Examination of Witnesses (Questions 120-139)
WEDNESDAY 26 MARCH 2003
MR ROGER
CHING, MS
SHEILA CLARK,
CAPTAIN MARTIN
PUTMAN, CHIEF
CONSTABLE PAUL
KERNAGHAN QPM, MR
RICHARD MAWSON,
COMMODORE AMJAD
HUSSAIN, MR
MALCOLM EASTWOOD
AND MAJOR
SIMON ANDREWS
120. Do you agree with the view put forward
by Mr Kernaghan and you too would like to see transparency?
(Mr Eastwood) Yes, indeed.
Mr Hancock
121. Can I ask the Chief Constable on this point,
were you asked to give your views about what you perceived to
be the issues that make Hampshire an extremely difficult place
to police in the case of terrorist attack or a civil contingency
incident of some sort? You want to see transparency coming back
from government about allocation of resources, but do you make
a bid for those resources based on your view of where the risks
are and do you get answers saying whatever to that?
(Mr Kernaghan) No, mainstream funding is done by a
process known as the Standard Spending Assessment. The Government
post 11 September has produced additional funding and it is very
straightforward. The Home Office say what the figure is and then
what the allocation is to London and what the allocation is to
the rest of the country. We may have an input via our association
as to the division between the provincial forces but it is not
based on individual threat assessments submitted to the centre
and assessed accordingly. It is very much that is the size of
the cake and there is a division between the various forces.
122. That must be something that we ought to
take up on your behalf? If there is no individual risk assessment
undertaken, that is a failure of the system, surely?
(Mr Kernaghan) I would say any recommendations for
a more objective, evidence-based approach would obviously be welcome.
Equally, I have to say in fairness, to create a formula that takes
into account individual threat assessment would be extremely difficult
and I would not underplay that. Yes, I think there should be more
of a dialogue as opposed to being directed from the centre "this
is the amount of money". I do not think there is a two-way
dialogue.
(Mr Mawson) My concern to an extent echoes Mr Kernaghan's
comments. We really had very little input into the allocation
of resources in relation to this particular issue. There is some
degree of understanding based on factors within the Health Service
in terms of number of facilities, that determined the resources.
From our point of view, we believe we have got a reasonable share
of the resources available. Whether we would see that as an adequate
share at this stage is another issue.
(Mr Eastwood) One of the other aspects for the Fire
and Rescue Service is we know the sum it is about £56 million
for the Fire Service across the country, which does not give a
massive amount to anybody. To see how that has been worked up
would be very useful. We also know that that is the first investment
and we have anticipated or been advised that probably more would
follow as this thing develops and progresses, as we learn from
it. It is a safety net initially to try and put something into
place so that we are prepared and we can then build on that as
the experience base and money becomes available.
123. When we got evidence from London, from
the Met and from others, there seemed to be an interface between
civilian services, uniformed services and the military and the
role that the military would play and the support they would give
and the ability of the civilian services to call on the military.
How do you three feel about the relationship you have in a city
like Portsmouth with the military? Is there a plan that is available
which enables you to call on military resources at a very early
stage and who would make that decision?
(Mr Kernaghan) If I could lead on that because the
Police Service have a role to co-ordinate, I would never say demand
or dominate. If there is a fire, Malcolm and Hampshire Fire and
Rescue would take the technical lead but we co-ordinate and provide
an infrastructure. I would make a request via the Home Office
if I felt that military aid was required. They would then have
to make their own arrangements for the Commander of the naval
base or the Commander of 145, the Home Counties Brigade, to authorise
that. Obviously there are issues, be it a flood, of which obviously
Portsmouth City Council have experience or, we hope not, a terrorist
incident. It would be a request from myself to the Home Office
and possibly the Cabinet Office Briefing Room would be activated
and then they would decide via the MoD whether we were going to
get military aid. On the ground, I want to stress in fairness
to colleagues, we have a very good relationship. We are very fortunate
because we have a large military footprint in Aldershot with the
Army and in Portsmouth with the Royal Navy and there are relationships.
You can have protocols, commandments and memoranda of understanding,
but actually there is no substitute for some interaction and with
face-to-face knowledge of your opposite number, so they can make
a judgment about your needs and vice versa. There is a formal
structure but equally I think Portsmouth is quite well blessed
with a close, intimate relationship.
Mr Roy
124. The Government's principal guidance on
emergency planning is contained in the document Dealing With
Disaster which, as we know, is four years old. How useful
or relevant is that document four years on?
(Mr Ching) I think that all the agencies represented
at this table use that document as a guide. The fact that it is
four years old is regrettable but nevertheless that is exactly
what we use as a basis for all our plans.
(Mr Eastwood) It is being re-written currently and
it has been a very useful guide. I think the rewrite will take
into account things that have occurred over the last two or three
years and it will develop as a useful document. These things have
got to be dynamic and the phase that we are entering now will
give out more information and intelligence that will require more
thought processes in respect of it.
125. Will your service have an input into the
rewriting?
(Mr Eastwood) Yes, through our professional bodies.
Chairman
126. Is that the same with all of you?
(Mr Mawson) Yes.
Mr Roy
127. Can I move on slightly. In regards to the
chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threat, I heard
what Mr Kernaghan was saying earlier on about transparency of
funding and I absolutely agree with you. What I would like to
know, first of all, is in the funding that emergency services
got what increase did you have this year and of that increase
how much of it was being given to emergency planning for the three
services?
(Mr Kernaghan) If I could speak in respect of the
constabulary, the mainstream—and we have to be very clear
about this—did not get an increase from the centre that
would replicate Hampshire Constabulary 02-03 in 03-04 and Hampshire
Police Authority had to increase our council tax precept significantly,
in essence to enable our organisation to stand still. Turning
to the focal point of the CBRN threat, what we have received is
a specific grant from the centre and I am now able to deploy two
police support units equipped with protective equipment. That
allows me to provide a capability, and that is the same for every
force in the country, but in relation to planning we have not
received a specific amount for that. Money has been much more
directed towards operational requirements, be it increasing the
profile of police officers in the vicinity of airports, etc, and
giving them on-going defence.
128. What increase in your normal budget did
you have this year?
(Mr Kernaghan) I think I am correct in saying that
we got a 3% increase in grant. We required a 7% increase to take
account of inflation and the government reform package. The gap
of 4% was made good by Hampshire Police Authority.
129. So you got 7%?
(Mr Kernaghan) By the actions of Hampshire Police
Authority.
130. But you got your 7%?
(Mr Kernaghan) Yes.
131. Of that 7% did any of it go towards our
subject today?
(Mr Kernaghan) It is very hard to extrapolate down
to small figures but basically emergency planning will have got
a marginal increase but not a significant increase and it would
be dishonest of me to say otherwise . We have increased our operational
capability, the fact is that in the last week I and my command
team decided to go to a full-time unit as opposed to primarily
and, as was the case historically, relying on a part-time public
order capability.
Mr Hancock
132. Is that going to cost you a lot of money?
(Mr Kernaghan) It will cost me something but it is
budgeted within my overall operational budget. It is a set cake
and I have to allocate resources. In the modern jargon I hope
I will "accrue efficiency savings" out of it.
Chairman
133. That is abusive. If you want a pejorative
expression, that certainly is one for us.
(Mr Kernaghan) It is ambiguous.
Mr Roy
134. Mr Mawson?
(Mr Mawson) In terms of central allocations particularly
of CBRN, we have received a number of personal protection suits
and pre-hospital decontamination units which we have now received
from a central procurement process. We have not received any additional
funding centrally or locally to support the training and development
of those sort of capabilities. We have not been able to secure
any additional funding for things like major incident planning
or whatever in relation to the current spending round.
135. By saying you have not been able to secure,
I take it you have asked for it?
(Mr Mawson) We have asked for it and it has been a
particularly difficult process for us recently and that is one
of the areas we were not able to secure support in. That does
not mean to say from internal resources we have not put greater
emphasis on that because clearly the introduction of this equipment
is something we are trying to do as best we can. We were able
to demonstrate at a recent exercise that we were able to train
40 staff in the use of this equipment in a very short timescale.
There is some progress but it has not been separately funded.
Mr Hancock
136. You said you got the kit allocated centrally
which you did not pay for. Is that right?
(Mr Mawson) That is right, it came from the central
allocation.
137. And what was the number of suits and units?
(Mr Mawson) It was 150 personal protection suits with
all of the equipment that is necessary to make those functional
and we had three pre-hospital decontamination units, which is
tents for want of a better word, and they are now part of our
repertoire. The training and replacement of those once they are
open for training we will have to absorb within our existing funding
stream.
(Mr Eastwood) My answer is quite simple; we got nothing
either centrally or locally in spite of bids being made locally.
There were difficulties for the three constituent authorities
because of the grant allocation they received, which was much
less than they had in the past because it was taken away from
the three constituent authorities which created problems there.
Our funding mechanism for the Fire and Rescue Service is changing.
We are what is called a combined fire authority, in other words
we will be changing from a levying authority to a precepting authority
like the police hopefully next year and we will be increasing
our bid on the council tax quite significantly to meet the shortfall
in funding that we have experienced over a number of years.
Chairman
138. What have you not been able to do that
you would have liked to have done?
(Mr Eastwood) We are quite well-prepared anyway because
of the nature of our business. We deal with a number of incidents
on a smaller scale and it could be anticipated if an occurrence
took place in the county or a surrounding county where we might
be needed. We are not that desperately badly off in terms of the
CBRN. When the new equipment comes and new training comes into
resource effect, both in cost and physical terms, we will expect
to see funding come forward. Recently there was quite a major
exercise where I had to lay it on the line that I would not be
deploying resources to the extent I would have liked to have done
because the funding was not there. There are priorities in every
organisation and you try and make those priorities work. It is
not a nice term but, as Paul has already said, we are constantly
looking at meeting those priorities through efficiency savings.
(Mr Ching) If the fire authority did not get anything,
we did rather better than that, with an extra £300 on a base
grant of £79,000.
Mr Hancock: Well done!
Chairman
139. How did you spend it?
(Mr Ching) Lunch today, Chairman.
| 
