London Emergency Planning Seminar 2006

Report: 14
Date: 7 September 2006
By: Chief Executive and Clerk

Summary

The report provides a brief resume of the key highlights, outcomes and recommendations of the London Emergency Planning Seminar (also known as ‘the Resilience Conference’) held on 17 March 2006 at City Hall. Appendix 1 contains a full list of the recommendations made at the Seminar.

A. Recommendations

That

1. Members endorse the summary report of the Seminar at Appendix 1; and
2. endorse the recommendations emerging from the Seminar as outlined in paragraph 9 and also contained in full in Appendix 1.

B. Supporting information

1. The events of July 2005 gave considerable concern to deaf and disabled people as to how their needs would be met in the event of an emergency in London. Anecdotal evidence provided to the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and Transport for London (TfL) by individuals, community groups and the MPS Disability Independent Advisory Group (DIAG) indicated that though London may have been prepared for such emergencies, the needs of deaf and disabled people had not been properly considered.

2. A small Steering Group made up of the key partners in ‘London Resilience’ (the key agencies responsible for responding to an emergency in the capital), together with representatives from DIAG agreed to host a seminar on emergency planning.

3. The overall purpose of the event was to provide an opportunity for deaf and disabled people to speak directly to the key decision-makers responsible for emergency planning in London. It was also an opportunity for those agencies responsible for emergency planning to explain to deaf and disabled people what work they had done to date to make London safer for all of the capital’s diverse communities.

4. The key objectives of the Seminar were:

1. To work with disabled people to identify gaps in the Emergency Planning and to devise strategies to meet their needs;
2. To devise communication strategies to inform London’s disabled communities what is in place in the event of an emergency and explain how their needs would be met; and
3. To begin the process of getting all of the Emergency Planning (‘Resilience’) partners to ‘sign up’ to the social model of disability.

The event

5. Over 150 delegates attended this event. The Seminar was chaired and facilitated by Alice Maynard (Director of Future Inclusion). Keynote speakers included David Morris (Senior Policy Adviser to the Mayor of London [Disability], GLA); Bryan Heiser (TfL member); and Kirsten Hearn (MPA Independent Member). An external facilitator, Pip Hesketh acted as Project Manager for this event.

6. The programme was a mixture of interactive workshops, scenario-testing and plenary sessions, providing opportunities for questions and answers. The final session of the event provided an opportunity for senior managers to hear a summary from deaf and disabled people of the issues of concern to them and to respond accordingly. It also allowed the key partner agencies to ‘sign up’ to the ‘Social Model of Disability’ (see Appendix 2).

Key issues emerging from the seminar

7. On the day, a number of key issues emerged as learning and developmental issues for the emergency planning partners:

• The use of language: often officers from the emergency planning agencies used jargon, acronyms and inaccessible language to communicate their activities and responses to questions posed. This impacted directly on some delegates’ enjoyment of the Seminar.
• The need for officers working in the emergency planning agencies to have a disability equality training
• Some delegates wanted more deaf and disabled people to attend; however, this was a balancing act between the capacity to meet a variety of impairments, health & safety considerations and allowing delegates to work in smaller workshops to learn more about emergency planning.

Key recommendations

8. A full list of the key recommendations emerging from the Seminar Report is contained in Appendix 1. The recommendations were grouped under four headings: Information; Physical; Policy, Practices & Procedure; and Attitudinal.

9. Some of the key recommendations produced on the day, which would go some way towards meeting the needs of deaf and disabled people in the event of an emergency include:

Information

• The use of visual information displays, audible announcements and pictorial symbols and images should all be explored

Physical

• Live scenario testing should continue to include the rescue or evacuation of deaf and disabled people and specific training exercises with deaf and disabled people are recommended

Attitudinal

• Deaf and Disability Equality Training needs to be delivered to all staff involved in responding to emergency incidents.

Policy, practices & procedure

• Deaf and disabled people must be fully consulted and meaningfully involved in the review of policy practice and procedures

C. Race and equality impact

1. Meeting the needs of deaf and disabled people assists the MPA and its other key partner agencies to meet its duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 & 2005.

2. The Seminar highlighted that the needs of Deaf and disabled people have not been in the strategic planning of the emergency planning partners. This event was a vital first step towards addressing these needs; since then, a few emergency planning partners have started to consult with deaf and disabled people.

D. Financial implications

The cost of the Seminar was £17,461.43. This sum covered the costs of the event including BSL interpreters, palantypists, personal assistant support and catering. The entire cost of this event was borne by the MPA Race & Diversity Unit. However, MPS Diversity & Citizen Focus Directorate and Transport for London met some associated transport costs.

E. Background papers

• London Resilience Strategic Emergency Plan, version 2.1, April 2005
• Notes of London Emergency Planning Steering Group meetings

F. Contact details

Report author: Laurence Gouldbourne, Race and Diversity Unit, MPA

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1

London Emergency Planning Seminar: 17.03.2006

Key recommendations

Each session within the seminar produced a number of key recommendations for further action. These are captured together below:

1. Information and communications

Methods, mechanisms and techniques for communicating

• The range of communications methods used by deaf and disabled people is wide and it is disabled people’s legal right to have their communication needs met. All methods of communication must be considered when designing better information services
• It should never be assumed that deaf and disabled people speak English as a first language and agreed communication methods should take this into account
• A different voice to the one regularly used to make announcements should be used to alert customers to emergency situations
• The use of visual alarms should be considered but be informed by the needs of people who may have an adverse reaction to these depending of the frequency of the pulse
• The use of visual information displays, audible announcements and pictorial symbols and images should all be explored
• Large scale pictograms displayed on the sides of vehicles are encouraged so long as the vehicles themselves to not block access routes – there is potential to use ICT projections instead
• The amount of responsibility that is fair to place on drivers to convey information to customers should be considered
• Other customers can be of great benefit in emergency situations by conveying information but need training on how to assist their fellow passengers
• Good practice in training officers in British Sign Language (BSL) and simple symbols should be adopted by all agencies – short course in which the same key messages are taught in a range of communications may be the most effective arrangement
• Organisations should consider the ability to communicate through a decontamination suit and commission a hybrid design between them if appropriate
• Solutions for using rather than barring technologies such as mobile phones which are relied upon by deaf and disabled people
• Media communication is essential for those people who have wandered from a contaminated area
• Accessible channels or websites should be set up to ensure deaf and disabled people can access accurate information
• Information about how to access support and advisory services after the incident must be made accessible in all formats and widely distributed
• Organisations should consider the use of staff whose role is purely to disseminate information and who are experienced and skilled in a range of communication methods
• Organisations should keep an up to date list of people who have core accessible communications skills

Content

• People want to be informed that an emergency has occurred rather than a standard delay
• Information should be timely, accurate and factual; deaf and disabled people who are not directly involved in the incident need to have a good understanding of the level of risk to them if any
• Staff guiding and assisting visually impaired people should introduce themselves and explain what is happening and where they are guiding them, pointing out hazards along the way

Quality

• The quality and volume of audio equipment should be considered
• Authorities and organisations should consider the possibility of carrying a replacement long cane where this has been lost in the incident
• Deaf and disabled people would benefit from some experience of evacuating from a train and station in a trial situation

Timing

• Good information and training in advance of an incident should be provided to all citizens as a matter of course
• Customers should be encouraged to report faulty communications equipment or any other emergency equipment to staff
• The speed of information flow from the point at which an incident occurs and it is subsequently disseminated should be addressed

2. Physical barriers

• The inaccessibility of the underground remains a key priority for deaf and disabled people
• Live scenario testing should continue to include the rescue or evacuation of deaf and disabled people and specific training exercises with deaf and disabled people are recommended
• LAS and TfL should continue to explore new lifting and evacuation equipment with deaf and people and should fully test this with real people before purchase
• Officers should be fully trained in lifting and carrying deaf and disabled people and this should be delivered with the full participation of deaf and disabled people
• Once Deaf and Disability Equality Training has been embedded across organisations responsible for evacuation and rescue, all customers should be actively encouraged to follow the advice and instruction of officers at the scene of an incident
• Assistance dogs should be kept with their owners in an evacuation or rescue situation
• Rescue and evacuation teams should consider carrying a spare long cane to assist visually impaired and deafblind people
• Building managers and owners must take responsibility for the evacuation of deaf and disabled people from their premises. Deaf and disabled people have a right to satisfy themselves that appropriate procedures are in place
• Officers should work with deaf and disabled people to agree appropriate methods of responding to incidents of contaminated wheelchairs and mobility aids
• A specific session with assistance dog users should be arranged
• Replacement vehicles must be as accessible as the vehicles that they replace
• Officers should try to avoid blocking key access routes which prevent deaf and disabled people from moving around the outside of a contained area
• Where this is not possible, officers should try to note alternative routes and communicate these to deaf and disabled people

3. Attitudinal barriers

• Deaf and Disability Equality Training needs to be delivered to all staff involved in responding to emergency incidents
• Training should be delivered by deaf and disabled people and should cover every aspect of an emergency situation and resilience planning including aftercare, support and advice
• Refresher training must be provided, particularly when officers changes roles; training should be relevant to the role of the officers concerned
• The full and meaningful involvement of deaf and disabled people in developing good practice is essential including the live testing of scenarios
• Deaf and disabled people should be more fully engaged in mystery shopping all services
• Racial harassment and harassment which relates to more than one aspect of a persons social identity, for example racial and disability harassment must be treated as such and deaf and disabled people should receive information about how to pursue official complaints
• Officers who need to assist blind or deafblind people, especially with disrobing them should wear a tactile cuff which identifies them to the person concerned
• The rapid identification of deaf and disabled people who may need assistance should be part of the initial stage of responding to an incident

4. Policy practice and procedural barriers

• Deaf and disabled people must be fully consulted and meaningfully involved in the review of policy practice and procedures
• The impact of the resilience plan itself, including the use of mobile phones must be fully reviewed with deaf and disabled people
• The diverse communication and information methods and requirements of deaf and disabled people should be understood by all agencies and the of communicating with people with different impairments should become part of standard procedures
• All findings from the seminar should form the basis of policy review in each organisation
• Agreed actions should be incorporated into performance measurement mechanisms as a matter of course
• This report should be forwarded to all social services departments with a recommendation that their policies regarding the supply of Personal Assistants be reviewed
• The report should be forwarded to Comcab with a specific request for them to review their decision to implement a blanket ban on certain London areas immediately after the events of July 7

Appendix 2

The social model of disability

The social model of disability says that people who have impairments or medical conditions are disabled by physical and social barriers. The difference between impairment and disability is that impairment limits what someone can do physically or mentally, whereas disability limits their ability to take part in the normal life of the community on an equal basis.

The social model was developed by disabled people in opposition to what came to be known as the individual or medical model of disability. The key difference between these two models is the location of the 'problem'.

In the medical model, disabled people are unable to participate in the community as a direct result of their impairment; impairment causes disability. So in the medical model it is a disabled person’s personal tragedy that they are excluded and this is ‘incurable’, but in the social model exclusion is a social problem and it can be rectified by society removing its barriers.

Barriers that typically prevent disabled people participating fully in society and which need to be removed can be considered in a range of ways:

• Information and communication barriers
• Physical barriers
• Policy or procedural barriers
• Attitudinal barriers

We the undersigned are committed systematically removing any and all barriers within the employment or customer services of our organisations.

Name

On behalf of

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback