Agenda item

The report outlines the current progress and issues relating to recent incidents and the requirement to learn and improve the response by Surrey County Council in coordination with our partners to support the needs of residents. This report is in response to the action from the meeting of the Corporate Services Select Committee in October 2017.

Declarations of interest:

None

Witnesses:

Ian Good, Head of Emergency Management

Steve Owen-Hughes, Assistant Chief Fire Officer

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The item was briefly introduced by the Head of Emergency Management.

2.    In reference to Appendix 2, it was queried if the Surrey County Council led plans were supported and co-ordinated with the Surrey Local Resilience Forum (LRF). The Assistant Chief Fire Officer explained that the LRF would co-ordinate the local response in any emergency with various partners. The LRF was chaired by the Surrey Fire and Rescue Service.

3.    The Chairman queried how local preparedness was managed by the emergency management team. The Head of Emergency Management drew the Committee's attention to page 19 of the report, stating that as a result of past emergencies, work had been undertaken by the Surrey County Council Partnership Manager to identify locally based community and volunteer groups whose engagement would be of value during an emergency incident. Work was undertaken with these groups to understand local risks and how these could be mitigated.

4.    A short update on the work of Team Rubicon was provided to the Committee. It was agreed that the work of Team Rubicon allowed emergency plans to be shared methodically and with clarity to volunteer groups. It was stated that the support received from Team Rubicon was of great value to the authority.

5.    A Member of the Committee queried who should members of the public contact in the event of an emergency. The Member referred to the flooding events in 2013-2014 when there were communication issues which created public confusion. The Head of Emergency Management explained that as a result of the flooding incidents, the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Principles (JESIP)[1] group was now responsible for considering where tactical operational groups should be based during an emergency.

6.    A key issue identified as a result of the flooding incidents were that individuals without the authority to make decisions were attending tactical decision meetings.

7.    The plan to deploy the army brigade to support the flooding incidents was well co-ordinated between partners.

8.    Officers confirmed that they were happy to advise district and boroughs on emergency plans and work being undertaken by the LRF. The Head of Emergency Management explained that the work of the LRF and future planned activities would be shared at Local Committee meetings. A meeting with the Mole Valley Local Committee had been organised for the summer.

9.    A Member of the Committee asked officers to clarify who Members should contact in the event of an emergency. The Head of Emergency Management stated that if there was a danger to life then 999 should be called. There was also a designated Member’s contact telephone number that went directly to the council's Contact Centre which should be utilised by Members. Any incidents reported in this way would be forwarded to the emergency management team. Finally there was an emergency response email account to which Members could email any concerns.

10.  The Assistant Chief Fire Officer confirmed that it was the responsibility of each service to ensure their business continuity plan was up to date.

11.  The Chairman asked for the Head of Emergency Management to send the Committee a briefing note with the contact details to be used by Members during an emergency incident.

12.  In regards to Appendix 1 of the report, a Member of the Committee voiced their concerns at the number of business continuity plans that were out of date. The Head of Emergency Management explained that the Strategic Director for Environment and Infrastructure would be raising this concern with the Chief Executive Direct Reports (CEDR). As IMT was part of the wider Orbis partnership the formulation of business continuity plans had been more difficult to co-ordinate. A meeting to consider this further had been set up with the Chief Information Officer.

13.  The Cabinet Member agreed to review the business continuity status of Surrey services especially those that were out of date but was of the view that although IMT was part of Orbis it should be viewed as a Surrey service rather than an external provider.

14.  There was an agreement that business continuity should be reviewed before any restructuring took place.

15.  The Chairman agreed for the Committee to receive a short update paper on the status of business continuity plans and an update on any government guidance as a result of the Grenfell tragedy. It was agreed for this to be included to the forward work programme for June 2018.

16.  The Committee highlighted concerns around out of date business continuity plans and out of date training exercises with the Cabinet Member.

17.  The Chairman agreed for the meeting to be moved into a Part 2 session to receive a presentation from officers on ‘Blackstart’ plans.  

Recommendation: That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information under the relevant paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

Actions:

·         For the Head of Emergency Management to send the Committee a briefing note with the contact details to be used by Members during an emergency incident.

·         For the Committee to receive a short update paper in June 2018 on the status of service business continuity plans and an update on any government guidance as a result of the Grenfell tragedy.