Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80-87)
2 MARCH 2004
RT HON
DAVID BLUNKETT
MP, MR ROBERT
WHALLEY, SIR
DAVID OMAND
KCB AND MS
CHERYL PLUMRIDGE
Q80 Mr Cameron: I said if there was something
a bit less than Heathrow or a bit more than Heathrow, what are
the circumstances? I thought the Home Secretary said it tended
to be the Prime Minister in each case, in every case, and you
were giving a slightly different answer.
Mr Blunkett: No, no. I do not
want to mislead or mix you up. In one sense it will be the Prime
Minister's decision anyway as to whether he wishes to chair but
he would do so in circumstances where, as with Heathrow, there
was a request to call on the defence forces and he felt that at
that level it was appropriate for him to chair rather me. That
is fine because the COBRA group, and the chairing by the Home
Secretary is for all sorts of eventualities not just counter-terrorism.
Sir David Omand: I do not want
to give the impression that in the large amount of business which,
alas, we have to transact on counter-terrorism that the Prime
Minister is routinely in the chair. What we are talking about
here are major threats to the United Kingdom.
Q81 Rachel Squire: Home Secretary, picking
up your comments about the wider defence forces, can I ask you,
first of all, about the Civil Contingencies Reaction Force which
was formed after 11 September. Could you say how significant a
resource it is within the total response capability?
Mr Blunkett: We think it is a
very helpful addition and that it adds to the capacity of police,
defence and special forces and would be an important back up in
terms of activity behind and associated with any eventuality.
It is in that guise that we feel that it is helpful to have people
trained and co-ordinated through the 14 structures that have been
set in place. Cheryl, this is very much in your area.
Ms Plumridge: Thank you. Yes,
the CCRFs have been set up. They were declared fully operational
on 31 December and we now have in hand a set of exercises, and
there is an additional training allowance for the CCRFs to enable
them to get used to working with the police, local authorities,
the other emergency services, etc. They are, of course, just one
of the ways which the military might support us. It might be appropriate
for regular forces to be used, for instance but we think it is
very helpful that they have been dedicated to civil contingencies
in this way and that we do have a chance to train and work up
plans with them.
Mr Blunkett: Have we published
Expecting the Unexpected?
Ms Plumridge: Yes, we have.
Q82 Rachel Squire: Thank you for that,
Ms Plumridge and Home Secretary. That leads me on to my second
question which is—and you have really started to answer
it—how you would respond to those who would say should it
not be the job of the regular army to guarantee certain levels
of manpower and skills for homeland security? What further response
would you make to that?
Mr Blunkett: Two things. Firstly,
our defence forces are for traditional defence of the realm and
overseas activity to secure that. Secondly, obviously, in circumstances
we are describing now, they have a very key role of their own
but we could usefully—and this was why it was suggested
in the Defence White Paper and has been acted on—develop
the civil capacity—and I am a great advocate, as you know,
of civil society and active citizenship—to be able to draw
the strength that we have in our community, just as we have done
with the territorials abroad in terms of being able to use that
talent and experience effectively. If we can train people and
plan for that so much the better. I think these are complimentary
rather than in any way contradictory to each other. We have a
professional army where other countries often do not.
Q83 Rachel Squire: Can I ask you lastly
about your views on the police talking about the need for surge
capabilities and identifying various options. Again, what would
you say to the view that the army should provide some of that
capability that the police have identified?
Mr Blunkett: I think, Chairman,
you and I have talked about this over the last couple of years.
Let me be clear, because I think we need to retain as part of
our historic unwritten constitution the very clear separation
between military and civilian forces, the primacy domestically
of the civilian authorities seeking the help of and calling on
the military but not seeing those as taking over their role and
for the public to have confidence in that so that we are very
clear where the boundary lies in a democracy. It has worked very
well for us and I think we would be wise to retain that distinction.
I do not know whether Bob wants to add something else?
Mr Whalley: All I would add on
the particular point about the police service is, as the Home
Secretary says, they have the primacy in the response. They can
always call upon neighbouring police forces, mutual aid arrangements
can come into place very quickly. The police have a very good
network for doing all this. The police have certain specialist
facilities which can be made available. There is within the police
force quite a lot of capacity which will be deployed. These are
largely operational judgments for the senior police officers themselves
to make.
Sir David Omand: I want to add
too a word about the capabilities that the reserve forces bring.
In exercises that I have seen, the range of skills and professions
that are represented in the reserve forces in the sort of circumstances
we are talking about are a huge asset.
Q84 Chairman: Absolutely. Home Secretary,
your plea for continuation of civilian primacy is absolutely right
but when the wheel comes off the military are very, very good.
Mr Blunkett: They did not do a
bad job, did they, in the foot and mouth crisis. I take your point.
Chairman: Absolutely. They are wonderful,
as are the police. The last question goes to Gwyn Prosser.
Q85 Mr Prosser: Home Secretary, the Chairman
has asked you some questions about the involvement of the private
security sector, to what extent does the creation of the Security
Industry Authority increase or otherwise the tendency to use the
private security to reinforce in cases of emergency?
Mr Blunkett: I do not think it
does. I think it provides a capacity to train and accredit. I
think with the structure we set in place with the Police Reform
Act, the use of those who are engaged in some form of security
or order has to be, and quite rightly should be, under the direction
of the police and therefore any activity would have to be accredited
by the police themselves, whether in large shopping centres or
major leisure facilities. I think that is the right thing to do
as an aid and support to rather than replacing the normal traditional
forces.
Q86 Mr Prosser: In September of last
year there was a major exercise in London to assess the emergency
services' response to a chemical attack in the Tube. Can you tell
us briefly what you have learnt from that?
Mr Blunkett: All the lessons that
were learnt have been now built into and will be applied—God
help us—if we were ever in the circumstance to need to react
in that way. I do not intend to list them. The whole point of
the exercise was actually to expose weaknesses, to demonstrate
where we needed to strengthen our capacity, to look at the improvements
we could make in co-ordination. We were very honest about it.
There is no point in holding an exercise to demonstrate that there
is nothing wrong, you have to hold an exercise with the intent
of being very clear about the lessons. Forgive me, I am not being
obstructive here but if I listed them, people are out there monitoring
what we are doing and saying and I do my best to be reasonably
open and honest about these things rather than mealy-mouthed but
in public I cannot enunciate a number of weaknesses although I
did notice that one or two quite responsible people who were invited
to view it took it as far as they possibly could at the time,
did they not, David?
Sir David Omand: One lesson, however,
we do draw from it, which is that well planned and organised exercises
that are discussed well in advance with representatives of the
media can be presented in a way that does not cause public alarm
or cause an impact on tourism. We were very pleased with the response
to the exercise.
Q87 Mr Prosser: Finally then—really
finally—what plans do you have for any future practical
exercises including the front line responders?
Mr Blunkett: There are ongoing
desk top exercises, there are ongoing regional and sub-regional
exercises. We already announced that we want further joint exercises
internationally so that we can experience and learn from the experience
of others. We will be discussing that with partners both in the
US and Europe over the next few months. I do not know whether,
David and Bob, you can add to that?
Mr Whalley: On the major terrorist
exercises, this is an extensive programme which is a mixture of
table top exercises, as the Home Secretary has said, and major
exercises mobilising the police service and many others, in close
working with central government. This is a programme planned with
the police and others which is designed to cover the range of
scenarios that we might have to deal with. Increasingly we are
trying to reflect all those in the exercise planning but that
is long standing and effective programme.
Mr Blunkett: Some of them are
very specific and would be specific to health, some to policing
counter-terrorism attacks on CBRN so that they would be tailored
to the different nature of the attack.
Chairman: Home Secretary, ladies and
gentlemen, thank you very much for your two hours. It has been
very encouraging. Parliamentary committees are very quick to criticise
failure of joined up government. The committees are appallingly
bad in joining up their own activities. With the exception of
the Quadripartite Committee of four, which is rather cumbersome,
there are very, very few occasions when committees actually get
together, maybe we should do it rather more frequently. Thank
you all very much.
| 
