Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280-299)
WEDNESDAY 2 APRIL 2003
RT HON
NICK RAYNSFORD
MP, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DAVID VENESS
CBE QPM AND MR
ZYG KOWALCZYK
280. Mr Veness, you mentioned the 500 community
support officers that have been appointed. Can you give us a little
bit more information on what they are doing and how much of their
work would include the kind of stuff that we have been talking
about this afternoon?
(Mr Veness) The reinforcement is extremely welcome.
The intention is to add community reassurance by increasing the
visibility on the street. As you will have seen, they have been
focused particularly in the early stages of deployment on the
areas where that reassurance might be most acutely perceived and
required, for example the Whitehall/Westminster area, Heathrow
Airport, the City Airport and Canary Wharf. We are hoping indeed
with some degree of confidence that that concept will spread across
London boroughs and that the role will rapidly become broader
than security as a focus. In terms of providing a degree of continuity
that ensures that business can carry on as usual it is a very
useful supplement.
281. I do not wish to be excessively contentious,
but in the course of the last few weeks we have heard how much
new equipment is available for the Fire Service, the very sophisticated
equipment that needs to be deployed and the staff needing to be
trained up. What is the current status, Minister, of the negotiations
not on salary but on working practices? Is the Fire Brigades Union
co-operating in using this new equipment and, if there is no agreement,
can you give us some indication as to what progress might be made?
(Mr Raynsford) The new equipment, particularly decontamination
equipment, is coming on-stream over the next few months and I
would hope that we would be in a position to ensure that that
will be fully used and that the fire brigades will be fully trained
in its use. You will be well aware that there is a long running
and difficult industrial dispute that is still unsettled. The
Fire Brigades Union will be holding a conference in just less
than two weeks' time where I hope they will conclude that the
offer that has been put by the employers is the right way forward
and the dispute will be brought to an end. In the meantime we
have obviously communicated with the Fire Brigades Union to indicate
our concern about any suggestions of non-co-operation, particularly
because, of course, the use of this equipment will help to safeguard
the health and safety of firefighters themselves and I can assure
you we will do everything possible to ensure that arrangements
are carried forward to ensure that the fire brigades themselves
are properly equipped and trained to use the equipment and the
public are protected.
Chairman: Thank you very much.
Jim Knight
282. The armed forces are CBRN trained. With
the emergence of the Civil Contingency Reaction Force would you
be able to call on the armed forces to use that decontamination
equipment if there was an incident now or if you are not able
to resolve things with the Fire Services Group?
(Mr Raynsford) I should make it clear that a lot of
the equipment is already available to fire brigades in London
and elsewhere. The London Fire Brigade already has a good supply
of gas-tight suits and other such equipments for which staff are
trained and ready to use them. So it is more to do with the new
equipment for mass decontamination where there would be training
needs. It is not the case, therefore, that there could be a problem
about an inability to deploy firefighters with appropriate kit
in current circumstances where the presence of firefighters with
a gas-tight suit was required.
283. This question is probably more for David
Veness given you chair the subgroup on blue light services. It
goes back to something that the Minister mentioned earlier on
in terms of reinforcement from outside of London in certain circumstances.
What arrangements have you made for that?
(Mr Veness) The traditional arrangements are based
upon mutual aid systems that are well defined and well rehearsed
across the blue light services. It certainly is most obviously
seen in relation to the movement of police officers for responding
to particular demands, classically disorder across the country,
but similar arrangements apply with our colleagues both in fire
and ambulance particularly in the context of the Home Counties
in order to achieve the degree of reinforcement we seek. We need
to be realistic in this particular context because although should
an incident occur within the London area there would be an enormous
demand for whatever reinforcements could be made available, there
are also going to be implications outwith the M25 and we need
to bear in mind the considerations, particularly if I use the
example of a plume of a noxious impact which is chem-bio, that
would fairly rapidly move across a span of the Home Counties and
therefore having moved part of the solution within a particular
Home Counties force might not be the best answer. This raises
the mutual aid challenge to another level of sophistication and
one we are working on very closely with colleagues not only within
the South East region but elsewhere to ascertain how that can
be most effectively addressed. The answer is to go beyond our
original notion of mutual aid within the emergency services to
the span of counter-terrorist reinforcement that I was describing
earlier on. We need to be radical, more imaginative and to bring
different answers to the solution than merely relying upon the
answers that have availed us in the past.
Jim Knight: As the Minister knows, I
am a big fan and advocate of regional government and the regional
structures.
Mr Cran: Oh dear!
Jim Knight
284. Are you saying that they are sufficiently
flexible in this context that you can achieve that co-operation
from the various regions around London?
(Mr Veness) Yes. The operational decision making which
would be applicable in these circumstances would certainly rely
upon the established linkages between the emergency services.
That is not to say we are disregarding the local government or
central government arrangements be they local, regional or central
because in this mode we would then be functioning within the strategic
political framework classically of COBRA or if we were at the
major incident level that was a Gold co-ordination arrangement
then there would be the representation of local government in
order that there was co-ordination at that level.
285. Are you able to give us any examples of
the sorts of circumstances where you need to go outside London
for reinforcement?
(Mr Veness) It would certainly be the case of a massive
detonation that lost a tower block within the central London area
or indeed if we move to significant chem-bio or radiological incidents,
particularly if it was multi-seated, we need to anticipate those
and they are part of the mutual aid discussion and indeed the
broader counter-terrorist reinforcement debate.
286. We have discussed at some length the role
of the private sector. Can you just relatively briefly comment
on what role you see for the voluntary sector such as St Johns
Ambulance and so on?
(Mr Veness) They have responded splendidly and included
within their arrangements is the National Voluntary Aid Society's
Emergency Committee, so they themselves are engaged in configuring
to see how a more focused contribution could be made, which is
always going to be valued. The method in which that is delivered
is classically through the local government arrangements because
that has proved to be the most effective linkage with the non-governmental
side, particularly the charitable sector. They are certainly closely
involved in the work that we are doing around counter-terrorist
reinforcement and are key contributors to that debate and we value
their contribution enormously.
Rachel Squire
287. Minister, my question was specifically
about how you have involved the private sector in the work of
London Resilience and I think you have already given a lot of
very useful indications such as the business continuity sub-committee
and the Forum, obviously the private sector is involved in some
of the other sub-committees within the Forum and you have said
the team also includes secondees from all the relevant agencies.
Was there anything else that you wished to add to what you have
already said about private sector involvement in the London Resilience
structures?
(Mr Raynsford) Only to reinforce the point that the
London Resilience structure is a partnership and we value very
much the input from the private sector in that partnership not
just through the business sub-committee which we have talked about
but also through the work of the utilities who are obviously private
sector and the transport operators who themselves contribute to
other sub-committees of the London Resilience Forum. So we have
the very active involvement of the private sector as well as all
the other agencies and I think this is a very positive side of
our work.
Chairman
288. London could be severely damaged without
a bomb being dropped or any chemical weapon deployed simply by
a state or a sub-state unit or an individual with a grievance
undermining a knowledge-based economy through the penetration
of computers, taking over control of a company's computers. Is
there anything going on within London Resilience that offers advice
to companies on how they can minimise the risk to their business
as a result of this evolving threat?
(Mr Raynsford) This was an issue which was addressed
quite early on in our existence and for obvious reasons we also
took a wider national view of this. This is not a unique challenge
to London. A computer virus would have catastrophic consequences
for businesses in many other parts of the country and indeed internationally.
The way we approached this was both to try and ensure that there
were appropriate answers to any potential identifiable threat
but also to ensure that there was growing awareness on the part
of the business community about the need to plan against certain
eventualities, and the whole business continuity planning process
has very much focused on ensuring that contingency arrangements
are in place to cope with that kind of threat. I do not know whether
you would like to add anything, Zyg?
(Mr Kowalczyk) This is mainly being taken forward
by the Cabinet Office, the Office of the Envoy and the CCS, so
we very much defer to them on taking this forward on a national
basis.
Mr Roy
289. Minister, in relation to private sector
support in London's resilience, do you think there is a need for
additional statutory powers and, if so, will they be included
in the upcoming Civil Contingencies Bill?
(Mr Raynsford) We do believe there is a need for an
updating and clarification of statutory powers and it is our intention
to bring forward legislation at an appropriate date. It would
not be my responsibility, that would be the responsibility of
colleagues in the Cabinet Office, but there is clearly a need
to update arrangements that were conceived in an era when the
scale of today's threats were not envisaged and where the kind
of interdependence between organisations was perhaps not fully
understood. I can say that this is something which is being considered
very actively and my colleagues in the Cabinet Office will no
doubt be making an appropriate announcement in due course.
290. Surely you would be able to have some input
into that.
(Mr Raynsford) We are indeed having an input into
it, most certainly.
Chairman
291. Are you as frustrated as we are, Minister,
that there is no legislation? You were very diplomatic in your
comments and I will not even ask you whether it will be in the
next Queen's Speech. We were hoping it would be in the last Queen's
Speech. We keep hearing from you and others about how there is
a need for urgency and yet we see the glacial speed with which
this legislation is wending its way through the system of government.
Secondly, almost everyone has been consulted apparently except
this Committee, but that is a personal whinge that I have. You
must feel a bit frustrated it has taken so long.
(Mr Raynsford) If it was the case that I felt that
the absence of appropriate legislation was a serious inhibitor
to effective contingency planning at the present time then I would
be very frustrated. As it is, I think, as I said in answer to
the earlier question, it is necessary to clarify and update statutory
arrangements that were conceived in a different era, but in practice
good working relations between the various agencies involved in
my view have overcome a number of the potential deficiencies that
might otherwise have flowed from the absence of modern legislation.
So I do think that the kind of approach we have adopted in London
with the London Resilience Forum and the partnership has ensured
that a number of potential weaknesses have been guarded against.
I am not saying that legislation will not help matters.
Chairman: I bet that was number one in your
briefing book. You probably anticipated an irate question like
that.
Mr Howarth
292. Minister, you have called it a business
sub-committee, but I notice in the London Resilience Team there
is nobody from, for example, the London Chamber of Commerce. Is
it the case that you are relying on the Corporation of the City
of London to be represented? Why is the business community not
more directly represented at the top level?
(Mr Raynsford) The business sub-committee is chaired
by Gerry Asher who has been a very prominent figure in London
First and he is widely respected throughout the business community
in London. Yes, you are right, the City Corporation have also
contributed and they have helped with secondees, but it goes much
wider than that and Gerry has my full confidence as a representative
of the London business community to represent that community effectively.
293. I am sorry, that is not my point. My point
is that you have on the London Resilience Team the Metropolitan
Police, the British Transport Police, the Mayor and the Greater
London Authority and the Corporation and City of London, London
Underground, Thames Water, why have you not got the London business
community represented at that level given all the various points
that have been made by members of this Committee about the risk
to business and the need to keep business completely up to speed
with what is going on?
(Mr Raynsford) I think business is kept fully up to
speed and informed through the work of that sub-committee. As
I have already said, we have representatives of business who are
seconded to us by the private sector as well as by the City Corporation.
I would not say for a moment we would not welcome further secondees
and if the London Chamber of Commerce wanted to second someone
to our team I am sure that Zyg would be only too pleased to make
use of such a person.
294. Does that sub-committee report to you?
(Mr Raynsford) All the sub-committees report to the
London Resilience Forum which I chair so they certainly do report
to me, yes.
295. If you take the issue of key targets, Mr
Veness talked about the impact of a fall of a tower block, but
obviously in the public mind key targets are this estate here,
the Palace of Westminster, Whitehall buildings, Royal Palaces.
How are they represented in the discussions for emergency procedures?
Who here sits on any of your committees?
(Mr Raynsford) If I can just give you one illustration.
This time a year ago we were obviously anticipating potential
risks at the time of the celebration of the Queen's Jubilee and
there was very close consultation with almost all the bodies that
you have mentioned, and particularly the Royal Parks where a number
of events would be staged and also other central London locations
to ensure that risks that might occur were guarded against to
the best of our ability. As on an at-needs basis, we will certainly
communicate with and contact the relevant bodies.
296. I am not talking about on an at-needs basis,
I am talking about the fact that given that there is a potential
for an attack on prominent buildings of which this clearly is
one, how are you seeking through the various mechanisms you have
got to report that? How do the authorities of this estate and
the others I have mentioned dovetail into all of these extensive
plans which have you have got?
(Mr Raynsford) Can I ask David to answer.
(Mr Veness) I think one way of approaching that is
to view this as an issue of security protection and defence in
the counter-terrorist context. For example, the entire estate
of vulnerable locations in London is reviewed at least weekly
in the counter-terrorist context by a security review committee
which I chair, which embraces all of the interests that you have
identified and others as well. In terms of how that counter-terrorist
machinery fits into the accountability of both Houses here, that
is by way of report to the informal joint committee and indeed,
on a more daily basis, through the office of Black Rod and the
Sergeant at Arms. In terms of the counter-terrorist defence those
mechanisms are well rehearsed and extremely regularly and it is
through that representation that those interests are represented
through the London Resilience Forum.
297. Can I then move on to talk about the military.
Mr Knight mentioned the Civil Contingencies Reaction Force. It
is quite significant that the armed forces are not represented
at all on your Forum. What role do you envisage for them and how
are you involving them in your planning processes at the moment?
(Mr Raynsford) The armed forces are now represented
on the Forum.
298. Since when?
(Mr Raynsford) And will be present at the next meeting.
299. Since when?
(Mr Kowalczyk) It was agreed at the last meeting on
27 February that the armed forces London district should be invited
and they have agreed. At the same time it was agreed at the last
meeting of the blue light sub-committee that the London district
armed forces should be represented there as well.
Mr Howarth: That is very good news.
Chairman: That has snookered you, absolutely.
| 
