Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
MR TIM
O'TOOLE AND
MR NICK
AGNEW
29 JANUARY 2009
Q20 Chairman: And yet that was a
much better system or, at least, it provided some means of communication
for the services, none of which of course, on the morning of 2005,
did the vast majority of emergency services and the police have.
Mr O'Toole: Well, there are different
protocols that they use. For example, the London Fire Brigade
has a protocol, but they literally have their own system, that,
when they go to a site, they run a leaky feeder right down so
that they have communications. Our radio systems are available
to people. Of course, no radio system works when the antenna to
the leaky feeder cable is blown apart, which will certainly frustrate
your ability to communicate, as it did on that morning.
Q21 David Davies: I wonder if I could
ask you a slightly different question. How easy is it for you
to contact the Security Service or Special Branch if you become
aware of, or are concerned about, something that is going on on
the Underground?
Mr O'Toole: It is very easy, it
goes right through our network operations centre. There are protocols
for contacting people. It would go from them immediately to BTP.
Q22 David Davies: Are you absolutely
confident that you could pick up the phone and, within seconds,
get through to somebody in the Security Service, Special Branch
or BTP?
Mr O'Toole: I am absolutely confident
that I can pick up the phone and reach my network operations centre
and that they can make the communication.
Q23 David Davies: And that it will
be dealt with efficiently and promptly?
Mr O'Toole: Well, I have no reason
to think otherwise.
Q24 David Davies: You must have made
phone calls in the past though.
Mr O'Toole: I have never had to
trigger the alarm personally.
Q25 David Davies: So have you, not
explored, rehearsed that possibility or perhaps telephoned to
say? Do you have conversations with them?
Mr O'Toole: You have to understand,
would that I were so important that it all turned on my behaviour,
but that is not actually the way the railway runs. The way it
runs is that there is a rostered duty officer on charge 24 hours
a day, there is also a security officer on charge 24 hours a day,
and they are constantly in contact with the network operations
centre and they have plenary authority to make the communications
and make the calls in the light of events which would trigger
the communications that you are concerned about. I have never
witnessed the situation where that regimen, that system, has broken
down.
David Davies: I see vigorous nodding
in confirmation behind you, so I am going to assume that that
is probably right then.
Q26 Chairman: My Specialist Adviser
has prompted me, particularly on the radio issues, I can see this,
that you will just return to Airwave for ever. Why is it that
it has taken three and a half years since the bombings to get
effective communication in place?
Mr Agnew: The Airwave project
is something which obviously we are a party to, but we have not
been the prime developer of, if I can put it in those terms, so,
in the sense of outside London Underground, I would have to come
back to you with more detail in writing. In the general sense,
we are very aware that there was, from the word go, a requirement
to make sure that the Airwave system was resilient, given that,
certainly in the case of the Underground, a lot of its usage would
be in areas where communication had previously been difficult,
so the development timescale, I would certainly be sure, was linked
to the need to make absolutely sure that, when the system was
commissioned, it was fit for purpose, but it also brings in the
point Mr O'Toole made, that we did have contingencies in the intervening
period, recognising that the need to communicate was not of itself
going to change and we just wanted to have a better system for
our colleagues in the emergency services to have access to.
Mr O'Toole: I do not want to cast
aspersions on Airwave, but Airwave could not be put on our system
until Connect itself was built. When we came in and took over
the Underground, we had Connect, which was a PFI that was failed
and it was just a series of claims and very little had been built.
We changed management and really completely reformed that effort
and are quite proud that we were able to turn it around and get
it installed across the network. At that time, there was no commitment
and no arrangement for Airwave to go in on the Connect system.
However, when we were coming towards the end, in co-operation
with the police and the Home Office, I would emphasise, we saw
that it was highly likely that people were going to want to put
Airwave in. It is basically these base radio station racks where
you go in and put in a base radio which gives you the four channels,
so we, on our own time, built the capacity so that, if an Airwave
contract were signed, it could be installed, and indeed that did
happen, so actually it is kind of that forward-thinking that allowed
Airwave to get in faster than the Home Office contract with us
called for.
Q27 Chairman: Yet, correct me if
I am wrong, the initial requirement for radio which would be compatible
with services in-tunnel arose after the King's Cross fire in 1987?
Mr O'Toole: I believe that was
mentioned in the Fennell Report, and I cannot explain the history
between then and now.
Q28 Chairman: From the point of view
of an objective or semi-objective onlooker, it does seem to be
an unconscionably long period of time, first of all, that this
requirement arose after the King's Cross fire, and I appreciate
you cannot comment on that, but then it was still three and a
half years after this major incident when, if what I say is supported,
there have been at least two further attempted attacks on the
Tube, and I do not know whether you want to comment on that or
not, so are you confident that in that three and a half years
between the July bombings of 2005 and January, this month, that
you would have been able to cope better than you did on the morning
of July 7?
Mr O'Toole: I think that most
definitely we would have. The fact that Connect was not completed
everywhere was undesirable obviously and we wish everything had
happened faster, but we did have a radio system and we did have
procedures in place to follow and, moreover, although it would
have been nice to have had a working radio system on that morning,
it did not figure prominently in the events.
Q29 Chairman: Well, that does not
reassure me, I have to say.
Mr O'Toole: Well, what you should
be reassured by is that it is in there now.
Q30 Chairman: If I just take the
military analogy, if there were a radio system that had been proved
to be inadequate in combat, it would be dealt with by an urgent
operational requirement and the chain of command, if you will
forgive the phrase, would have inserted the toes of their boots
up various parts of anatomies to make sure it happened and it
certainly would not have taken three and a half years. Now, where
should the grip, the direction, the thrust, the leadership, have
been coming from to make sure that this problem was overcome quicker
than it was?
Mr O'Toole: Well, I do not think
it would be proper for me to say that it rests anywhere else than
with me, but, I have to tell you, I am quite comfortable with
the management job we did in turning round that PFI and getting
the system built, but I have to take responsibility for anything
that happens on the Underground and I take responsibility for
the rollout of Connect which is also why, I hasten to point out,
the delivery of Airwave, piggy-backing on Connect, was delivered
faster than my contract requirement called for.
Q31 Chairman: Well, you have certainly
incited my respect by taking that responsibility and I think that
is a tremendous thing for you to say. I am glad that we have not
had occasion to have our radio systems tested. Are you familiar
with this assertion that I have made, that at least two further
attempts have been made on the Underground?
Mr O'Toole: No.
Q32 Chairman: You have never been
informed about that, told about it, or it has never been suggested
to you?
Mr O'Toole: No.
Q33 Chairman: Moving on, if we may,
to the wider provision of emergency equipment, particularly on
Underground trains, in your memorandum to us, we were talking
about equipment such as fire extinguishers, perhaps first aid
equipment, certainly provisions of emergency water, et cetera,
et cetera, on the inside of carriages, yet your assertion is that
the provision of such things would be likely to result in theft
and misuse. However, we find, certainly on other comparable underground
systems in other countries or indeed on comparable underground
systems in this country, that this does not happen. Why are you
so concerned about the abuse of such equipment were you to place
it there?
Mr O'Toole: First of all, there
are no comparable systems in the world. What is distinctive about
the London Underground is its complete lack of space. You have
very small tunnels and very small trains that do not exist anywhere
else in the world. No one would build, in this day and age, a
network of these dimensions which puts very large constraints
on you in the solutions that you can go for. Finding space on
a Tube train is a very, very tricky proposition, and we determined
that the most effective way to deliver most of the items you have
mentioned was by keeping it at the stations and delivering it
to the trains because one of the great advantages we have over
other systems in the world is the amount of staff we have deployed
who are in a position and who are trained to respond to incidents,
and we actually think that that is a more reliable way of delivering
the assistance and the various items you mentioned.
Q34 Chairman: Having spoken to a
number of the victims who were stuck inside tunnels as a result
of the bombings in 2005, many of them with their senses heavily
afflicted by the devices that had just gone off, in darkness,
in carriages that were filled with smoke and with bodies that
were beginning to burn around them, they have all reflected to
me, at least, on the fact that there was no fire-fighting equipment
inside the carriages of those trains. I absolutely take your point
about the lack of space, but, correct me if I am wrong, there
have been fire extinguishers in the carriages in the past. What
has prompted the decision not to have fire extinguishers then?
Mr O'Toole: Following the King's
Cross fire, London Underground did a complete and thorough review
of its vulnerabilities, and one of the things that has not been
much remarked on, but should be, is that one of the most amazing
phenomena that you saw on July 7 is that nothing burned, there
was no fire. If there had been fires, many, many more people would
have died in the smoke that would have filled those tunnels, but
there were no fires, and the reason there were no fires is that
London Underground has removed everything that is combustible
from its system. That is why the wooden escalators were taken
away and it is why the wooden parts of trains have been removed,
which is why you used to see fire extinguishers on the trains
on the District Line, the D stock, but, as soon as they had been
refurbished and the combustible materials had been removed, you
had no need for the fire extinguishers because there literally
is no purpose to them. Also, they are a problem with vandalism
and the like, so the sooner we could remove them when we do not
need them, we have, and the reason they are not on those trains
any longer is that they serve no purpose. There is a fire extinguisher
in the driver's cab of course, but that is mostly to address the
fact that sometimes you have fires as a result of litter on rails
themselves, but those are always of minor items, and the only
reason the extinguishers are there is because it allows us to
clean up a situation faster which would otherwise delay the service,
but you do not need fire extinguishers in a modern Tube train.
Q35 Chairman: The bodies and clothing
burned, Mr O'Toole.
Mr O'Toole: Well, they do, but
there were, to my knowledge, no incidents that I am aware of where
you would have used a fire extinguisher on a body or on clothing
which would have changed the situation. It is much better to put
it out with your own clothing.
Q36 Chairman: One of the other remarks
that they made was that there was no emergency water. Why?
Mr O'Toole: Again, it is this
question of how much would you carry, where would you carry it,
how would you refresh it. Our protocol is that our station staff
deliver emergency water to people in trains and tunnels as quickly
as they can. We just found, after studying this problem for a
very long time, that this would be the most effective way for
us to deliver this consistently over the whole network.
Q37 David Davies: Is there emergency
water in every station then, Mr O'Toole?
Mr O'Toole: There are water supplies
in every station, but, for dealing with a situation such as this
or indeed any emergency situations we have where there is a train
in a tunnel, we have core operations for trucks that deliver water
to wherever the point is. We simply do not have enough room to
keep enough water at every station that would have to deal with
a possible emergency near it, given the number of bottles you
need.
Q38 David Davies: Do you have a target
time within which you could get water to any station?
Mr O'Toole: We do and, off the
top of my head, I cannot tell you what it is, but I would be happy,
if you would allow me, to supply that.
Q39 Chairman: I am told, Mr O'Toole
or Mr Agnew, that there are carry sheets in every carriage which
can be improvised as stretchers. Is that the case?
Mr O'Toole: There are carry sheets
in trains, but also one of the things we have advanced since 7/7
is the modern collapsible stretcher units which are kept in the
stations themselves.
|
