John Twigg has raised a very important issue.
It seems to me that secrecy is an integral part of British institutional
culture. This is extremely convenient: if Camden's emergency plan is
rubbish, the public cannot hold anyone responsible because people are not
allowed to know what is in it.
British culture also suffers from the 'leave it to the experts' syndrome.
The "we know what's best" approach is thoroughly misguided. Like "go in,
stay in, tune in", it reeks of efforts to encourage the public to be passive
and malleable. Fortunately, the national emergency slogan has proved to be a
complete failure as a nationwide social survey showed that only 3 per cent
of the population remember it.
By and large a secret emergency plan is a contradiction in terms. If the
public are not involved, they will not make rational and appropriate
decisions. It is acceptable to make exceptions for highly sensitive
strategic information, but not for the usual provisions of general municipal
emergency plans.
I know of no case in which a terrorist is known to have gone to the pubilc
library to study emergency plans in order to refine his or her strategy.
Terrorists have no need to do anything of the sort if they want to create
mayhem.
Civil protection is the property of all members of society, who are
simultaneously beneficiaries and responsible for aspects of risk management.
Emergency plans are only likely to work if they are the property of a broad
sector of society.
The argument that "people might panic" if they know what is in the emergency
plan is dearly held by people in positions of responsibility who are
ignorant of disaster sociology. In reality, people are more likely to panic
if they don't know what is happening and what their responsibilities are.
Perhaps 5 per cent of general municipal emergency planning might involve
sensitive enough issues to be worth withholding it from the public. All the
rest depends critically on opening the lines of communication with the local
population and building a relationship of trust and collaboration.
At any rate, that's what I think! If you are sceptical, read up on London's
evacuation plan, Operation Sassoon, and imagine how it is likely to go if
the public are not informed partners....
David Alexander
University of Florence - collaborator with the emergency planners of the
city of Florence, Province of Florence and northern Chianti area .... and
their beneficiaries.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Twigg" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 12:06 PM
Subject: freedom of (emergency planning) information
I thought it would be interesting to start a debate on this issue.
Under the UK's Freedom of Information Act, which came into force in 2005,
reasons for exempting official information from the act's requirements
include
safeguarding national security, but it is not clear how far this extends to
emergency planning in general. In the London Borough of Camden, though,
disaster response plans are kept secret 'as the release of these could
endanger public safety'.
There are lots of ethical, legal and institutional questions to be debated
about
transparency and secrecy in emergency planning - it's not a simple issue. It
would be interesting to hear the views and experiences of other members of
the group.
|