4 Civil protection against terrorist attack
| (26073)
13980/04
COM(04) 701
| Commission Communication to the Council on preparedness and consequence management in the fight against terrorism
|
| Legal base | — |
| Document originated | 20 October 2004
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 1 November 2004
|
| Department | Home Office |
| Basis of consideration | EM of 21 December 2004
|
| Previous Committee Report | None; but see (26072) 13979/04: HC 38-v (2004-05), para 5 (26 January 2005)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information requested
|
Background
4.1 The European Council of June 2004 asked the Commission and
the Council to assess Member States' capacities to prevent and
cope with terrorist attacks and to enhance existing cooperation
on civil protection. The Communication is the Commission's response
to that request. It reviews the action which the Commission is
taking and proposes additional measures.
The Commission Communication
4.2 The Communication notes that the Community Civil Protection
Mechanism was established in October 2001 as a means of ensuring
cooperation and mutual assistance between the 25 EU Member States,
three European Free Trade Area (EFTA) countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein
and Norway) and Bulgaria and Romania as EU candidate countries.
The Mechanism is available to deal with the consequences of any
disaster, whether its cause is natural or due to acts of terrorism.
The Commission has a central co-ordinating role in receiving requests
from Member States affected by a disaster or emergency, sending
the requests to other Member States and passing any responses
back to the requesting country.
4.3 The Communication also notes the training element
of the Mechanism, with courses being run for national experts
and team leaders involving simulation exercises in France, Denmark
and Belgium and exchanges of experts to improve the capacity of
Member States to respond to disasters. The Commission also maintains
a database of information supplied by the Member States and relating
to assets and capabilities available for assistance at European
level. The database established by the EU Military Committee relating
to military assistance in the event of terrorist attacks has also
been made available.
4.4 The Communication states that a terrorist attack
which involves explosive, chemical or biological agents could
be "hugely disruptive" even if it does not kill or maim
or involve "unlimited catastrophe" agents such as smallpox.
The Communication points out that action in the health field is
intended to cover a range of activities from detection and risk
assessment through to decontamination and disposal of waste. A
Health Security Committee has been set up to exchange information
on threats related to health, to coordinate health preparedness
and emergency response plans as well as to advise on the management
of risks. A secure 24 hours/7 days a week rapid alert system has
been established to link the Committee with the Commission. A
network has also been created between seven laboratories in five
EU Member States which have the capacity to handle and examine
high-risk agents such as anthrax, tularemia and smallpox. The
Communication notes that information has been shared on stocks
of bioagent vaccines, antibiotics, antidotes and anti-virals in
the Member States and that agreement has been reached on the information
which needs to be collected on the medical resources required
for mutual assistance in the event of medical disasters.
4.5 The Communication notes that planning for preparedness
for and response to terrorist attacks has been a key priority
and that a compilation of national emergency plans has been devised.
EU-wide evaluation exercises will be carried out in 2005 in respect
of smallpox and pandemic influenza. Also, Member States and the
Commission are developing prediction models on the progress of
diseases and dispersal agents under different scenarios with a
wide range of demographic and geographical variables. The Commission
has also developed a training programme covering the investigation
of outbreaks of communicable diseases and forensic epidemiology.
The Communication notes that the future European Union Centre
for Disease Prevention and Control will provide disease surveillance
as well as advice to Member States and the EU.
4.6 The Communication reviews the various rapid alert
systems operated by the Commission (which include MIC —
the Monitoring and Information Centre to facilitate mutual assistance
between participating countries, ECURIE — the alert system
for radiological emergencies, BICHAT — for biological and
chemical attacks and threats, RAPEX — covering the non-food
aspects of consumer health and safety, RASFF — consumer
health in relation to food and animal feed, EWRS — communicable
diseases, EUROPHYT — phytosanitary network for interception
of organisms harmful to plants, SHIFT — health controls
on imports of veterinary concern, and ADNS — animal health)
and proposes a consolidation within a secure general alert system
(ARGUS) to link all specialised systems at EU level. The Communication
explains that the new system would respect the specific characteristics,
competence and expertise of the existing systems, which would
continue to carry out their present functions.
4.7 The Communication also proposes the establishment
of a central Crisis Centre within the Commission to bring together
representatives of all the relevant Commission services during
an emergency. The Crisis Centre would co-ordinate Commission efforts
to evaluate options for action and decide on responses.
4.8 The Communication argues that the "only
missing link" in the present network of alert systems managed
at EU level is "an alert system concerning public order and
security as regards either preparation for or response to crises
involving law enforcement". It states that "a European
law enforcement network (LEN) will be established and it should
be managed by EUROPOL. It should be in place by 2005. It will
consist of a dedicated 24h/7 days-a-week multi-layered access
network, to serve in particular the EU law enforcement community,
using the current secure communication channels of the Europol
network". The Communication goes on to explain the detailed
operation of LEN and states that Member States will need to identify
a responsible national contact point to issue and receive alerts
and to take further action where necessary.
The Government's view
4.9 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 21 December
2004, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office
(Caroline Flint) explains that the Government supports the principle
of mutual support for civil protection, both for preparedness
and consequence management. The Minister also explains that the
Government accepts that benefits will come from more effective
internal co-ordination within EU systems and institutions.
4.10 The Minister adds that the Government has some
concerns about the effectiveness and value of the complex asset
databases which the Commission is creating, but that it has agreed
to supply information on assets that could be made available to
other countries in an emergency without affecting the UK's resilience
if attacked.
4.11 The Minister notes that the Commission has a
large number of alert systems and agrees that there is a case
for them to be rationalised, but also notes that it is unclear
at present whether the proposed ARGUS system is the best way forward.
The Minister observes that the Commission has not explained clearly
how it will improve current arrangements. As far as the Commission's
internal Crisis Centre is concerned, the Minister comments that
there is an argument for better internal co-ordination within
the Commission's services, provided this does not create another
level of bureaucracy and does not impinge on the proper roles
of the governments of the Member States.
4.12 On the creation of a law enforcement agency
network by June 2005, the Minister comments as follows:
"It is unclear that the Commission had discussed
this proposal thoroughly with Europol and the other law enforcement
agencies before issuing the Communication. Wide ranging consultation
will be needed before final decisions were taken."
Conclusion
4.13 We thank the Minister for her helpful Explanatory
Memorandum, and we agree with the assessments which the Government
has made.
4.14 In relation to the proposal for a European
Union law enforcement network managed by Europol, we were concerned
that the Communication appeared to treat this as an accomplished
fact rather than a suggestion for action. We were therefore taken
aback to learn from the Minister that the Commission may not
have thoroughly discussed this matter even with Europol before
issuing its Communication. We ask the Minister for a fuller account
of the consultations which have been conducted and if the Minister
intends to raise with the Commission its apparent failure to consult
on this issue.
4.15 We shall hold the document under scrutiny
pending the Minister's reply.
| 
