The Defence contribution to UK national security and resilience - Defence Committee Contents


Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers 200-219)

GENERAL SIR DAVID RICHARDS KCB CBE DSO ADC GEN AND BRIGADIER JAMES EVERARD OBE

27 JANUARY 2009

  Q199  Chairman:— particularly in the light of what you said in your opening answer about the need to revisit the whole picture?

  General Sir David Richards: Yes, absolutely. I think it is a key area for all of us generically.

  Q200  Linda Gilroy: You gave us a fairly clear idea of the resources and commitment to planning for provision in civil emergencies, but I wonder if you can just give the Committee a further idea of the sort of scale of that commitment. I assume that it involves the resilience exercises and what does that, in a typical month or year, look like?

  General Sir David Richards: To make sure he earns his keep this morning, James organises all these things.

  Brigadier Everard: We do run a comprehensive training programme, exercise programme, throughout the year and, in anticipation that that would be one of the questions that was asked, I have brought a list of those resilience exercises which have taken place in the UK to which we have contributed or have run, I think, throughout the last year and it runs to a full page, covering every aspect. Indeed, if I were not here today, I would be on exercise FORWARD STAR down in Warminster which has a gold commander there and all the agencies looking at one particular aspect of our ability to respond to a crisis, so I think it is pretty comprehensive and grows annually as more people, particularly the Cat 1 responders, come on board and start running their own exercises, as they are mandated to do under the Civil Contingencies Act.

  Q201  Linda Gilroy: I take it that that could be available to the Committee rather than running through the detail of it. I think the other aspect I wanted to ask about, and again you have given us something of the flavour of it, is in relation to horizon-scanning, the response you gave to the Chairman's question about what keeps you awake at night, but also, when you said to us that you take your context from what the MoD do, can you just give the Committee an idea of how that horizon-scanning happens and how it affects what you plan?

  General Sir David Richards: I have prepared some stuff on this. Of course, it is the sort of thing we do all the time when looking at deployed operations. Here, the MoD are primarily responsible for horizon-scanning because it does involve all government agencies and government departments, but at a national level the Civil Contingencies Secretariat is actually responsible for doing it and we play a role, particularly when it gets down to the regional and local level, in validating the sort of work that they are doing. I do not know, but do you, James, get involved in the detail at the higher level because that is really my bit of it?

  Brigadier Everard: Not at the moment. There is an MoD branch, and I think Brigadier Chip Chapman was here at one of your earlier sessions, and that CT&UK Ops Branch are our link into the Civil Contingencies Secretariat for that high-level horizon-scanning. Beneath that, there is a raft of work drawing on our own Concepts and Doctrine Centre and the Defence Academy to refine our ability to respond. Again, because it is difficult to articulate how much work there is unless you see it, I would bring up here, because I think it might be of interest, our own Standing Operation Instructions[1] which represent all the contingency plans that exist, so, if you want to know how to get a helicopter, this will tell you exactly how many helicopters are available at any one time and where you go to get them. If you want to know, you name it, how to get hold of a communications specialist or someone from the Atomic Weapons Establishment, it is all in here with phone numbers, and all of that has really fallen out of the horizon-scanning work we have done or drilling into those national resilience assessments or assumptions that have fallen out of the Cabinet Office. Again, I'll pass that round if people are interested to have a look at it.

  Q202 Chairman: Is that classified?

  Brigadier Everard: That is not classified,[2] so we circulate that widely so that everybody involved in resilience understands what we can do, and it is a sort of supporting adjunct to the capabilities catalogue as a non-classified version and again a classified version which underpins our ability to respond.

  Q203 Linda Gilroy: So are there any other things? I am trying to get this sort of balance between lessons learned from previous civil emergencies, but also the picture you have given us that that is changing, the civil response is much better to that and that of course the threats that are there are also changing. What are the other things that maybe do not keep you awake at night, but which give you considerable pause for thought?

  General Sir David Richards: Well, I would emphasise again that my focus is deployed operations, so I have routinely a conscience in James Everard and his small joint team that really are very dedicated, and they are also joint because they are within HQ Land Forces, which is sometimes forgotten. They are the ones that on a day-to-day basis are horizon-scanning, doing the work with other government departments, particularly the MoD. I think it is really terrorism and the sort of work the Chairman mentioned of Chris Donnelly, who is a very good friend of mine and in fact we are together later today, looking at the full scale of where defence might have to be deployed over the next ten to 20 years in an away-day, it is that sort of work that I focus on to make sure that I come back and say to someone like James, "Have we factored this into the work done by that joint staff downstairs in our cellars?" It is not random, but the work done focused on the UK is part of a much wider piece of work, and I think that is probably right, going back to the Chairman's point, that it is all so interlinked in a globalised world that that is the way it has got to be, and then I cherry-pick bits that I want then to focus on in respect of UK resilience.

  Q204  Robert Key: General, the architecture of all this is really rather complicated, is it not? We have got the Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism in the Home Office, the Prime Minister chairs a ministerial Committee on Security and Terrorism and we have the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre at MI5 in Thames House which reports to the Cabinet Office. How do you ensure that the Ministry of Defence is kept in the loop? On a day-to-day basis, is the Ministry of Defence actually keeping up with the work of all those other agencies?

  General Sir David Richards: Well, there is a one-star director, Brigadier Chapman, who, I think, has appeared in front of you, whose almost exclusive job is to maintain those links, but I personally do not do it. I do not want to flog a dead horse, but I am quite down the food chain here. Whilst my staff keep tabs on it and I go on the odd exercise, for me this is just one of many tasks that I can have laid on me. I am content, from the times I am exposed to it, that the relations seem to me to work, but I would say that they could probably be a lot clearer and crisper and maybe that is one of the things that will come out of the horizon-scanning work in relation to 2012. My own view, having done a few overseas operations, is that it was Omar Bradley that said that professionals talk logistics and amateurs talk tactics. I have said for many years now that actually professionals talk command and control first, then logistics and then tactics, and I suppose that is a mantra that has not yet permeated all the way through this particular area and there are bureaucratic rivalries that we have got to ease out. It works, but I suspect it could be better.

  Q205  Robert Key: Do the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force act completely independently of you or, as Standing Joint Commander, do you co-ordinate their military aid to the civil authorities as well?

  General Sir David Richards: Yes, very much so. It is a joint headquarters and we again examined it last summer. The Vice Chief of Defence has a meeting of the three single Service Commanders-in-Chief every three months. We went through this, they communed with their conscience, whether they are unhappy with a soldier doing their bit, and they gave me the thumbs-up. There is an option that the Chief of Defence Staff could, in a particular circumstance, say, "I'm not giving it to Richards, I'm giving it to Stanhope" or whoever it might be, but most of the effects will be on the land and, therefore, even though aircraft, for example, are involved, it often usually would make sense for us to take the lead, and we do this all the time anyway. We have this, as you will know, supporting and supported relationship and I am the supported commander because I am the one that will have to look after most of the impact of any incident, but it works well. I can imagine that where it might not, for example, be me could be if an oilrig were attacked and there is no major obvious land role there, so I suspect that would go to the Navy, for example.

  Q206  Robert Key: The Committee visited the Counter-Terrorism Science and Technology Centre at Porton Down in my constituency in October and I think we were very impressed by the vast range of activities they do and their immense capability there. I think we got a sense that they were rather frustrated, that they were fighting an uphill battle in persuading other government agencies of what they can offer. Do you have a view on that and how should they, or could they, be better promoted?

  General Sir David Richards: Well, I have been there and it is very impressive and I did pick up the same worries. I think this is the point we are getting about command and control. We need more clarity and the idea of SORs that brings that clarity is something that we are hoping to see during this year. To reassure you, when preparing for this session, I dug into these things and they are on the case, as I said to the Chairman at the beginning, though maybe I am getting a bit impatient to see the results, but they are aware of that sort of issue.

  Q207  Chairman: That is particularly in relation to, for example, 2012?

  General Sir David Richards: I think that, to be frank, sort of galvanised action, yes. Everyone is aware that there are risks over that period that we want to be fully prepared for in good time, and the organisation you have referred to could play a key role in some of the possible scenarios that are being examined, so we all ought to be quite clear who does what and who is responsible to whom for what, and that area is yet a bit murky.

  Brigadier Everard: Just to add, if I may, that particular organisation, which we have a lot of contact with, works at the DSTL in Porton Down, but it is not a DSTL agency, and actually works with the MoD and the Chief Scientific Adviser, so they come and contribute to our exercises, but I understand that it is his office that is driving the ability to take on that role of a sort of one-stop shop for CT expertise.

  Q208  Robert Key: Sir David, if I could stay with these training exercises for a moment, and we know they have them, how do you satisfy yourself that Army units are ready to deploy in an emergency and work seamlessly with fire brigades, the police and so on?

  General Sir David Richards: Again, I might ask James because James is responsible for it.

  Brigadier Everard: For those niche capabilities that we are mandated to provide, specific training goes on to ensure that they are trained to the standard that they need to train to. For augmented manpower, of course we are drawing on the general capabilities of the Army, hence the fact we have SJC headquarters located next to Land Commitments so that we can identify the best courses to do the job that is required. I have been doing this job for a year and nine times out of ten what people are after is just trained manpower, a body of people who can react to circumstances, and that is what we produce on a daily basis anyway.

  Q209  Robert Key: What specific training do the Army, the Navy and the Air Force units have in preparation for military assistance to civil authorities?

  Brigadier Everard: Over and above those troops that are pitched against those niche capabilities, none. We do not specifically train our forces to contribute to MACA; it is a task that falls out of their military training anyway.

  General Sir David Richards: The role that we tend to fill, picking up on James's point about what the other agencies want, is quality-trained manpower. That is what we are. The issues are not nearly as demanding normally, we could do some horizon-scanning and obviously there are big implications with some of the sort of worst-case things, but normally all that this requires is a commander with a team that can analyse, plan and implement quickly under pressure, and that is our core business, so we do not think, for the vast majority of instances, things like flood relief operations, for example, that it is that difficult, given that that is what we practise in all the time, albeit the subject matter is different. That does not mean that we do not need sappers with boats because of course also they do that on normal military operations, so, give or take the whole raft of things, the 90% of the things we might be called in to help over, they are there anyway, but, instead of applying it to the operations in Iraq or Afghanistan, we apply it to probably usually much-easier-to-cope-with, if I am frank, operations in the UK.

  Q210  Robert Key: Could I ask for a little update on what is happening at the Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear Centre at Winterbourne Gunner, where, I know, the Army, Navy and Air Force attend for training in those areas, and of course next to it is the Police National College for Training as well. Is there co-ordination, therefore, between the police and military forces at Winterbourne Gunner or are they completely separate establishments?

  Brigadier Everard: I do not know the answer to that question and I have not been to Winterbourne Gunner. Of course, in terms of our UK ops response to EOD, we have the Joint Services EOD Centre at Didcot. They have a standing authority to deploy in support of the civil authorities in the event of a CBRN or actually an EOD requirement and they have very good links with the other agencies, including maritime and indeed police who provide those capabilities, so, on the exercises I have been to, I have seen that joint training in action. Whether at Winterbourne Gunner it takes place, I do not know.

  General Sir David Richards: If we may, can we come back to you on that?

  Robert Key: Yes, please. I would be grateful. Thank you very much.

  Chairman: Moving on to funding and Bernard Jenkin.

  Q211  Mr Jenkin: How happy are you with the funding arrangements for MACA?

  General Sir David Richards: Well, for what we are mandated to do at the moment, it seems to work. If we provide an EOD team to another government department, Defence gets paid for it and, therefore, it does not have to come out of the Army's hide, for example. Whether it would work in a large-scale disaster of some kind where a nuclear bomb was let off in the docks or something like that, I can only imagine that it should because, at the scale we are doing it, it seems to work very well, but I suppose scale would then become a different issue, but we have not had any problems with it to date.

  Brigadier Everard: No. I think the funding and repayment regime, the rules are set by the Treasury and we apply them as best we can, so I think that works well. For those niche capabilities, of course they are mandated in Defence Planning Guidance and we are funded to provide those.

  Q212  Mr Jenkin: But the DCDC publication Operations in the UK: The Defence Contribution to Resilience sets out the principles of funding, and the key principle seems to be, "If the cost is not applicable to defence, then it represents an improper use of resources and must be recovered", but does that not inhibit capacity-building in the Ministry of Defence and does that not discourage government departments from using perhaps dormant capability because the cost of deploying it is in fact prohibitive, particularly if you are going for full recovery of costs?

  General Sir David Richards: I can identify with what you have just suggested, but, in a way from a defence perspective, where our priority quite clearly now is mandated to be on deployed operations outside the United Kingdom, anything which, however accidentally, forces others to do what they are supposed to do for fear that it will be more expensive if they come to us maybe is not a bad thing. I suspect that has been a catalyst for some of the investment, very good investment, that we have seen in the last four years, so there is another side to it. Should we do it for others? Well, there is an argument for saying we should, but actually, as far as the Government is concerned, it is not our job primarily anymore, but we are there in support of others who should make the necessary investment.

  Q213  Mr Jenkin: But, if it were easier for you to support capacity to do some of these tasks, which of course then would be available capacity for other tasks when not required by MACA, that would be in the national interest, would it not?

  General Sir David Richards: Well, I can absolutely understand that case, but we are not paid at the moment to do it, so I would not want to do it unless it is in the way that you have just described. We need to be properly resourced to do any more and that is why we are so keen, and perhaps it would be helpful if you emphasise this if you agree, that we do tidy up what we are required to do through some sort of SOR process that tells us this and then we will do it, but the rather sort of `come as you are', which we have got to avoid, can be muddling. We need to know what it is, pay us to do it and we will provide the capability, but it is a little bit murky at the moment.

  Q214  Mr Jenkin: But of course the charging levels are rather malleable in that there can be full costs' recovery, there can be marginal costs' recovery or the costs might be waived.

  General Sir David Richards: Yes.

  Q215  Mr Jenkin: Are you happy that this is stability in terms of what the Ministry of Defence is going to get paid for? Are expectations fulfilled?

  General Sir David Richards: So far, normally our expectations have been fulfilled because it is a collaborative effort. Have you got any more detail to help answer that question because you get involved with it?

  Brigadier Everard: Well, I am lucky in the fact that the charging regime is an MoD responsibility and, for example, I would expect the MoD to waive costs in the event of a maxi Cat A saving-life venture. Intermediate costs, if there was a training benefit to us, again we probably would not seek recovery of costs, but again we are, I think, constrained by the envelope we work in and that says that, for those tasks you are not formally mandated to do in Defence Strategic Guidance, you seek recovery of the money in the charging regime as set out by the Treasury, so, unless those rules are changed, that is what we will continue to do.

  General Sir David Richards: Of course we do not get involved in it. We provide the troops and whatever might be required and then it is for the MoD to decide the regime.

  Q216  Mr Jenkin: I appreciate I am asking slightly outside your remit, but it has been very helpful, the answers you have been giving. There is a footnote about national interest, that, "MoD will not waive costs on grounds of national security". I think people would be rather surprised by that statement. Can you think of any example when the national interest criterion for waiving MACA charging has been fulfilled?

  General Sir David Richards: I do not know, but, I agree with you, I think it does sound rather surprising.

  Q217  Mr Jenkin: Would that be the large-scale things?

  General Sir David Richards: Yes, that would come in that category. No, you are educating me; I find that interesting.

  Q218  Chairman: But putting context, that statement is followed by, "Those aspects of national security for which the MoD has responsibility are funded within the defence budget", in other words, pretty much what you have been saying—

  General Sir David Richards: Yes.

  Q219  Chairman:— that even national security does, in certain circumstances, come under the budgets of departments other than the Ministry of Defence.

  General Sir David Richards: Yes.



1   Note by witness: Edition 3, as at 9 July 2008. Back

2   Note by witness: It has been deliberately kept at RESTRICTED. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 18 May 2009