Some thoughts on face coverings, JESIP and a journey by train.


Further to my ramblings about the new policies on face coverings I am pleased to report that the required regulations are now available for the public to see.  The regulations to enforce the wearing of face coverings on public transport came into force less than 24 hours after they were published.  The Secretary of State for Transport signed them last Sunday.  (i) Rushed legislation is rarely good legislation and it would be hard to find an example of something more rushed than the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations.  Of course there have been lots of warning that the regulations were coming.  The government has issued various press statements and ministers have made (rather garbled) pronouncements on television on the subject,t but there was no opportunity for Parliament to see the Regulations in advance or for passengers to get a glimpse of them before they became law.

The regulations only cover the wearing of face covering when actually on board  (or when boarding) public transport.  The penalty for failing to comply would likely be a fixed penalty notice in the sum of £100, reduced to £50 for speedy payment.  So far so clear.  How this will be enforced on buses is not known.  On trains the British Transport Police are likely to be the organisation issuing penalties.  The BTP has issued a very sensible press release on the subject that stresses that the use of fixed penalties will be a last resort.  However at railway stations it is probably a condition of entry (or maybe part of any revised conditions of carriage – details unknown) to wear a face covering.  Therefore entry could be refused if there are any staff around to deny access.  On a railway network that has been stripped of staff outside the largest stations this is not likely.  I do not understand why the regulations could not have included stations but I suspect that there is a sound reason behind this, but not one that has been shared with the public.

I have written before about the dangers of sloppy language.  Precision and clarity is what is required when conveying information to the public during crises and hopefully this lesson will be passed on to those preparing for the next disaster.  Another lesson is the requirement to plan for emergency legislation.  Reading the regulations is not for the faint hearted.  The face covering regulations are pretty straightforward but the main emergency regulations leaves the average reader searching for a Rosetta Stone to aid in the translation of the text.  Good luck to those who have to enforce the new laws and nod of acknowledge to those who have had to convert policy into binding legislation in a short space of time.

One thing in the latest regulation is a reference to ‘emergency responders’.  I was interested how such a role would be defined and I was surprised to see that the regulations refer to the definition contained in s153A Inheritance Tax Act 1984. Where else would one think to look?  This is civil protection quiz gold I think, but its appearance in in the 1984 Act is for a serious purpose.  According to the 1984 Act an Emergency Responder is:

(a)a person employed, or engaged, in connection with the provision of fire services or fire and rescue services,
(b)a person employed for the purposes of providing, or engaged to provide, search services or rescue services (or both),
(c)a person employed for the purposes of providing, or engaged to provide, medical, ambulance or paramedic services,
(d)a constable or a person employed for police purposes or engaged to provide services for police purposes,
(e)a person employed for the purposes of providing, or engaged to provide, services for the transportation of organs, blood, medical equipment or medical personnel, or
(f)a person employed, or engaged, by the government of a state or territory, an international organisation or a charity in connection with the provision of humanitarian assistance.
                                                (Inheritance Tax Act 1984 as amended by the Finance Act 2015)

This is a useful definition.  It occurs to me that we use the phrase ‘emergency responder’ in a rather casual way.  There is no better example of this than in the Joint Emergency Services Principles (JESIP).  JESIP is best described as unobjectionable.  Who could disagree with the basics of JESIP?  The idea of working together for the public good, the concept of sharing information and a loose commitment to joint training are expressions of a common sense state that all interested in emergency management would aspire to.  Indeed there is no doubt that JESIP has achieved much and many individuals have worked very hard to improve joint working between services.  But there are holes. 

For example:

1.       JESIP has no legal standing.

2.       JESIP ‘responders’ are Cat 1 and 2 responders under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (CCA), and other agencies that become involved (but have no status under the CCA) in emergencies.  Yet the title refers to the Emergency Services and the uptake across agencies varies by sector and region.

3.       There is no mechanism to hold agencies to account for their adherence to JESIP.  For example the police refuse to let go of GOLD, SILVER and BRONZE despite the fact that these phrases are not part of JESIP.  I have worked with a Cat 1 responder who told me ‘we don’t use JESIP – we have something better’.  To be fair there are no mechanisms for enforcing the requirements of the CCA itself – or certainly none that have been effective.  Perhaps if there had been an independent inspectorate looking at the readiness of the nation we would have been better prepared for the pandemic.

4.       But the biggest hole in JESIP is that it is not always followed – At the Manchester Arena Bombing information sharing was a problem and there was certainly not a shared understanding of risk.  The Grenfell Inquiry Phase One report is really quite damming on the subject of JESIP.  When organisations are really taxed they don’t always find the space to follow the worthy principles of inter agency working.  This is not a reflection on the competence or dedication of commanders but it is evidence that JESIP is NOT at the forefront of their minds.

There is, in one sense, nothing wrong with JESIP.  It just isn’t enough.  It has no teeth.  It is not embedded.  It tries to fill gaps that are beyond its reach.  There is a review of JESIP Doctrine currently underway (although it is a struggle to find any reference to it on the JESIP website) but it is unlikely to conclude that there needs to be fundamental reform of how we prepare for and respond to crisis in the UK (not just in England).  The progress made by JESIP would form a useful stepping stone to wholesale improvements of how we prepare for the next disaster.

Next week I will travel by public transport for the first time since the lock down started.  I will of course comply with the regulations and follow the guidance.  During the journey I expect that I will, as usual, reflect on the state of civil protection in the UK (ii) and I will probably reach the same conclusions as I always do – we are well served by our emergency services and by emergency responders/planners.  They do a fantastic job: but there is plenty of room for structural improvement.  Or I might just look out of the window and enjoy the novelty of being on a train with a big gap between me and other passengers!


Philip Trendall

18th June 2020  (Waterloo Day)

Notes
(i)                  In this blog I refer only to the situation in England. I have commented elsewhere on the unfortunate consequences of pretending that a virus might be interested in devolution.
(ii)                I have an unfortunate habit of dwelling on railway accidents when travelling by train, this leads inevitably to thoughts about response.

References

1.       Inheritance Tax Act 1984 : http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/51/contents  (Accessed 18th June 2020)
2.       The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020 No592:  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/592/contents/made  (Accessed 18th June 2020)
3.       The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 No 350
  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/contents (Accessed 18th June 2020)
4.       https://www.jesip.org.uk/home (Accessed 18th June 2020) 


This blog originally appeared on https://scott-trendall.blogspot.com/.  The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions of any client of Scott Trendall Ltd.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pandemic: Prosecution Mistakes

Image
A piece in the Guardian has highlighted the fact that 56 people have been incorrectly prosecuted for offences under the emergency regulations and that a further 44 charges (that is ALL of them) under the Coronavirus Act 2020 were wrongly brought.   The article concludes that the errors were a result of the rushed nature of the legislation. Rushed and ill considered legislation rarely works as anybody who has ever tried to use the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 will know.   How can legislation and the regulations that sit under it be drafted, enacted and enforced within a few days without there being any errors?   The introduction of new legislation takes time.   Police officers and prosecutors need training and briefing.   Procedures and bureaucracy needs to be developed (everything from policy to counting codes).   But of course this was an emergency – things had to move quickly.   This is true, but isn’t this what contingency planning is for...
Read more

A Long Reply to a Short Post on Linkedin: JESIP

  This isn’t an article, it isn’t really a blog (although I will post it as such elsewhere).   It is really a comment on a recent helpful post on Linkedin by Rob Davis on the subject of the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Principles (JESIP).   Alas my comment is too long winded for the normal format. Before saying anything else I would mention that some posters have suggested that Mr Davis has pre-empted his own research findings.   This doesn’t worry me – some things are obvious even early on in research and any final conclusions that the author reaches will be subject to the rigours of the academic system that surrounds such high awards.   The fact that JESIP doesn’t always work is a well documented fact. JESIP is a simple, indeed a worthy, statement of good intent.   The principles are, in one sense, not capable of being doubted.   Perhaps this is the reason that criticism is sometimes treated as heresy.   As a member of the publi...
Read more

Being a personal reflection on the importance of anniversaries

Image
  As anybody who reads my blogs knows, I think that that anniversaries are important.  One piece of feedback I received was to stop ‘banging on about them’.  I value feedback but I reject this suggestion because I have seen that recognising anniversaries can be a strong force for good.  This is true emotionally, but also practically.  They serve as landmarks in the temporal landscape.  They are an aide memoire of the lessons from major events and a benchmark to mark our progress or decline.  They also allow us to respectfully reflect on lives lost and loss endured.  Of course for those with personal connections with disasters anniversaries have a deeper and rawer significance. From a professional point of view we do well to remember the contributions of our forebears.  Their efforts are no less important than our own. Today my appointments took me through Moorgate station in the City of London and as always my thoughts turned to the horrors o...
Read more