Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-99)
THURSDAY 20 MARCH 2003
SIR DAVID
OMAND KCB AND
MS SUSAN
SCHOLEFIELD CMG
80. So what are these fundamental issues that
are causing such a delay?
(Ms Scholefield) I would draw the Committee's attention
to that programme of briefings I described. We have been very
concerned that in defining the duties at the local and the regional
level we should actually consult the practitioners and take the
range of issues that they have brought to us into account. What
we do not want to do is set in place a piece of legislation that
looks fine on paper but actually does not work in practice. That
has been one of the lessons we have very much taken from our international
consultation. Again, we have looked at international best practice
and nations have often been very frank with us saying, "This
looks good but it does not work." That has been one of the
key tenets of getting this right. Nothing—almost nothing—hangs
on it that we could not get on with, without the legislation,
so people are not waiting for this to be delivered and not doing
things in the meantime.
81. We are!
(Ms Scholefield) Other than perhaps the Committee.
It does bring much greater clarity and we want to get it right.
Having undertaken the review we also want to make sure that it
stands the test against local experience and practice that this
thing is going to work, and that, I am afraid, does take time
in consulting people. There are also devolution aspects which
are actually quite complex and that is why we have also worked
closely with Scotland, with Wales and with Northern Ireland where
the legislation obviously predates devolution and there are some
quite tricky issues to be resolved.
82. How many are there in the Bill team?
(Ms Scholefield) As of this morning I think we have
gone up to seven.
83. Are they all lawyers?
(Ms Scholefield) No, these are not lawyers, these
are administrative civil servants. They also include an emergency
planner. We have the advice also of a local authority chief executive.
We have a group of policy experts in particular departments and
also a group of advisers from the Emergency Planning Society and
Local Government Association. In addition there is the Treasury
Solicitor team who help us and the Parliamentary Counsel team
who draft.
84. So it has got to the lawyers then, otherwise
it will be another five years if it has not got beyond the policy
team.
(Ms Scholefield) We are serious when we say we will
publish proposals in the summer.
85. This summer?
(Ms Scholefield) Yes.
86. Because we were told it was going to be
in the last Queen's Speech. Will it be in the next Queen's Speech?
(Ms Scholefield) I could not possibly comment.
87. What a stupid question to ask. Even though
you cannot give an answer, I am delighted to see that you are
at liberty amongst—
(Sir David Omand) I think you can detect from the
tone of our answers that we are determined to press ahead.
Chairman: On a scale of nought to ten?
Mr Cran: I tried it and it does not work.
Chairman
88. Is there a remote possibility it will be
in the Queen's Speech later in the year, you as a betting man?
(Sir David Omand) We will just have to wait and see.
Mr Cran: You see, I told you.
Chairman
89. Oh dear, dear, dear. You mentioned the scope
of the legislation. Is it likely to change the balance between
the centre and the regions and the localities? What has irritated
some members of the Committee, certainly me, is that even though
one has to be cognisant of local susceptibilities, if there is
a crisis you must not let that local sovereignty stand in the
way of efficiency and a swift response. Is there likely to be
a shift in the balance and is there resistance from this myriad
of people who are being consulted who do not want to see more
power shifting to the centre because they feel, if given adequate
resources, they can do it all for themselves?
(Sir David Omand) I would not characterise it that
way. One of the key elements is the duty on local authorities
and other local emergency services, so it clearly recognises the
important part they play and Parliament would be placing a duty
on them. But, equally, we have got to define the role at the regional
level in certain circumstances where that would be appropriate
and obviously at the national level should we get to a stage,
under current legislation, that we would describe as a state of
emergency. This has to be legislation which provides a statutory
framework for the full range of possibilities from a very serious
but local event or incident, all the way through to the mobilisation
of the nation in preparation for a transition to war. There is
a huge range of circumstances that exist in legislation that cover
this in different places and we have got to make sure that everyone
knows how their own duties fit in depending on the nature of the
circumstance.
90. How long will the Parliamentary pre-legislative
period be? We are a bit soured by the MOD's consultation periods
which sometimes can be pretty rapid. Is there built into your
calculations that at least it will be ordained that parliamentarians
be allowed to have a look at it and at least have a little bit
of time to make some comments, not be subject to normal whips'
pressure of saying, "You said it needs to get on the statute
book quickly, so do not hang around and spend ages looking at
it"? Has your enormous team thought of that?
(Ms Scholefield) We are certainly planning to accommodate
a consultation period of a respectable length.
(Sir David Omand) I do not think we have a final view
on that and the tone of your comment is one that we will relay
back.
91. The tone of my comment is intended to reflect
the fact that we are quite serious about this issue. It would
be really helpful if we had a look at a document even before it
was set in some form of concrete to be able to identify perhaps
where the pitfalls might be in the political process and not necessarily
in the administrative, bureaucratic and professional emergency
planners' range of expertise. However good they are, few of them
have been elected, so I would like to have adequate time without
excessive time because we really need to progress on this.
(Sir David Omand) We will report that back to ministers.
Chairman: Please, please do.
Jim Knight
92. I want to pick up something which, Sir David,
you reinforce from the Home Secretary's statement on 3 March,
the last sentence: "It is not driven by operational deficiencies
in relation to the present counter-terrorist effort", yet
we understand that the legislation may include new operational
powers, for example setting up cordons, possibly for the Government
Office of the Regions to have power of direction in an emergency.
If that is the case, how does that square with a lack of operational
deficiencies?
(Sir David Omand) There are powers in existing emergency
legislation designed for a state of emergency which are very draconian
indeed and which do provide for powers of direction over, for
example, occupation of property in the event of a state of emergency.
93. I have a whole village in my constituency
still occupied by the MoD!
(Sir David Omand) The question of cordons is a rather
different matter. You are there into police powers and the police
currently have powers to cordon an area under the Terrorism Act
2000, but you take me slightly outside my brief there.
94. Okay, so you are absolutely confident that
the Home Secretary's statement is correct? Obviously, you are
paid to be. Are there any non-operational areas in relation to
the present counter-terrorist effort where there are clear deficiencies?
For example, Dealing With Disaster, which is the principal
guidance that we have, is now four years old and therefore predates
flooding, foot and mouth, 11 September, etcetera.
(Ms Scholefield) Our proposals for "Dealing
With Disaster" come in two parts: first a rewrite to
take account of machinery of government changes, amongst other
issues, and the developments in terminology and doctrine, which
we will issue very shortly. But then there will require to be
a much more fundamental rewrite to reflect the doctrine of the
Bill when that is in place. So we are taking it in two parts recognising
the point, that is well made, that it needs to be updated.
Mr Cran
95. Moving on to informing the public, because
that has been recognised by the Home Secretary in his statement
this morning, the establishing of a web site and so on, just for
the record so the Committee knows who is it going to be, the CCS
or the Home Office, which is going to be responsible for content
and managing this web site?
(Sir David Omand) The content of the Home Office web
site is the responsibility of the Home Secretary. We have the
ability 24 hours a day, seven days a week to put up information
on the UK Resilience web site within ten minutes and that is where
we would reflect immediate operational information and we have
arrangements through the Media Emergency Committee with the media
that they will then carry these messages. They will of course
be put out with the authority of the Home Secretary and the Home
Office web site would then reflect that. Equally, the background
material on terrorism which is appearing on the Home Office web
site is then reflected in the UK Resilience web site and Foreign
Office web site. The great advantage of being in a web-enabled
age is this material can exist in cyber space. It is not dependent
on which server holds it. Your question is correct which is who
authorises the material; in this case it is the Home Secretary.
96. I have seen it and from what I have seen
it is informative but the reality of the matter is that not everybody
is going to have access to a web site and that takes me to the
National Steering Committee on Public Warning and Information
which gave recommendations to your predecessor, one of which was
creation of a planned programme of public education, etcetera,
etcetera. I think we would be interested to know what else is
going to be done apart from the web site. I repeat what I said
to you earlier on, before I saw the web site I had not the slightest
idea what I should do and therefore if I had no access to your
web site I still would not, so what are you going to be doing?
(Sir David Omand) The availability of basic background
information and advice to the public we will promulgate through
all the means we can. The media are carrying the message from
the Home Office web site extensively, which is excellent. We have
no plans at the moment for a household leaflet campaign of that
nature. The information that is being put into the public domain
now is of a general nature. We do not think it warrants—this
is the view of the Government—a campaign which would reach
out to every household on the infamous "protect and survive"
model. Just to move on to another dimension which is very important
in this question, it is our relationship with the media so that
in an emergency there is mutual confidence that we are providing
the information that is necessary and our confidence that the
media are able to push that out for the purpose of public safety,
not just nationally but regionally. We do have an Emergency Forum
and we are now, through the Government Communications and Information
Service, establishing a network of regional emergency fora so
that local media, broadcast and print, can also be brought into
the network to get the message to the public when something happens.
A third comment I would make is we are working with the media
to try and establish agreement on terminology that we will provide
for public information about the situation. We need to have an
informed and supported public. We will provide information to
alert key sectors of the economy, emergency planners and others,
to developments in the situation and we will provide warnings
to the public when we have specific information to give which
will assist the protection of the public. It is too easy to confuse
these different categories and for information which is given
out as information to be treated as a warning. When we issue warnings
we really want the public to understand that they are being given
specific advice in the interests of their safety so that there
is no ambiguity about that. That is the reason why we have not
gone for a national alert system with colour codings. We think
it is better to reserve warnings for those occasions in which
the advice we have to give can lead the public to take action
to help protect themselves.
97. We could argue this of course but we have
not got the time and I have got to accept what the decision of
the government has been, but the decisions taken are predicated
on the principle that you have got the time to inform the British
people or people in a particular region or area. I just put the
proposition to you that you may not have that time and therefore
the use of the press may be useless and therefore when I am sitting
in my flat this evening and the chemical attack goes off in Westminster,
how the hell do I know what to do? You have not had time to go
to the newspapers, they have not had time to print it, and therefore
what about the proposition you could use Ceefax? Have you catered
for the proposition that you may not have time?
(Sir David Omand) There are two propositions there.
One is it is certainly true that we should use all the available
means.
98. Would that include Ceefax?
(Sir David Omand) Yes, when I talk about the media
I am talking about all the means of communication which are open
and it will be through the media that the public first hears.
That is the nature of the world that we are in, therefore we must
make sure the media are in a position to give advice as well as
reporting when something happens. It is as important that we reassure
those who are not affected that they are not affected and that
they can go about their normal business as it is to tell those
who may be in the line of danger and to give them advice on how
they can protect themselves and their families. It is the use
of particularly the broadcast media that is the quickest and most
effective way. I have been talking about those circumstances in
which government is engaged, but taking up your second point,
which is about the speed of response, the first response is from
the police. It is they who are in charge operationally of the
situation, it is they who on their own authority will take action
to warn those who are in the immediate line of danger. As we saw,
recalling for example the evacuation of Aintree race course, they
are practised at getting large numbers of people out of harm's
way. They will take any steps that they consider necessary in
those first few minutes to protect the public but such is our
linkage with them and our regular exercising with the police that
we would then be able to work with them in turning that into national
messages.
99. Just so that I am clear, you are absolutely
confident when the balloon goes up in a particular area and an
incident occurs that one would not say information was immediately
got through but within a reasonable time-frame straight through
to people affected if they happen to have their TVs on?
(Sir David Omand) Of course.
| 
