil protection and operations needs and integrated approach. The details revealed in the disaster management structures in the United Kingdom offer the biggest challenge for its implementation. The response to emergencies lacks a centralized approach and is left to multiple interpretations of the actions to be taken during the recovery phase. The recovery arrangements state that the government liaison officers are expected to be present during the emergency response. The central government only intervenes after an agreed notice requesting for the intervention. The lead government department for recovery is responsible for asking for support from other government offices6. The nature and the structure of the response mechanism is in the United Kingdom tends to suggest that the framework is humongous and almost undefined. The multiple committees and subgroups entrusted with management of emergencies are may fail to share a common understanding of emerging situations or challenges. In case of conflict of interest the nature and quality of response becomes compromised. Multiple players may fail to have a common understanding of different situations and circumstances7. There is need to assess the impact of emergencies on the socio-economy. The central government in the United Kingdom has taken a passive role on matters that demand major infrastructural interventions and warnings. The plans for mutual arrangements towards aid are unclearly facilitated because of the nature of the framework dealing with emergencies in the UK. The central government is better placed to lead a consistent and coherent solution when it comes to responding to emergencies. The conceptual flaw of the United Kingdom emergency response is based on the fact that the ultimate responsibility tends to shift to multiple players at the expense of quality8. The process of identifying the issues that cannot be solved at the local level can take an unusually longtime. Studies indicate that emergency response needs minimal bureaucracy during service delivery. Deployment of scarce resources and the employment of necessary competencies should be the prerogative of the central government9. In case of failure, it may take a longer period of time in identifying the responsible agency. Sometime this might happen at the expenses of service delivery. The devolved administrations are expected to have the necessary competencies to deal with crisis and emergencies. However, if the central government becomes the level one respondent, it might be easier to mobilize support from other devolved areas. This can enhance the speed and quality of emergency service delivery. It can also combine a wide range of competencies when dealing with disasters. The central government is expected to work with the devolved administrations only is areas of reserved responsibility. Level one responders COBR concept The bulk of service delivery and response is reserved to the devolved administrations. The same case applies to the consequent administrations. The COBR plays a major role in ensuring the government of United Kingdom and devolved administrations work together. However, the central government intervention is based on request and consultation. This sets a stage for the role of central government in the United Kingdom to appear to be laid-back and almost irrelevant. Research shows that at the time of intervention by the central government, the local agencies and the devolved administrations tend to have exhausted their options. The central government can establish rapid response teams that are directly accountable to the UK government officers and the prime minister’s office. In case of terrorist attacks, the devolved administrations are responsible to managing the consequences and effects of such occurrences. The central government tends to play a political role. The emergency powers allow the government to make to develop temporal legislations in case of serious emergencies. However, the challenge of time shows that some procedures can have lead to unnecessary delays. It has been argued that the emergency preparedness should not be subject to ongoing legislative processes especially when it comes to saving life and property. However, studies show that emergency powers are only sought when the existing laws are insufficient in dealing with disasters. The different stages of interventions starting with local response, and ending with catastrophic levels mean that the central government plays a minimal role in dealing with emergencies. The government liaison team ensures that the COBR and the local coordinating team communicate with the necessary agencies. The devolved administrations are expected to liaise with COBR and strategic coordinating group10. This process ensures that the local strategic means gets direct communication from government liaison team, COBR, news coordination center and devolved administrations. This information is relayed at tactical and operational level. The framework and design of response system The central government response system is designed to ensure that the bulk of the services and emergency response lies on the local coordinating group11. The government role is to liaise with devolved administrations. This tends to cause the central government in the United Kingdom to appear to neglect its fundamental obligation in disaster management. The COBR is designed to be flexible and easy to adapt. The process of activation of the COBR is dependent on the level of assessment of the disaster being discussed. The impact management and operational response are dependent on the system. The government takes the level 2 and 3 emergency response. The cabinet office becomes actively involved in the decision making systems at level 2 and 3 response. The government is also expected to play a role in intelligence assessment. Arguably, the role process of establishing the kind of response needed tends to be unnecessary long. The process is also led by local responders. The proposals to have the central government play a leading role is aimed at making the government more responsive according to the mandate given by the citizens. There are instances where the central government takes the lead role in operational responses to emergencies. However, the law does not authoritatively demand that the central government takes up the roles. In most none terror emergencies, the role of the central government becomes pronounced12. The home office tends to take the lead role to counter or deal with terrorism. Research shows that the central government tends to have the power to choose what role to play in the event of the emergences. This is based on the political implications of the occurrences to the government, international image of UK and the strategic interests of the state. However, the concept of ensuring the central government plays a lead role in salvaging life and property remains cagey. This causes the role of the central government in disaster management to appear to be flawed and dissatisfactory13. According to the wider consequence management strategy, the government of the United Kingdom is expected to play a lead role is response management and responsibility14. Conclusion The activation of COBR means that the CCC priorities the management activity of the central government in case of emergencies15. However, the role of central government remains subjects to options and circumstances and hence the need to elevate the expectations from the government when it comes to handling disasters. Research shows that a centralized approach is likely to yield better results. The impact management group tends to be a strategy by the central government to give support in cases of emergencies. The group is expected to have a role in the early management of emergencies. The initiative fails to solve the expectation from the central government in disaster management. The central government is expected to play a more prominent role in disaster management including offering competent personnel who are answerable to the government directly. The UK needs a strong and effective centralized disaster management strategy that controls and incorporates the roles of the local response teams. The departmental and the governmental roles require a centralized References Coaffee, Jon, David Murakami Wood, and Peter Rogers. The Everyday Resilience of the City: How Cities Respond to Terrorism and Disaster. Basingstoke [England]: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. Duncan, Kirsty, and C. A. Brebbia. Disaster Management and Human Health Risk: Reducing Risk, Improving Outcomes. Southampton, UK: WIT Press, 2009. Grimshaw, J. M. Family Homelessness: Causes, Consequences and the Policy Response in England. London: British Library, 2008. Knight, U. G. Power Systems in Emergencies: From Contingency Planning to Crisis Management. Chichester, England: John Wiley, 2001. Matthews, Graham, Yvonne Smith, and Gemma Knowles. Disaster Management in Archives, Libraries and Museums. Farnham, England: Ashgate, 2009. Read More