The Civil Contingencies Bill and its effect upon business continuity and emergency management The main effect of the Civil Contingencies Bill will be to improve the UK’s emergency management arrangements, but it will also drive closer working between emergency managers and business continuity professionals. By Robin Gaddum, IBM The Civil Contingencies Bill was published on 7th January 2004; a significant milestone in the journey towards legislation. This document is aimed at the vast majority of organisations in the UK that perceive themselves as not directly affected by the recent Civil Contingencies Bill. Those organisations that are directly affected by the Bill will undoubtedly have reviewed the draft legislation and may also have been involved in the consultation preceding the Bill. But what does this Bill mean to all those other organisations operating in the UK and their business continuity managers? Emergency management versus business continuity
management On the one hand, those involved in BCM have tended to regard their EM colleagues as “the tea and blankets brigade”; largely public sector and voluntary organisations tackling the bottom tier in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – survival, shelter, sustenance – with little or no economic consideration. The grudging exception to this stereotype being those specialist groups in the privatised utility sector dealing with downed power lines, burst water mains and the like, although these groups could also be denigrated through the assertion that such actions were so routine in these organisations as to be a part of business as usual and therefore nothing exceptional in continuity terms. On the other hand, those involved in EM might, with some justification, regard their BCM colleagues as predominantly grossly inexperienced in managing “real disasters” – those that involve destruction, loss of life and human hardship. Instead, they perceive BCM professionals as more concerned with ensuring the well-oiled wheels of industry continue to turn in their favour, in spite of the occasional unannounced fire drill or IT glitch. And oh, how much money they have to spend on such a cushy number! What is the real difference between the two
disciplines? Business continuity is organisation-centric. In other
words, it arises within an organisation and is concerned with the
continued survival and prosperity of that organisation alone. In
this respect, it tends to be more internally than externally focussed,
tackling disasters that directly affect its own operations. Emergency
Management is more community-centric, sitting most naturally in
the public sector and straying into the voluntary sector –
it tends to be more externally focussed tackling incidents that
impact, or could impact, upon the wider community. “Any event which is causing or threatening death or injury, damage to property or the environment or disruption to the community, which because of its scale cannot be handled by the emergency services or local authorities as part of their day-to-day work”. Clearly, such disasters could require collaborative
response involving many organisations beyond the emergency services.
Indeed, the approach has probably been driven more by the fuel crisis
and Foot and Mouth Disease than by recently emerging asymmetric
terrorist threats. Nevertheless, the Bill is designed to support
IEM in responding to a wide range of disasters and potential disasters
that might disrupt our way of life. Who does the Bill Affect? Category One – Public sector
(emergency services, NHS, Local Authorities, Environment Agency),
where a broad range of duties exist including: Category Two – Infrastructure / critical national resource providers (utility providers, transport companies, and the Health & Safety Executive), where a duty of cooperation exists. So what? Conclusion The UK’s Civil Contingencies Bill is a necessary and useful piece of future legislation that should enable improvements in the UK’s ability to respond to large-scale and previously unplanned for emergencies. At the end of the day, the Bill affects us all indirectly. The Bill alone is unlikely to be sufficient. Whilst it sets out a useful framework and responsibilities, managing available resources will be key to support the manpower, equipment, joint operating procedures development, training and exercising needed to ensure that it will work as effectively as intended when the need arises. Clear delineation of responsibilities and co-ordination mechanisms between central and local government will also be required. Until these issues are addressed, the Government’s stated aim of using the Bill to improve UK resilience is unlikely to be achieved in full. Further reading About the author IBM Business Continuity and Recovery
Services IBM’s Crisis Response Team has responded to countless emergencies, including earthquakes in California, Colombia, Turkey, Greece, Taiwan, El Salvador, India and Peru and has managed, supported, and restored operations following floods, hurricanes, hailstorms, tornadoes, ice storms, volcanoes, civil unrest, hazardous material situations, the Oklahoma City bombing and the World Trade Center disaster. To learn more about IBM Business Continuity and Recovery Services in the UK, click here. Or contact us at BCRSHELP@uk.ibm.com T: 01926 464103 © Copyright retained by IBM Corporation, 2004
•Date:
16th January 2004 •Region: UK •Type:
Article •Topic: BC
general UPDATED 8TH MARCH 2004 |
