Using private sector expertise for national disasters
A new approach in the UK is needed to provide the surge of skilled people and specialist equipment necessary respond appropriately to future natural and man-made emergencies says G4S Security Services' David Taylor-Smith - for example former British Army Gurkhas
In his report on 2007's catastrophic flooding, Sir Michael Pitt argued that flood risk should be regarded as posing as great a threat to the UK as terrorism or an influenza pandemic.
Just a few years ago such a suggestion would have been greeted with disbelief but, having experienced a series of major flooding events, which have resulted in billions of pounds worth of damage and weeks of disruption across the UK, few would now argue that flooding doesn't merit this level of attention.
While the threat posed by floods is clear, the way to tackle these events before, during and after the occurance is less obvious. Traditionally the UK has relied on its emergency services and the armed forces to work together to restore normal conditions after flooding and other large-scale events that impact Critical National Infrastructure (CNI).
While this has worked in the past, this summer's floods revealed a new reality for the UK. With the military heavily committed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the emergency services stretched by counter-terrorism priorities, the UK faced a considerable challenge trying to cope.
Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Richard Dannatt, spoke out to reveal his concern that commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan had left too few soldiers to cope with unexpected events at home. Similarly, fire and rescue crews were drawn from across the country in the battle to bail out flooded towns across Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire and in Yorkshire.
To ensure the UK is prepared and able to respond appropriately to future flood risk and other natural and manmade CNI emergencies, a new approach is needed to provide the surge of skilled people and specialist equipment necessary to supplement the efforts of the emergency and armed services.
The Pitt report advocated the establishment of a national flood emergency plan but I would argue this also needs to include a Disasters Relief Committee staffed not just by the public sector, armed and emergency services but also by key private sector specialists.
The private sector has much to offer in this area and for years has played a key role, at both an official and unofficial / philanthropic level, in helping communities struck by natural and man-made disaster to recover.
This is certainly G4S's experience of working in more than 110 countries. We contributed to the US Government efforts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and evacuated individuals from Lebanon in the 2006 Israel/ Lebanon border conflict. G4S also recently established a business consisting mainly of recently–retired British Army Gurkhas to assist the British military with its training commitments for Iraq and Afghanistan and to provide specialist disaster management skills to businesses and to the UK Government.
We also run G4S Police Recruit which maintains an active database of over 10,000 ex-policemen and women. This provides every police force in the UK with temporary and permanent officers with specialist policing skills freeing up resources for front-line policing at periods of high demand, such as during floods. In effect this business provides the UK with a cost efficient national police reserve which can be called upon when police forces are stretched.
Many other private sector operators also have specialist skills and equipment that could and should be utilised in the event of flooding and other CNI disasters, ranging from transport providers to utilities, food distributors and healthcare specialists.
Greater private sector involvement does not denigrate the role of the emergency services, which will clearly remain paramount, but private sector involvement under the leadership and co-ordination of the police, fire and medical services can only help.
In the UK, the Government's Centre for the Protection of the National Infrastructure (CPNI) advises on threats to CNI, including flooding, and divides these into nine sectors – communications, emergency services, energy, finance, food, government, health, transport and water – each of which includes resources and services which are critical at every level of our society; to individual households as much as to the entire nation.
In each CNI sector, particularly in countries where privatisation or Private Finance Initiatives have been successful, many elements of CNI are now the responsibility and even property of the private sector, and a more formalised role for private sector operators in flood response, clean-up and other CNI emergencies is therefore logical, as well as desirable.
Private sector organisations do already play a vital role in CNI protection and management, high profile examples range from water, gas, electricity and telecommunications to the personal protection of national leaders. The private sector is also involved in running areas such as cash supply management, operating private prisons and building and running roads, hospitals and schools.
Recently, G4S deputy chairman, and former Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Lord Condon, added his contribution to the debate by urging attendees at a public-private sector Homeland Security conference, in London, to seek innovative ways to deploy private sector resources to manage the risks to national life caused by threats to CNI.
Many private sector companies are now engaging politicians and officials with responsibility for homeland security and civil contingency, with a view to promoting a much bigger role for the private sector in developing significantly higher levels of CNI protection, which is clearly highly pertinent when it comes to flood risk.
This role as both CNI operator and protector puts corporate Britain in a strong position to deliver real support to governments seeking to improve national resilience.
For governments not to engage fully with the private sector to improve resilience flies in the face of logic and powerful precedents. Full engagement in the USA, for instance, makes private sector involvement in guarding CNI infrastructure quite natural. Private sector operators are now responsible for protecting nuclear power stations and also high sensitivity sites such as the Pentagon and NASA.
Of course, private sector involvement in CNI protection begs the question of who pays? A relevant question particularly pertinent in areas of government in which some are reluctant to pursue private sector involvement. Ultimately, I believe consumers should pay either in the form of taxation or directly in the price of the service they receive. This concept is tried and tested and already applies in many areas such as the aviation sector and the portion of local council taxes for the provision of emergency services. Evidence would suggest that consumers will be willing and able to pay for the security of supply of critical services.
No government should turn its back on the private sector's impressive resources for innovation, investment and programme oversight in CNI protection. Governments that do so will be taking unnecessary risks.
In welcoming greater private sector participation, however, we must be clear that governments are not leading us towards some unwelcome future with privatised armies and emergency services. The private sector is not arguing for this and citizens would rarely accept such moves. Instead, the private sector will be deploying coordinated, appropriate resources to support the public sector's strategic lead.
David Taylor-Smith, MBE, CEO, G4S Security Services UK & Ireland
