Paul Deighton – the CEO of the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games – has provided a detailed response to a series of questions drafted by Home Affairs Committee chairman Keith Vaz MP on 12 July in relation to security arrangements for the 2012 Olympics, which begin in London next week.
Equally extensive answers to the MP’s questions have been provided in personal statements sent by Metropolitan Police Service Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe and Sir Hugh Orde, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).
All of these replies are public domain on the Home Affairs Committee website.
Vaz’s questions to LOCOG were as follows:
LOCOG offers detailed answers
In response, Paul Deighton wrote: “G4S is required to supply 10,400 guards. On 24 December 2010, the original contract specified that G4S would supply 2,000 guards. In addition to this, G4S was required to manage a further 8,000 security guards to be sourced from colleges via the Bridging The Gap programme.”
Replying on 16 July, Deighton continued: “In August 2011, LOCOG and the Home Office began to discuss with G4S an increase in numbers required under the contract. The exact numbers required had been refined as security planning necessarily has to follow preparation of the detailed Games competition schedule and the finalising of all venue plans.”
The Deed of Variation to the contract – which was signed on 15 December 2011 – changed the specification such that G4S would now be responsible for supplying the aforementioned 10,000-plus officers (including new recruits, people from existing staff bases and sub-contractors).
According to Deighton, at this point G4S would also assume management responsibility for:
“The total number of security personnel at this point,” wrote Deighton, “was due to be approximately 23,700. This is where the number of guards required for G4S to supply and manage has remained.”
Qualified, trained and equipped for the job
Responding directly to Question 4 on training, Deighton said: “The contract states G4S shall ensure that all of its personnel are suitably qualified, trained and equipped to perform their respective roles in connection with the provision of guarding. G4S developed a training programme which LOCOG approved in close consultation with the Home Office, the CPNI and the Ministry of Defence. This training is in addition to the baseline requirements of the Security Industry Authority.”
The Bridging The Gap programme offered students the opportunity to undertake door supervisor training (as part of SIA licensing) followed by a course with Skills for Security – a National Occupational Standards-aligned course – and then work at the London 2012 Games.
For their part, Bridging The Gap students are exempt from any requirement to be SIA licensed at Games time under the terms of a Statutory Instrument. Deighton stated: “G4S is responsible for the role-specific training of Bridging The Gap students once recruited.”
He continued: “All persons accredited for the London 2012 Games go through the same process, set and managed by the Home Office, which includes the submission of personal data for a background checks process run by the UK Border Agency.”
What about the timelines?
When addressing Question 5 on specific timelines, Deighton commented: “Since the signing of the contract in 2010, a series of weekly and other regularly scheduled meetings attended by Government, G4S and LOCOG have been held to monitor G4S’ performance under the contract. In early April 2012, an additional weekly meeting led by senior management involving the Home Office, G4S and LOCOG was instigated in response to concerns which had been identified with the format and content of management information provided by G4S.”
Importantly, Deighton then stated: “Nick Buckles, David Taylor-Smith [CEO of G4S in the UK and Africa] and Ian Horseman-Sewell [G4S’ global events specialist] confirmed to LOCOG on the morning of 11 July 2012 that, despite ongoing and recent assurances orally and in writing to the contrary, G4S would not be able to meet its labour pool target. LOCOG immediately contacted Home Office colleagues whereupon the issue was formally discussed at a meeting of the Olympic Security Board” [which took place at 11.30 am on that same day].
In terms of what date LOCOG first contacted the Home Office regarding the shortfall in security staff, Deighton responded: “Olympic and Paralympic Games security has always been handled through a very close working relationship between LOCOG, the Home Office, the police service and GOE with the Government in the lead. Each party has been involved at every level of formal management of the contract with G4S. G4S confirmed to all parties on the same day [ie 11 July 2012] the scale of the shortfall the company was facing.”
When replying to Question 7, Deighton explained: “Following G4S’ statement at the Olympic Security Board on 11 July 2012 that it could not meet its labour pool targets, it was agreed among all the parties present that the Home Office would immediately proceed to request the MoD supply Armed Forces personnel to meet the shortfall acknowledged by G4S.”
Monitoring of the G4S contract at LOCOG
In relation to Question 8, which focuses on monitoring of the G4S contract at LOCOG, Deighton’s answer is very detailed. He commented: “The contract was initially monitored weekly by the multi-agency Security Workforce Board. From January 2012, this body was subsumed into the Venue Security Delivery Board (VSDB), a multi-agency meeting weekly and reporting directly to the Olympic Security Board with members from the Home Office, the GOE, the police service, the MoD, G4S and LOCOG.”
Deighton went on to state: “The VSDB monitored G4S’ progress on the recruitment, training and accreditation of security guards for the Games, and received weekly reports on the supply pipeline and overall performance of the contract from G4S.”
He continued: “Furthermore, LOCOG established two bodies operating jointly with G4S to review the contract on a financial basis and to review the strategic management of the contract. These bodies – the Contract Management Board and the Contract Performance Review Board respectively – reported into the VSDB and initially met bi-weekly before moving to weekly meetings several months ago. In May, LOCOG also instigated a series of weekly meetings with G4S to review performance against the specified Key Performance Indicators. Regular reviews of the G4S contract were also carried out by another LOCOG body, the Contract Review Board.”
When answering the final question on potential fiscal penalties that may be visited upon G4S, Deighton duly explained that LOCOG has “various financial penalties and other remedial rights” at its disposal. These are:
Deighton concluded: “The remedies specified in the contract are not inclusive of any other rights LOCOG may have as a matter of law. As matters progress, the potential for bringing claims to recover past payments where performance has not met requirements and/or misinformation has been provided will remain under review by the legal and procurement teams.”
View from the Metropolitan Police Service
Metropolitan Police Service Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe had this to say in response to Keith Vaz’s letter:
“With regards to our awareness of the shortfall in security staff, it’s important to note that the key relationship is the contractual one between LOCOG and G4S. While the police clearly have a central role to play in securing the Games, LOCOG has primary responsibility for the venues it’s operating and we have always been careful to maintain this key distinction.
“In his role as national Olympic security co-ordinator, assistant commissioner Chris Allison is present at the Home Office Olympic Security Board, the meeting through which the Government security guarantee is discharged and overall readiness determined, and G4S staffing has featured in items discussed at the Board.
“There were initial issues about the correct scheduling of G4S staff for the current operation, but it was not until the events of last Wednesday [11 July] that I was alerted to the fact that G4S would be unable to supply the required number of guards for Games time.
“With regards to your second and third questions, the Metropolitan Police Service already has a dedicated Olympic operation in place to cover the London venues, and which includes a reserve capability.
“Where shortfalls in staffing have emerged in roles that police are able to perform, officers have been deployed accordingly in venues. For example, officers were employed in Greenwich Park for a period last week to work alongside G4S staff and ensure that high value equipment wasn’t stolen.
“While not just constrained to Stratford, the numbers of police officers involved to date have been limited and they change on a daily basis. Though not anticipated, this represents an appropriate use of our officers in the circumstances.
“As you might expect, we have robust command arrangements in place at all venues and we’re in regular dialogue with partners, including the military, so that we can best manage any issues that emerge.
“As yet, the Metropolitan Police Service has not had to mobilise additional resources over and above that which we had already planned for the Games and so there has been no impact on local policing to date.
“With regards to your last question, the Metropolitan Police Service has not dealt with any inbound or outbound requests for mutual aid to address the shortfall in G4S staff.
“As you would expect, prudence dictates that we take measures to ensure there are officers available to support venues in an appropriate capacity, and this is ongoing. Considerable work continues to be undertaken by the various partners involved in delivering the Games to deal with this issue, which includes responding flexibly on a daily basis to resolve any emerging issues.
“I remain confident in our ability to deliver a safe and secure Games.”
Response from the Association of Chief Police Officers
Also replying to Keith Vaz, ACPO’s president Sir Hugh Orde wrote:
“The policing operation for London 2012 has, from the outset, included provision of mutual aid, with officers being deployed to those force areas where the Olympic policing requirement is greatest.
“In answer to your first question, at this moment in time ACPO’s Police National Information Co-ordination Centre has not been activated to centrally co-ordinate mutual aid to the Olympic venue forces. Where necessary, individual forces are working closely with venues to ensure that their security requirements are met.
“It follows, in answer to your second and third questions, that to date PNICC has not co-ordinated the movement of additional officers. In terms of providing you with a full response, we are aware that nine venue forces have now deployed additional police officers to support security venues.
“Working closely with LOCOG, G4S and the military, they are providing support to ensure the necessary levels of security are in place as venues move into lock-down and security regimes step up.
“Forces will aim to ensure they make the best use of their resources locally so that they do all they can to minimise the impact on local policing. Clearly, deployments will be kept under continual review under the leadership of assistant commissioner Chris Allison in his position as national Olympic security co-ordinator.
“We remain confident of delivering a safe and secure Games while maintaining the task of keeping local communities safe.”
