Police Major Incident Command Response Structure MultiAgency Planning

Police Major Incident Command 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 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 - • DRG - a forum for key MI issues Gold Cadre audit role

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: - • A lot of work for PM (i) Ensuring MI procedures are in place (ii) Links to other agencies (iii) Provide advice to Gold / Silver

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 Emergency procedures Manual re-write team • Cleveland Policy expanded for national purpose • 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 (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 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?