Transcript Cleveland Fire Brigade

Police Major Incident Command and
Response Structure
&
Multi-Agency Planning in Practice
Peter Metcalfe
Inspector Cleveland Police
Emergency Planning Unit
Presentation Aims
• Developing the structure
• The Police Major Incident Response
Structure
• Considered advantages
• Multi-agency working in practice
Police Major Incident
Command and
Response Structure
Government
Guidance
Civil Contingencies Act: •Emergency Response & Recovery
•Emergency Preparedness
ACPO Guidance
Force Guidance
What was already in Place?
• Emergency Planning Unit
• Generic Response Plan
• Other plans –
wordy, electronic / paper
• Major Incident Training
BUT NO STRUCTURE
Existing Structure
• Initial incident response – send a First Officer
• Bronze / Silver / Gold – Operational /
Tactical / Strategic Command
• Police role responsibilities and
considerations
• Co-ordination role
• Key specialist roles
What to do?
PROBLEM
SOLUTION
• No clear Force
ownership of Major
Incident response
• Get ACPO support
• No in-force structure to
deliver national guidance
• Write a policy / force
strategic agreement
• Advice and Guidance too
wordy
• Produce a 1 pager
First Officer Response
Establish a
Forward Command Post
&
S urvey
A sses
D isseminate
C asualties
H azards
A cess
L ocation
E mergency Services
T ype of incident
S tart a log & Safety
Initial Incident Commander and
Silver Command Response
Key Specialist Roles
•
•
•
•
•
Major Incident Control Room(s) Co-ordinator
Logistics
Evacuation / re-occupation
Media Co-ordinator
Senior Identification Manager
(i) Casualty Bureau
(ii) Scene Evidence Recovery Manager
• Senior Investigation Officer
• Initial Reception Centres
• Community Safety / Liaison
Next Steps
• Policy produced
• Process Maps Produced
• Force Disaster Resilience Group
• Training
• Exercising
• EPU role
Results of Structure for
Cleveland Police
•
Generic response structure for any incident
– 1 page process map
•
Identified specialist roles –
•
Acceptance of responsibility
•
Focus for planning
•
Disaster Resilience Group - audit role
•
DRG - a forum for key MI issues
Gold Cadre
Results of Structure for
Cleveland Police
•
Clear Force MI response capability
•
Training linked to the structure
•
Succession planning linked to structure
•
EPU role now focussed as: -
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Ensuring MI procedures are in place
Links to other agencies
Provide advice to Gold / Silver
•
A lot of work for PM
Next Steps
• Sharing the work
• Acceptance of structure credibility
• Gaining a forum for the work
• Doing the work
Cleveland to National
• Invited to join the ACPO
procedures Manual re-write team
• Cleveland
purpose
Policy
expanded
Emergency
for
national
• Generic approach – Policy & Process Maps
• ACPO Training Forum Membership – Link
training packages to structure
Results of Structure
Nationally?
• Meets & includes national guidance
• Multi-agency links
• Scalability
• National structure for local implementation
• National Training linked to key roles
• Can be amended and updated as required
• HMI audit capability
Multi-Agency
Working in Practice
Cleveland
Background
• 1989 Home Office Review for Handling
Major Civil Disasters concluded that the
response would not be helped by the
creation of anything in the nature of a
National Disaster Squad.
• Prime
responsibility
for
handling
disasters therefore remains at local
level on local responders
Background
• Concentrated risks within Cleveland
Area: Chemical Industry, Nuclear Site, Teesport,
Durham Tees Valley Airport, Transport of Dangerous
Goods, Dense Population and Social Deprivation
• Joint Control Room / Fall Back position
• Partnership
Working
Contingencies Act)
• Efficiency
(Pre
Civil
Some of the Risks
Background
• 1995 – Cleveland Police operated a dedicated
Emergency Planning Unit
• 1998 - Feasibility study set up for a joint EPU
by the Senior Co-ordinating Group
• Membership included – Local Authority, all
Emergency Services
• Consultation included – Home Office EP Dept,
Teesside Chemical Initiative, ETOL and Regional HSE
Background
• General Support for Joint EPU
(i) Local Authority –
(ii) Police -
Yes but reporting issues
Yes
(iii) Fire Service –
(iv) Ambulance –
minimal involvement
minimal involvement
(v) HSE & Industry –
Yes but all must support
Cleveland Joint Emergency
Planning Unit
POLICE
AMBULANCE
JOINT
E.P.U.
FIRE
MULTI-AGENCY
GROUPS
LOCAL
AUTHORITY x
4
Benefits
• Practical Ease: (i) Same building
(ii) Ease of contact - Face to face / Daily
(iii) Who to contact – Agency links – ‘One stop shop’
(iv) Information sharing – Formal & informal
(v) Sounding Board – Capability study
(vi) Cost recovery
(vii) National developments - COMAH
Benefits
• Support: (i) Similar agendas - planners
(ii) Same meetings
(iii) Co-located helps develop relationships
(iv) Joint Planning – e.g. Temporary Mortuary
(v) Joint exercising & training
(vi) Efficiency savings (£’s?)
(vii) Multi-Agency delivery of the statutory
duties under the Civil Contingencies Act
Cleveland Meeting Structure
Local Resilience
Forum
Regional Resilience
Forum
Joint Multi-Agency
Cleveland Emergency
Planning Unit
Cleveland Media
Emergency Forum
Local Resilience
Working Group
Exercise
Planning Group
Joint EPU User
Group
Temporary
Mortuary Group
Warn & Inform
Sub-group
Voluntary Agencies
Group
Flood Risk
Group
Risk Group
Local Search &
Rescue Group
Problems?
• Agency Styles and working practices
• Personalities / Individuality
• Different agendas
• Internal conflicts
Though none of the above
have been an issue of concern
Support Issues
• Civil Contingencies Bill
(now Act)
• Dealing With Disaster
Recovery)
•
•
•
•
•
(now Emergency Response &
ACPO Emergency Procedures Manual
Integrated Emergency Management
Major Incident Response Capability
Risk Management
Joint Working / Partnerships
Actual Issues
• Close working relationships
• Actual ‘joint’ working - Exercise Guidance Document,
Emergency Procedures Manual, Debrief document, plans etc
• 2001 Police HMI visit citing Cleveland joint EPU
as National Best Practice
• National Lead on EP issues i.e. COMAH
• Progression & Resolution of issues simplified
• Conscious decision for joint working
• Beacon Status in Emergency Planning 2007 / 8
Civil Contingencies Act 2004
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Risk assessment;
Emergency planning
Co-operation; and
Information sharing
Maintaining public awareness and arrangements to
warn, inform & advise the public.
Business continuity management (BCM);
Promotion of BCM to the commercial sector and to
voluntary organisations.
“The Act supports the Cleveland model
or does the model support the Act?”
Thank you
Any Questions?