london borough of hounslow the civic centre lampton road...
TRANSCRIPT
London Borough of Hounslow The Civic Centre Lampton Road Hounslow TW3 4DN Committee Services If you require further information about this agenda please contact: Mike Smith on 020 8583 2069 or at [email protected]. OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE A meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee will be held in the Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow on Thursday, 22 May 2003 at 7:30 pm MEMBERSHIP Councillor Lamey - Chair Councillors Barwood, Bath, Carey, Carman, Edwards, Morgan-Watts and Virk. and Virk.
AGENDA PART I - ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION WHILE THE PRESS AND PUBLIC ARE IN ATTENDANCE
1. Apologies for absence, declarations of interest or any other communications from Members
2. Election of Vice-Chair 3. Minutes of the meeting held on 22 April 2003 - for confirmation (Pages 1 - 8) 4. Minutes of the reconvened meeting held on 28 April 2003 - for confirmation (Pages 9 - 12) 5. Appointment of Chairs of Overview and Scrutiny Panels 6. Presentation on Emergency Planning (Pages 13 - 38) 7. Urgent Business
Any business which the Chair agrees to accept on grounds of urgency. DECLARING INTERESTS Committee members are reminded that if they have a personal interest in any matter being discussed at the meeting they must declare the interest and if the interest is also a prejudicial interest then they may not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter. M.J. SMITH DISTRIBUTION: Council Members Chief Officers Public Press Assistant Chief Executive (Legal)
1
At a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on Tuesday, 22 April 2003 at 6:00 pm at Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow. Present: Councillor Lamey (Chair) Councillors Barwood, Bath, Bowen, Carey, Carman, Chopra, Edwards, Gray, Kirton, Morgan-Watts and Vaught.. Apologies for Absence There were no apologies for absence.
18. Minutes of the meeting held on 31 March 2003
The minutes of the meeting held on 31 March 2003 were confirmed.
19. Leader's Question Time
Councillor John Chatt, Leader of the Council, was present to answer Members questions about key achievements over the past municipal year. A list of questions was divided up amongst all the Members present at the meeting.
a) Update on issues raised at the meeting held on 2 June 2002 i) When we last met, you agreed to provide a report on the Executive’s ‘Away
Days’ to this Committee. We are disappointed not to have yet received this report. When can we expect this? Councillor Chatt felt that the Committee had received a report because the main core of the work had been shown in the Executive’s Business Plan. Further information from the away days was being collated and analysed and this would be provided in a report to the Committee. There had been two away days with the Corporate Management Team and two with the Executive, which were held in Feltham. Reports on issues discussed by the Executive at the awaydays would be available to the public. The Committee felt that they should have received separate reports about away days and it was agreed that they would receive these in future.
ii) It is coming to the end of the municipal year and we wanted to invite you back to hear about your key achievements throughout the year. Could you outline what you feel have been your key achievements in this municipal year?
Agenda Item 3
1
2
Councillor Chatt felt that the Budget process had been a key achievement and that the Overview and Scrutiny Committee had played a major role. He felt that the first year of the Executive had been a success. The achievements had been recognised by the Comprehensive Performance Assessment and the challenge would be to improve the results from fair to good. The ALMO had been a great success and their two star achievement in the Audit Commissions report had contributed to the Councils overall score. The framework used and the monitoring process in the Business Plan had helped to improve the way the Council was run. The results of the residents survey for 2002/2003 had been received and had indicated that the overall view of the public was that the Council was well run. Councillor Lamey pointed out that the Executive had been in existence since 1999, although this had been the first year that it had met in public.
iii) Do you envisage a time when the Council Tax will be below the rate of inflation and will plans to lower the level of spending be implemented earlier?
It was anticipated that there would be a medium term financial strategy for next year. This year had seen a mix of high Council Tax and medium savings to services. Financial indicators from the Government were likely to be the same, which would cause difficulties in making savings. Part of the Budget was to modernise and to reduce costs and overheads in order to save money.
iv) In June both you and this Committee were in agreement that the budget setting and review process should start early. Can you tell us, if the Executive Budget Sub Group continues to meet and what are the priorities in preparation for the next financial year?
The timing for the Scrutiny process for the Budget had been late this year and officers had not provided enough information in time for decisions to be made. Every effort would be made this year to obtain the necessary information from officers and the Government before the Budget was decided. The Executive Budget Sub Group had not been disbanded and a meeting would be held shortly to discuss the Business Plan. The process had commenced straight after the Budget and the Borough Treasurer had attended the last away day. The Budget was viewed as an on-going task and information would be provided to Scrutiny as soon as possible. The Budget Plan had indicated Scrutiny’s wish to be more involved and this had been taken on board with a view to working closer together earlier. Members of the Committee felt that they had not been given the
2
3
opportunity to scrutinise the Executive Budget Report. Councillor Chatt explained that his understanding was that this had been a joint exercise and the report had been the conclusions from the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Executive. He added that there had been little change to the suggestions made by the Scrutiny Committee.
v) We also spoke in June about the New Constitution and the decision making
process. From your point of view how do you feel the decision making process has worked? Also, do you consider that the Executive has made best use of scrutiny in the decision making process?
Councillor Chatt acknowledged that the Executive had been slow to respond to the report and advised that information for the scrutiny process would be provided to the Committee from the Executive Budget Panel. Councillor Lamey suggested that the Executive and the Overview and Scrutiny Committee both produce one report, which would then be worked on by the Budget Sub-Panel.
vi) We would like to see the policy framework in advance for the decisions that the Executive is making. Could you tell us what the policy framework was in the context of the Budget.
Last year had been a mix of an increase in Council Tax and savings in services. The process had started with a need to make £4.7m savings, which the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Budget Panel had investigated and concluded similar ideas for savings. The policy framework had been around related issues and problems, for example, obtaining information from the Government, the rate support grant, one-off payments and match funding. There was an expectation in the Business Plans medium term financial strategy to reduce savings, including Council Tax, in subsequent years. Officers had been asked to monitor savings made against the cost of modernising, which was a process agreed in the Business Plan.
vii) Overview and Scrutiny is an evolving process. What is your understanding of this process?
Councillor Chatt felt that it was a very good process, which analysed the way the Council was run and organised and the efficiency and effectiveness of the Executive. It could look at outside bodies, for example, the health and voluntary sector, in a way that the Executive could not. A research report had been received from the Cardiff Business School, which praised the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Councillor Morgan-Watts felt that some scrutiny panels should be taking the lead and should have the opportunity to add their input to documents prepared by officers and the Executive. Councillor Chatt re-iterated that this was the first official year for the Executive and dealing with a large volume of reports was something that they were adjusting to. He felt that scrutiny panels had a choice in the work that they wanted to be involved in.
3
4
b) General Questions
i) We are interested in whether you feel significant progress has been
achieved at the Waterman’s Arts Centre since the recovery programme was put in place?(Councillor Carey declared an interest).
The Waterman’s Arts Centre had been funded by S.106 monies and was resourced by the London Borough of Hounslow and the Arts Council. The success of the centre had fluctuated over the years. The Arts Council was continuing to make funds available and the centre had a Business Plan to look at ways to make improvements. Members were concerned that the centre had been closed over Easter and had not produced a pantomime that year. It was felt that there should be more community involvement and Councillor Chatt was asked to pass on the Committees concerns to the centre. Councillor Chatt advised that he would ask the Management Committee at the Watermans to provide progress reports to the Area Committee. ii) The Health and Social Care Act has placed additional statutory legal
responsibilities on the Scrutiny function. Some councils have provided scrutiny with additional staff to work solely on Health Scrutiny in order to effectively support scrutiny Councillors. We are concerned that our team are expected to meet the extra requirement within the existing staff resources. Can we seek a guarantee from you as to how you will find additional capacity for the Scrutiny Team and that you will lobby central Government to provide additional funds for this?
There was not time for Councillor Chatt to give his response to the above question at the meeting and it was therefore, agreed that he would provide his response to the Health and Social Care Panel with a copy to Councillor Lamey. Other questions that the Committee had wanted to ask were provided to Councillor Chatt for a future response.
20. John Aird House - Call In of Executive Decision
Councillor Carey gave his apologies and left the meeting at this point and Councillors Fisher and Thompson joined the meeting. Councillor Lamey explained that this was a Council meeting, which was taking place in public as opposed to a public meeting. The reason for the call-in was to allow the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to examine the reasons that the Executive took into account when making their decision to agree the proposed closure of John Aird House. The Committee did not have the power to over-turn the Executive’s decision, but could return it to the Executive for re-consideration. There were no declarations from the Councillors present of instruction by the Party Whip.
4
5
The call-in had been requested by Councillors Fisher, Thompson and Morgan-Watts for the following reasons:
1. That insufficient consideration was given to the likely effects of closure of John Aird House, as outlined in the Jollie report and elsewhere.
2. That the decision was to be challenged with a request for a Judicial Review
which, even in the event of being unsuccessful, was likely to cost the local authority in the region of £50,000.
Councillor Lamey invited the three Councillors who had requested the call-in to give their reasons. Councillor Thompson felt that the Best Value Review for Older People report had not shown many benefits in the closure of John Aird House, but had shown potential risks. He had not feel that the affects that the closure would have on the residents had been taken into account in particular, the possible risk of a resident dying as mentioned in the Jollie report. Councillor Fisher felt that it was clear from the report that the residents were happy at the Home, would be very unhappy about moving and their families were opposed to the closure. Councillor Morgan-Watts stated that this was the first time that he was aware of a decision being made that could potentially lead to a death. He felt that, under these circumstances, another option should be taken. Councillor Vaught added her concerns over the decrease in places available to older people for residential care if the Home were to close. Councillor Lal stated that the total exclusion of the risk of death to residents being transferred could not be denied, but measures would be put in place to enable the risk to be minimised. Detailed independent assessments would be carried out on all residents and a protocol had been established for the risk management associated with the transfer of elderly residents, incorporating issues raised in the Jollie report. Delegated authority would be given to key members to enable them to temporarily halt the process of moving a resident if there were any concerns about their health. Sue Spurlock, Acting Assistant Director of Social Services, stated that an independent assessment would be made of individual residents at the Home. A small steering group would be set up to oversee the process and advice would be sought from nurses and consultants. It was anticipated that preparations would take approximately six months and that older residents would be transferred before winter. Detailed assessments would not be carried out, however, until the decision had been made to proceed with the closure. Councillor Lal had stated that all of the information that had been made available had shown that there was a declining need for residential care and that there appeared to be a greater reliance on nursing care in the Borough. He wanted an environment to be created where older people could live in their own homes, which consultations had
5
6
shown was what they wanted. The Best Value Review had indicated the route that should be taken for the care of older people and this would mean the reconfiguration of resources to provide beds where they were needed. Councillor Bath raised concerns over the Council’s position if further evidence became available about the risk of causing premature death by transferring elderly residents. Councillor Lal stated that all of the research available would be incorporated into the individual risk assessments. Terry Welsh, Deputy Borough Solicitor, advised that the risk would depend on the circumstances of the individual person and that, even when taking the greatest of care, there would always be a potential risk with frail elderly people. Members were concerned about the speed at which the decision was being made and felt that the residents and their families would be happy for the Council to take the time it needed to consider everything. Councillor Lal agreed and added that the time taken for consultation was extensive and had been extended. Councillor Edwards raised the following questions: Parts of the Technical Services report clearly referred to the National Care
Standards. What were the grounds for the use of these standards, which were held in abeyance?
What was the evidence that the demand for residential care had declined? What was the basis for the individual inspectors report if the National Care
Standards Commission had not visited the Home? How did the cost of establishing emergency care facilities compare with the
cost of maintenance work to the Home? What were the reasons for the Executive rejecting the other available options
for the Home? What was the extent of the consultations that had been carried out?
Councillor Lal stated that the initial driver leading to the closure of the Home was the implications from the National Care Standards and the recommendations from the Best Value Review for longer-term proposals to re-shape residential care services. Technical Services had produced a report about the fabric of the building and the work required to bring it up to standard. The standards used were a diluted version of the National Care Standards. Councillor Lal stated that the building required work regardless of the National Care Standards. John Aird House had been short-listed from the list of four residential homes because it did not lend itself to improvement with the resources available. Evidence of the decline in need for residential care had been provided orally by officers and had been implicit in the documents. Access to residential care would still be available in the other homes. Councillor Lal stated that the National Care Standards Commission had visited the Home in January 2003 and had not yet produced a report of their findings. Members felt that this was unacceptable. They felt that the report could provide additional information that would justify the reconsideration of the decision made by the Executive.
6
7
Some of the other homes would specialise in dementia care and the costs for establishing this service was approximately £120,000. The managed closure option was the option that had been selected because, based on all of the evidence available at the time, it was felt that this was possibly the only option. Councillor Lal stated that numerous consultations had taken place during the Best Value Review in 2001 and these had been targeted at gatherings of large numbers of elderly people at organised events. The conclusions drawn from the information was that elderly people would like to be more independent and services were being re-configured to meet that demand. Sue Spurlock advised that Technical Services had been asked to produce their report alongside the four options for the four homes. It had been recommended that the best possible standards should be applied for the Investment (long-term) Option and the minimum amount of work to keep open to the other 3 options. Councillor Vaught noted that the figure for the cost of the Status Quo option was £92,000 over 5-8 years. She felt that this time span was not realistic and it was agreed that figures would be provided for this option over a longer length of time. Councillor Chopra asked the following questions: Were individual residents consulted? Would residents be given a choice about the place they would be transferred
to? What assurances were there over the future care and jobs for staff?
Councillor Lal stated that the last consultation activity included the appointment of an independent advocate to assist residents, in particular those without relatives. Residents views about moving in groups or with members of staff would be taken into account and this would be incorporated into the protocol. There would be no redundancies as a result of the closure of the Home. In response to a question from Councillor Thompson, Councillor Lal advised that all necessary precautions would be taken in the transfer of residents and that key members of staff would be given delegated authority to cancel or postpone the relocation at any stage in the proceedings if they had any doubts over the risk to the resident. The transfer would then be re-arranged for a date when the resident could be moved. Councillor Edwards queried the qualification of the Director of Social Services in their role as joint author of the report. Councillor Lal explained that the Executive had requested the Director of Social Services involvement to be open and impartial and that another independent report had been commissioned. Councillor Edwards felt that the decision to choose the Managed Closure option had been made without any investigation of the cost of building a dementia facility. He questioned the arrangement for funds available for the maintenance of Council stock.
7
8
Councillor Lal stated that the costs for refurbishment works were included in the report by Technical Services. Maintenance work had been carried out to the Home in the past, but he did not have details. The cost for dementia care facilities was approximately £120,000 and the remaining homes would specialise in certain aspects of this facility. There were no plans to sell the building, but it was hoped that the site would be used in the future for very sheltered accommodation. It was proposed by Councillor Morgan-Watts and seconded by Councillor Bath to adjourn the meeting to allow for additional information and evidence to be submitted, including the report by the National Care Standards Commission. At this point, the meeting was adjourned, to be reconvened on 28 April 2003.
The meeting finished at 9:12 pm.
8
1
At a reconvened meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on Monday, 28 April 2003 at 6pm (previous meeting – 22 April 2003) at Civic Centre, Lampton Road, Hounslow. Present: Councillor Lamey (Chair) Councillors Bartholomew, Barwood, Bath, Bowen, Carman, Chatt, Chopra, Edwards, Fisher, Kirton, Morgan-Watts, Muston, Smart, Thompson and Vaught.. Apologies for Absence Councillors Carey.
21. Exclusion of the Press and Public
Resolved:
That the public and press be asked to leave the meeting during discussion of the following item because confidential information as defined in paragraph a), Sub-Section 3, Section 100 a) of the Local Government Act 1972 is likely to be made known.
22. National Care Standards Commission - Draft Report
Resolved:
It was agreed that the National Care Standards Commission Draft Report had not provided any significant additional information for consideration by the Committee.
23. Re-admission of the Press and Public
On conclusion of the confidential item for discussion, the press and public were re-admitted.
24. Call In of Executive Decision - John Aird House
Sue Spurlock, Acting Director of Social Services, advised that registration of the Home with the National Care Standards Commission would depend on the compliance with the standards set out in their report and, if the Home were to remain open, they would have six months to implement these. The Technical Services report had been commissioned to meet the 1984 Homes Act standards.
Agenda Item 4
9
2
The proposed closure of John Aird House had been to move away from residential to other forms of care as recommended in the Best Value Review and not to save money. The need for traditional residential care had fallen from 146 in 2001 to 118 in 2002 and this trend was evident both locally and nationally. In an analysis of patients at West Middlesex Hospital, it had been found that there had been no permanent vacancies at the Home since August 2002 and no waiting list for places had developed. John Aird House was not registered to care for people who required nursing or dementia care. There were approximately 30 people currently unable to leave hospital because there was nowhere appropriate for them to go. Fines could be levied at Social Services in January 2004 if they could not ensure that the hospital system was effective. In response to a question from Councillor Barwood, Sue Spurlock advised that it was thought that residents were given the impression that they could stay at the Home for as long as the Home could provide the care they needed, although she acknowledged that families may have assumed that there relatives would be able to stay at the Home for good. It was unlikely that residents or their families would have been warned that the Home might close, as this situation did not occur often. Sue Spurlock did not have the figures for the reasons why residents had moved in the past, but thought that it would have been a mix between dying and admission to hospital or dementia units. In response to a question, Sue Spurlock reported that there had been no specific consultation with people in Brentford, but that these proposals had been included in the Best Value consultation amongst a wider group of people. There were eighteen permanent residents on 18 April and one of these was planning to move. The spare capacity was currently being used for residential respite care. Councillor Bath asked if the decision to limit consultation had been a policy decision or an officer decision. Sue Spurlock was unsure but felt that it had been appropriate to discuss the issue with those involved in the closure. A multi-disciplinary assessment would be carried out on each of the residents prior to transfer. Discussions were taking place to involve a lead nurse from the Primary Care Trust to assist in the process. Councillor Morgan-Watts asked how many of the current seventeen residents could be moved without cause for concern. Sue Spurlock advised that it would depend on the risk assessments, which would not be carried out until the final decision had been made. There was current information, however, on the needs of the residents, which had been gained from the regular reviews that had been carried out and it was thought the remaining residents were less frail than those who had moved on. Councillor Fisher stated that she had visited John Aird House and spoken to the residents and the manager. None of the residents she had spoken to had wanted to leave the Home and the manager had said that there were currently twenty eight residents at the Home and not eighteen, as previously stated by Sue Spurlock. Sue Spurlock replied that there were eighteen permanent residents and ten temporary residential respite clients.
10
3
Councillor Edwards suggested that Option 3, the run down option, could be economic if the spare capacity was used for respite care. Sue Spurlock replied that this had not been put forward as an option and that respite care needed to be flexible to allow people to stay in the areas where they lived. She did not feel that there would be the demand to run a home for respite care. She agreed that if the 3rd Option had been chosen the spare capacity would have been used for respite care. In response to a question from Councillor Kirton, Sue Spurlock advised that she did not have figures to support the decline in demand for residential care in Brentford and Isleworth, but that there was a decline in Hounslow and nationally. Jan Robson, Head of Technical Services, advised that she could only provide technical information about the Home from the time that Property Services merged with the Housing Dept in late 1996. She stated that individual departments had control of their own maintenance budgets and that the balance of the sum allocated was £500k-£700k per year for all non-housing buildings. This was insufficient to sustain a reasonable level of maintenance. There was a formal tendering process for works. 4-5 large building companies would be approached to provide estimates and recent estimates for similar works had been used to provide the costs of work needed at the Home. Works carried out at the Home during the last 4 years had included replacement windows, roof repairs, lift repairs, redecoration works and most recently, investigatory work for underpinning. The plant had been serviced on a regular basis. Social Services had commissioned an external consultant to produce a report detailing the requirements necessary to meet the standards. Sue Spurlock and the Consultant had briefed Technical Services to explore the four options and to go through the repair standards in full. The details in the Technical Services report were from the National Care Standards. The estimates in the report had been based on the life cycles of longer-term elements, for example, windows and recent surveys for shorter-term elements. The estimates had allowed for inflation. Councillor Lamey pointed out that the only immediate requirement appeared to be the underpinning. Jan Robson replied that the edges of the ground beams were falling away and the foundations were rotating. The flat part of the roof would require repair sooner than the pitched elevations and some investment would be needed to keep the building running. Sunita Sharma, Head of Scrutiny and Performance, reminded the Committee of the reasons for the call-in and the Chair’s decision to focus on the first reason, which was that insufficient consideration was given to the likely effects of closure on residents of John Aird House, as outlined in the Jollie report and elsewhere. Councillor Thompson felt that, despite the amount of evidence provided, there was no clear case to support the closure of the Home. It appeared that the National Care Standards, which were in abeyance, had driven the case.
11
4
Resolved:
It was agreed that the Executive be asked to reconsider their decision for the planned closure of John Aird House and recommended Option 3 – the ‘run down’ option, as described in the Best Value Review of Services to Older People report.
The meeting finished at 7:30 pm.
12
Emer
genc
y Pl
anni
ng P
rese
ntat
ion
to O
verv
iew
& S
crut
iny
Com
mitt
ee22
ndM
ay 2
003
Dav
id K
erry
Emer
genc
y Pl
anni
ng M
anag
erSt
reet
Man
agem
ent &
Pu
blic
Pro
tect
ion
Agenda Item 6
13
Scop
e of
Pre
sent
atio
n
Hou
nslo
w C
ounc
il’s E
mer
genc
y Pl
anni
ngPa
rtner
sLo
ndon
Res
ilienc
e Fo
rum
Civ
il C
ontin
genc
ies
Bill
Secu
rity
Issu
esSA
RS
14
Def
initi
on o
f a M
ajor
Em
erge
ncy
“Any
eve
nt (h
appe
ning
with
or w
ithou
t war
ning
) ca
usin
g or
thre
aten
ing
deat
h or
inju
ry, d
amag
e to
pro
perty
or t
o th
e en
viro
nmen
t or d
isru
ptio
n to
the
com
mun
ity, w
hich
bec
ause
of t
he s
cale
of
its
effe
cts
cann
ot b
e de
alt w
ith b
y th
e em
erge
ncy
serv
ices
and
loca
l aut
horit
ies
as
part
of th
eir d
ay to
day
ser
vice
s.”
15
Emer
genc
ies
we
may
dea
l with
Expl
osio
n (te
rroris
t, ga
s or
oth
er)
Evac
uatio
nM
ajor
Fire
s C
olla
pse
of S
truct
ures
(b
uild
ings
, brid
ges)
Floo
ding
Seve
re W
eath
erEs
cape
of D
ange
rous
Su
bsta
nces
Trai
n an
d Ai
rcra
ft C
rash
esR
oad
Traf
fic A
ccid
ents
Legi
onna
ires
Dis
ease
Food
Saf
ety
Foot
& M
outh
Fuel
Cris
isTe
rroris
m
16
Wha
t we
can
prov
ide
Liai
son
Offi
cer a
t the
sc
ene
Boro
ugh
Emer
genc
y C
ontro
l Cen
treC
o-or
dina
tion
of
Dep
artm
enta
l and
co
ntra
ctor
’s re
spon
ses
Co-
ordi
natio
n of
vo
lunt
ary
orga
nisa
tions
Emer
genc
y R
est
Cen
tres
Fam
ily &
Rel
ativ
es
Rec
eptio
n C
entre
sSu
rviv
or R
ecep
tion
Cen
tres
Tem
pora
ry M
ortu
ary
17
Wha
t we
can
prov
ide
Stru
ctur
al E
ngin
eers
and
te
chni
cal s
uppo
rtEn
viro
nmen
tal H
ealth
m
anag
emen
tLo
ng-te
rm m
anag
emen
t fo
r the
rest
orat
ion
of
norm
ality
Reh
abilit
atio
n of
the
Com
mun
itySo
cial
Ser
vice
sEm
erge
ncy
Hou
sing
Info
rmat
ion
serv
ices
18
Our
resp
onse
tim
es
Offi
ce H
ours
Con
trol C
entre
ope
n w
ithin
5 m
ins
Liai
son
Offi
cer t
o sc
ene
–30
to 6
0 m
ins
Emer
genc
y R
est C
entre
op
ened
–15
to 3
0 m
ins
Out
of H
ours
Con
trol C
entre
Ope
n –
1 to
2 h
ours
Cou
ncil
Liai
son
Offi
cer t
o sc
ene
–1t
o 2
hour
s.Em
erge
ncy
Res
t Cen
tre
open
ed –
30 to
90
min
s.
19
Emer
genc
ies
we
have
dea
lt w
ith
Evac
uatio
ns b
ecau
se o
f fir
es, g
as le
aks,
rive
r flo
odin
g, b
urst
wat
er
mai
ns, s
uspe
ct v
ehic
le
bom
bsM
utua
l aid
sup
port
to
othe
r loc
al a
utho
ritie
sSe
vere
Wea
ther
& F
lood
W
arni
ngs
Emer
genc
y R
est C
entre
fo
r stra
nded
pas
seng
ers
follo
win
g 9/
11 a
ttack
s in
U
SC
o-or
dina
tion
of
evac
uatio
n &
supp
ort
plan
for r
esid
ents
of
Ivyb
ridge
Est
ate
over
C
hris
tmas
& N
ew Y
ear
2002
20
Hou
nslo
w C
ounc
ilEm
erge
ncy
Plan
ning
Tea
m
Dav
id K
erry
Emer
genc
y Pl
anni
ng M
anag
erJo
seph
McF
arla
ndEm
erge
ncy
Plan
ning
Offi
cer
(Tra
inin
g &
Proj
ects
)
Rog
er F
renc
hH
ead
of E
nviro
nmen
tal S
afet
ySM
&PP
/ Pub
lic P
rote
ctio
n D
ivis
ion
Andy
Fie
ldin
gAs
sist
ant D
irect
or S
M&P
P / P
ublic
Pro
tect
ion
Sure
sh K
amat
hH
ead
of S
treet
Man
agem
ent &
Pub
lic P
rote
ctio
n
Mar
k G
ilks
Chi
ef E
xecu
tive
21
Emer
genc
y Pl
anni
ng U
nit
Prep
ares
cor
pora
te M
ajor
Inci
dent
Ar
rang
emen
ts to
dea
l with
larg
e-sc
ale
inci
dent
sAs
sist
s C
ounc
il D
epar
tmen
ts in
pre
parin
g th
eir
emer
genc
y pl
ans
Stag
es tr
aini
ng a
nd e
xerc
ises
for t
hose
pla
ns
and
arra
ngem
ents
22
Emer
genc
y Pl
anni
ng U
nit
Liai
son
with
em
erge
ncy
serv
ices
and
oth
er
emer
genc
y re
spon
se a
genc
ies
Partn
ersh
ip w
orki
ng w
ith o
ther
loca
l aut
horit
ies
Link
s in
with
Lon
don-
wid
e an
d na
tiona
l st
rate
gic
emer
genc
y pl
anni
ng th
at a
ffect
s H
ouns
low
Wor
ks w
ith L
ondo
n R
esilie
nce
Foru
m a
nd
Team
23
Part
ners
Loca
l Em
erge
ncy
Serv
ices
and
PC
TH
eath
row
Joi
nt C
risis
Pla
nnin
g G
roup
Nor
th W
est L
ondo
n Em
erge
ncy
Plan
ning
G
roup
Lond
on L
ocal
Aut
horit
ies
Emer
genc
y Pl
anni
ng
Gro
upLo
ndon
Res
ilienc
e Fo
rum
24
Nor
th W
est L
ondo
n M
utua
l Aid
Gro
up
Stan
dard
ised
Em
erge
ncy
Con
trol S
yste
m
with
in N
orth
Wes
t Mut
ual A
id G
roup
Dev
elop
men
t of G
roup
-bas
ed tr
aini
ngSh
ared
reso
urce
s un
der M
utua
l Aid
Agr
eem
ent
(san
dbag
s, b
eds,
bla
nket
s, tr
ansp
ort,
pers
onne
l, em
erge
ncy
cont
rol c
entre
s)
25
Lond
on L
ocal
Aut
horit
ies
Emer
genc
y Pl
anni
ng G
roup
All 3
2 lo
cal b
orou
ghs,
Cor
pora
tion
of L
ondo
n,
and
Lond
on F
ire &
Em
erge
ncy
Plan
ning
Au
thor
ityD
eals
with
stra
tegi
c pa
n-Lo
ndon
em
erge
ncy
plan
ning
, pro
mot
ing
a co
nsis
tent
app
roac
h fro
m a
ll of
Lon
don’
s lo
cal a
utho
ritie
sPr
ovid
es re
pres
enta
tives
on
all L
ondo
n R
esilie
nce
Foru
m s
ub-c
omm
ittee
s an
d w
orki
ng g
roup
s
26
Cha
nges
sin
ce S
epte
mbe
r 11t
h
Lond
on n
ow a
targ
et fo
r sui
cide
bom
bers
Incr
ease
d th
reat
of C
hem
ical
, Bio
logi
cal,
Rad
iolo
gica
l and
Nuc
lear
terro
rism
, lea
ding
to..
New
‘cat
astro
phic
’ lev
el o
f dis
aste
rIn
crea
se o
f em
erge
ncy
plan
ning
at n
atio
nal,
regi
onal
and
loca
l lev
el
27
Lond
on R
esili
ence
For
um
Cha
ired
by N
ick
Ray
nsfo
rd M
P, M
inis
ter f
or
Lond
on R
esilie
nce
Staf
fed
by c
ivil
serv
ants
from
OD
PM (b
ased
at
GO
L) a
nd s
econ
dees
from
em
erge
ncy
serv
ices
, util
ities
and
ALG
Foru
m h
as re
ps fr
om E
mer
genc
y Se
rvic
es,
Util
ities
, Tra
nspo
rt, G
LA, A
LG, L
GA,
En
v. A
genc
y, L
ocal
Aut
horit
ies
and
Gov
ernm
ent D
epar
tmen
ts
28
LRT
Stru
ctur
e
Civ
il C
ontin
genc
ies
Com
mitt
eeLo
ndon
Res
ilienc
e Fo
rum
Sub-
Com
mitt
ees
(Com
mun
icat
ion,
Blu
e Li
ght,
Tran
spor
t, H
ealth
, U
tiliti
es, L
ocal
Aut
horit
ies,
Bus
ines
s C
omm
unity
)W
orki
ng G
roup
s(R
ubbl
e, T
empo
rary
Mor
tuar
y,
Evac
uatio
n)
29
Loca
l Aut
horit
ies
Emer
genc
y Pl
anni
ng S
ub-C
omm
ittee
5 LA
Chi
ef E
xecu
tives
5 LA
Em
erge
ncy
Plan
ning
Offi
cers
Cha
ir of
the
Lond
on L
ocal
Aut
horit
ies
Emer
genc
y Pl
anni
ng G
roup
Lond
on R
esilie
nce
Team
Blue
Lig
ht S
ub-C
omm
ittee
Rep
Secr
etar
iat b
y AL
G
30
LAEP
SC T
erm
s of
Ref
eren
ce
To p
rom
ote
fully
inte
grat
ed c
ross
age
ncy
wor
king
To e
nsur
e fu
ll in
tera
ctio
n be
twee
n pl
ans
and
orga
nisa
tions
To e
stab
lish
and
mai
ntai
n ef
fect
ive
inte
r age
ncy
com
mun
icat
ion
To p
rovi
de a
foru
m to
dis
cuss
, eva
luat
e an
d re
com
men
d im
prov
emen
ts to
the
exis
ting
proc
edur
esTo
pro
pose
way
s of
resp
ondi
ng to
ope
ratio
nal
situ
atio
nsTo
pro
mot
e pa
n Lo
ndon
trai
ning
an
d ex
erci
sing
31
LAEP
SC C
urre
nt W
ork
Rev
iew
of M
utua
l Aid
Arra
ngem
ents
Dev
elop
men
t of L
ocal
Aut
horit
y ‘G
old’
, in
clud
ing
test
ing
and
exer
cise
Mod
el R
esol
utio
n be
ing
prep
ared
for e
ach
auth
ority
to p
rovi
de L
A G
old
with
aut
horit
y to
ac
t on
beha
lf of
all
auth
oriti
es
32
Emer
genc
y Pl
anni
ng R
evie
w
Failu
re o
f cen
tral g
over
nmen
t arra
ngem
ents
to
deal
with
Fue
l Cris
is, F
lood
ing
and
Foot
&
Mou
th in
200
1G
over
nmen
t now
reco
gnis
es th
at e
xist
ing
emer
genc
y pl
anni
ng le
gisl
atio
n (C
ivil
Def
ence
Ac
t 194
8) n
o lo
nger
ade
quat
eR
egio
nal c
apac
ity n
eede
d to
sup
port
loca
l ef
fort
Audi
t and
insp
ectio
n on
pro
gres
s
33
Civ
il C
ontin
genc
ies
Bill
New
dut
y on
loca
l aut
horit
ies
and
othe
r em
erge
ncy
resp
onde
rs to
mak
e em
erge
ncy
plan
s, a
nd to
exe
rcis
e th
emLA
’s m
ay b
e re
quire
d to
pro
duce
and
pub
lish
Com
mun
ity R
isk
Asse
ssm
ent R
egis
ters
Dire
ct C
ivil
Def
ence
Gra
nt w
ill go
, and
will
be
subs
umed
into
the
RSG
thro
ugh
the
SSA
34
(Pos
sibl
e) B
ill T
imet
able
Dra
ft co
nsul
tatio
n fro
m C
ivil
Con
tinge
ncie
s Se
cret
aria
t by
late
Jun
e fo
r 3 m
onth
sR
esul
ts b
y en
d O
ctob
erQ
ueen
s Sp
eech
in N
ovem
ber
Enac
tmen
t Deb
ates
in D
ecem
ber o
r Jan
uary
In s
tatu
te A
pril
2004
35
Impl
icat
ions
for H
ouns
low
Cou
ncil
Loca
l aut
horit
ies
likel
y to
be
give
n a
com
mun
ity
lead
ersh
ip ro
leLA
s m
ay b
e re
quire
d to
pro
duce
and
pub
lish
Com
mun
ity R
isk
Asse
ssm
ent R
egis
ters
A w
ider
role
for L
As in
pro
vidi
ng in
form
atio
n an
d ad
vice
to th
e pu
blic
A ro
le in
pro
mot
ing
the
valu
e of
Bus
ines
s C
ontin
uity
Pla
nnin
g to
loca
l bu
sine
sses
36
Secu
rity
Issu
es
Al-Q
aeda
Dis
side
nt Ir
ish
Terro
rists
No
know
n sp
ecifi
c th
reat
to U
KC
ontin
uing
nee
d fo
r pub
lic v
igila
nce
30 y
ears
of e
xper
ienc
e in
Lon
don
37
Seve
re A
cute
Res
pira
tory
Sy
ndro
me
(SA
RS)
Cur
rent
ly 4
pro
babl
e ca
ses,
with
one
con
firm
ed
case
No
case
s in
Hou
nslo
wH
ouns
low
PC
T ha
ve d
isse
min
ated
all
info
rmat
ion
from
DoH
& P
HLS
to G
Ps a
bout
re
cogn
ition
of p
ossi
ble
SAR
S ca
ses
and
hom
e qu
aran
tine
if re
quire
d
38