Examination of Witnesses (Questions 60-67)
MR TIM
O'TOOLE AND
MR NICK
AGNEW
29 JANUARY 2009
Q60 Martin Salter: What is your assessment
of CONTEST as an overall operation? It has got the four strands
and the rest of it, but do you feel that the initiative is in
the right place, that it is properly resourced? Is it one of those
things you go to where you feel that you are able to make a valuable
contribution towards taking forward the counter-terrorism policy
as it affects your operation?
Mr Agnew: Well, I think it builds
on a point I made earlier about the relationships particularly
with agencies that we have in place already, and it is very useful
to have, I think, any review of the way in which procedures have
been developed and put in place and tested, but it is not, as
I see it from a transport perspective, a substitute for a lot
of the things that are ongoing and have already been in place.
Again, without dwelling on any one aspect, we find particularly
useful our relationship with the Department for Transport because
clearly we have a range of transport modes that we are responsible
for or are integrated with and some of the things I see in CONTEST
are reflecting things that we are doing with agencies such as
DfT.
Q61 Martin Salter: In your experience
of CONTEST and in preparing your infrastructure to cope with possible
terrorist attacks, is information being fed in from across the
globe from other countries, from other jurisdictions? Is there
an opportunity to refresh and learn best practice from elsewhere?
Mr Agnew: Most definitely. We
have again a longstanding liaison with other transport operators
around the world in various forms. We have a European committee
which fosters the sort of work you are talking about and the sort
of contact between agencies, and we have ones that are modal looking
at metros or within the bus sector, for example. In Transport
for London, we benefit from not just contact with, and visits
to, other agencies, but from their representatives coming to us
and that is a frequent occurrence, and it is very much about the
sort of things you have mentioned; it is about identifying best
practice and making sure it is shared and then being able to evaluate
whether that is something that would benefit a wider community
or whether it is specific to a particular country, agency or city.
Q62 Martin Salter: If I could persuade
the Chairman to raid the House of Commons' budget so that we could
go on one of our fact-finding trips, or junkets, as I am sure
many people would like to call them, is there a jurisdiction,
is there a transport infrastructure, is there anywhere you would
hold up as good practice and, when you hear from them, you think,
"Hang on, those guys are well ahead of the curve"?
Mr Agnew: I think we could certainly
assist in a fact-finding trip of that nature in terms of looking
at the specific issues that you have of interest and then saying,
"In our experience, these agencies represent best practice",
and again I would come back to our colleagues in DfT who have
been extremely helpful again to agencies like ourselves in making
recommendations, not just in the UK, but also in other countries.
Q63 Martin Salter: I want to push
that a bit further. I am not after going somewhere hot and nice,
I do not mind if it is Iceland, but is there another public transport
system in a major conurbation or a major city where the security
regime is particularly impressive and it might be instructive
for us to go and take evidence from? I am half-joking about going
anywhere.
Mr Agnew: Well, the one that I
have visited and found to be very impressive is Singapore. Now,
obviously they have the benefit of much-newer infrastructure than
we do in London, just to name one aspect of it, but they are very
good.
Q64 Martin Salter: They do not have
the added point of having to worry about human rights either,
do they, too much?
Mr Agnew: Well, I was impressed
all round with what I saw during the brief period of my visit,
I would say.
Q65 Martin Salter: Mr O'Toole, have
you got anything to add on those points at all?
Mr O'Toole: I would only echo
this point Nick has made, at least on the metro side, that we
have very, very close ties. We have an organisation of world metros
that review each other's practice. We all face different versions
of the threat because of the make-up of our systems, but you can
look at different systems which have different things. For example,
New York, the largest metro system in the world, has come to us
for guidance because they do not even have CCTV and they would
like to have CCTV on their system and improve. We look to the
more modern systems, like Washington and the practices of Hong
Kong and elsewhere, and evaluate all of the technology and solutions
because we want to make sure that we are doing the right thing.
I have to point out though, and you are quite properly probing
for shortcomings, weaknesses and how can we get better because
you can never be complacent, but I have a steady stream of metros
through my office because they view us as one of the leaders.
Q66 Martin Salter: Could I just probe
this CCTV issue because it fascinates me. There has been a bit
of a campaign in this country, not largely supported in this House,
I have to say, apart from one or two exceptions, which is basically
saying that there are too many cameras and we are being watched
too regularly, it is intrusive. Now, I do not get that from my
constituents. I cannot remember getting a letter from any of my
constituents, telling me, "I want the CCTV camera taken down
at the end of my street". In fact, it is usually the other
way round and the public want more of these things, not less of
these things. It seems to be broadly accepted in this country
that CCTV is seen as a good thing and it is one of those bits
of intrusion by the authorities that we will put up with in the
broader interest of keeping us collectively safe. I get the impression
in other countries that there is a different view of CCTV, and
I see your adviser nodding behind you which is helpful, so is
that the case in America and elsewhere and how is public opinion
involved in other countries around the issue of CCTV?
Mr O'Toole: Well, some of this
is gratuitous commentary on my part because it is without a great
deal of study, it is opinion, but, first of all, I want to emphasise
that the place we start from is that we have CCTV to run our network,
we do not have it for security purposes. We have it so that the
person that sits in the control room can see where the crowds
are building up and know when to intervene and when to put the
station control in place, and that is why we have it. It has evolved
to present other advantages, as you point out, and it is useful
for projecting control over an environment. I think you are right,
that in America there have been the civil libertarians quite worried
by what it means, where it could take us and the whole issue of
the Big Brother society. However, and here is the gratuitous part,
I think you will find that, contrary to one's expectations, and
this is where it is evolving, there is the least resistance to
CCTV among young people, that actually, once you get past Facebook,
exhibitionism seems to be replacing the need for privacy, and
the greatest objection to it seems to be among older people who
remember more, or have probably read, George Orwell.
Q67 David Davies: Is there CCTV on
every coach now?
Mr O'Toole: No, not on the old
trains. It will come in on the new trains and, because there are
two fleets, the Central and Bakerloo, which will not be replaced
for quite some time, we are going to retrofit.
Chairman: Right, ladies and gentlemen,
we are going to have a five-minute break now while we clear the
room to go into private session for the remaining three or four
questions on the sheet.
Questions 68-93 Evidence
heard in Private
|
