Agenda item

The Emergency Management and Response Service Manager provided Members with an overview of the service and recent examples of emergency management.

Members were advised that the service existed due to legal obligations under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004  which required local authorities to plan,   respond and provide resolutions during emergencies. Emergencies included events or situations that posed serious harm to human welfare, the environment, or national security.

The legal requirements of the act included assessing the likelihood of emergencies, conducting horizon scanning for risks and developing emergency plans to mobilise resources effectively. It also included establishing business continuity management arrangements, warning and informing residents during emergencies and sharing information with other local partners such as the ambulance, police and fire services. A key function of the service was to maintain the Hillingdon Multi Agency Community Risk Register by identifying any threats and mitigating any risks.

The Committee heard that a template for business continuity plan was provided to every service across the Council to complete and these were audited to ensure that they were fit for purpose. The Council’s Corporate Emergency Response Plan set out the procedures for emergency communications with a focus on communicating to residents and staff during an emergency

Members were informed that the Hillingdon Resilience Forum (HRF) had 84 members that facilitated cooperation among local responders through multi-agency training and exercises. The Council’s Emergency Management and Response Service involved category one and category two responders, including blue light partners, utility companies, transport providers, telecommunications, charities, and the voluntary sector. Additionally, the Council maintained an Emergency Management command structure ensuring 24/7 capabilities for responding to emergencies.

The Committee heard that the Emergency Management and Response Service operated on the nationally recognised model of bronze, silver, and gold. This standardised model ensured efficient multi-agency working  and officers were informed of emergencies by the services or the contact centre. Officers would then assess the situation and coordinate the necessary response. Common emergencies included floods and fires.

The Committee was provided with real life examples of emergencies that had recently occurred such as car collision in Hayes, a suspected unexploded World War Two ordinance and a serious fire impacting two neighbouring houses.

Further to Member questions regarding the use of the bronze, silver and gold system, it was explained that this operated both  locally and nationally and the roles ensured 24/7 coverage to respond to emergencies. In terms of the impact of location and risk of emergencies, it was noted that being close to Heathrow Airport posed increased risks such as counter terror, aviation collisions and fires.

In response to questions around managing emergencies in the Borough and available resources, it was noted that concurrent emergencies anywhere in the Borough would put pressure on council resources. However, mutual aid arrangements across London allowed resources to be borrowed from other local authorities. External resource could be sought after at least 48 hours.  Members were advised that the ability to manage emergencies depended on the specific circumstances such as size, scale and complexity. It was noted that there tended to be approximately  three emergencies a month. 

During Member questions it was noted that not all emergencies required a local authority response, and many were dealt in isolation by the emergency services. In order to ensure that the risk register was up to date the Emergency Management and Response Service liaised with different service areas to identify emerging risks. Joint working with other councils and county authorities was key in managing emergencies. A collaborative effort was required to ensure that residents were prepared for emergencies such as having fundamental basics in the home.

Members were informed that London, like many places, faced the threat of cyber-attacks and recent incidents highlighted the impact of these threats. Members were advised that London had a cyber response framework in place to guide its actions if targeted by such attacks. Additionally, business continuity plans addressed scenarios where technology failed entirely, including power outages. Preparing for these contingencies was crucial to maintaining essential services. The Committee was assured that cyber security was a high priority on the Hillingdon risk register.

The Committee thanked the Emergency Response Manager for the informative, detailed and insightful presentation. Members considered that it would be useful to receive yearly data on the volume and types of emergencies at the next update to the Committee.

RESOLVED: That the Committee noted the presentation on the Council’s Emergency Response Service.