Civil Contingencies Act 2004 Review
Discussion Paper for Voluntary, Community and Faith Sector (VCFS) Partners
Purpose
The Civil Contingencies Act was written in a different era. Since 2004, both policy and practice have moved on significantly, with communities, voluntary organisations, faith groups, businesses and wider civil society increasingly recognised as essential contributors to resilience. Government policy, guidance and national resilience standards now reflect this broader whole-of-society approach.
Does current legislation properly reflect and support the alignment of formal resilience actors with the wider role of civil society? We don’t think it does, but it could.
This paper sets out three discussion options, each growing in complexity and demand. The response to these will form the basis of our response to the Call for Views. We’d like to stimulate debate and discussion amongst our partners on what is achievable desirable and practical through legislation, to weigh our response based on partners views.
The aim is not to reopen previous conversations. It is to build on what partners have already told us and explore how legislation might better support effective resilience outcomes.
Starting Point
Across government, there is an increasing expectation that resilience should be:
Whole-of-society.
Community centred.
Co-produced.
Built through partnership.
Focused on reducing disproportionate impacts.
Embedded through preparedness, response and recovery.
Many examples of good practice already exist.
However, whether organisations are involved often depends on local leadership and local relationships rather than clear and consistent expectations in central/national guidance.
As a result:
Some areas have highly mature partnerships.
Others have limited engagement.
Good practice is often dependent on individuals rather than systems.
There remains limited consistency in how civil society is involved across the country.
Core Proposition
The Act should create the conditions for consistent, meaningful and sustainable collaboration between statutory responders and wider society.
Any legislative change should:
Embed and proportionately codify current good practice.
Encourage resource and space to be created locally.
Support long-term relationship building.
Improve consistency across places.
Remain flexible enough for different local circumstances.
Leave the door open to future involvement of other sectors, including business and potentially the military, where appropriate.
Key Questions for Partners
What parts of current good practice should be protected in legislation?
What prevents effective partnership working today?
What would help release more local resource, capacity and capability?
Is strengthening existing duties enough, or is a more significant change required?
What would a realistic and proportionate legislative change look like?
How can legislation encourage collaboration without creating unnecessary burden?
What would success look like in five years' time?
Option 1
Move beyond "Having regard to"
Reports (notably the Grenfell Inquiry) and many partners have argued that the current duty to simply consider voluntary sector organisations is insufficient. A widely held view borne out in the Strengthening Partnerships Consultation findings in 2025.
We'd say:
As a minimum we insist the act should place a stronger duty on ‘formal resilience practitioners’ to work with relevant partners in civil society including voluntary, community and faith organisations.
There are a couple of choices here:
A: Strengthen the duty to require active engagement and collaboration.
B: Strengthen the duty to require demonstrable evidence that relevant civil society partners have been involved in planning, preparedness, exercising and recovery arrangements.
This feels like the most achievable area for legislative change and directly addresses inconsistency without completely redesigning the system.
Option 2
Recognise partnership across the full emergency cycle
Too much engagement still focuses solely on response.
The legislation could more clearly require accountability for collaborative partnership working across:
Risk assessment.
Preparedness.
Planning.
Exercising.
Response.
Recovery.
Learning and improvement.
A recurring challenge is that VCFS voices are not consistently embedded in resilience arrangements. While some emergency specialist organisations may have established operational roles, many other relevant organisations remain outside key planning and decision-making processes, reducing their influence during emergencies and making the transition to recovery more difficult.
We propose:
The Act could go further to recognise the need to and focus on the full emergency lifecycle and strengthen the duty to require active engagement and collaboration with civil society in action and decision making around resilience building, planning and recovery.
We also need to:
Enable Participation Through Capability Building
A recurring challenge is that expectations are rising but resources are not.
Legislation alone cannot solve this.
However, legislation could create stronger incentives for adapting existing approaches to these things for a broader/more diverse audience:
Training.
Exercising.
Data/Information sharing.
Capability development.
Capacity building.
We cannot place additional burdens on anyone. Neither LRFs nor VCFS partners have sufficient capacity to stretch much further. We should discuss how legislation encourages adaptation of the current system so it can invest in the capability needed to participate meaningfully across the whole resilience cycle.
Option 3
Should there be a new route into the system?
This is the bolder proposition. Importantly, many of the outcomes discussed throughout this paper could potentially be achieved through strengthening existing duties, expectations, accountability mechanisms and partnership requirements within the current framework. A new category is not a prerequisite for progress, but it would create a clear, consistently recognised route for participation and parity of expectation across the resilience system. It is included here as a more ambitious option for consideration, particularly if partners feel that incremental changes don't go far enough to create the conditions needed for a genuine whole-of-society approach.
Some have suggested creating a voluntary "Category 3" or perhaps a "2a." arrangement for organisations that wish to play a more formal role.
Potential characteristics might include:
Voluntary participation.
Agreed standards.
Access to training and exercising.
Defined responsibilities.
Recognition within local resilience structures.
Importantly, this would not be limited to the VCFS and could potentially be applicable to other whole-of-society partners e.g. business or the military.
Equally, there are legitimate concerns:
Would it be fundable?
Would it create unnecessary bureaucracy?
Would it work for smaller organisations?
Would it improve outcomes more than strengthening existing duties?
At this stage we suggest this is treated as a proposition for seriously considered discussion rather than a recommendation.