UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 534-i

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

BeIjing Olympic Torch Relay: Torch Attendants

Tuesday 6 May 2008

COMMANDER BROADHURST

Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 57

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Home Affairs Committee

on Tuesday 6 May 2008

Members present

Keith Vaz, in the Chair

Mrs Janet Dean

Gwyn Prosser

Bob Russell

Martin Salter

Mr David Winnick

________________

Witness: Commander Broadhurst, Metropolitan Police, gave evidence.

Q1 Chairman: This is a short, one-off session concerning the recent visit of the Olympic torch to the United Kingdom, in particular to London, and any lessons that we can draw from that visit, bearing in mind that it is likely to happen again when London gets the Olympics in 2012. We are delighted to have Commander Broadhurst here this morning, who was the Gold Commander on the day that the Olympic torch went through London. Commander Broadhurst, good morning and thank you for coming. Who authorised the Chinese Flame Security Team to be present during the London leg of the torch procession through London?

Commander Broadhurst: The authority for that team, sir, comes from the Olympic contract itself. It is a given that the home police force - in this case Beijing - are responsible for the security of the torch around the world and largely through their own country. Obviously, the round the world leg has only happened in the last two Olympics. Certainly, for 2012 it will be the responsibility of the Metropolitan Police to plan the torch, wherever it ends up going, and that is clearly subject to debate, but certainly through the UK leg, which is why I appointed a Silver Commander for this event who will be looking after the torch, planning for us for the next four years. So it is actually a contractual agreement. We would have been aware that there were likely to have been Beijing police officers. We did not know the fullness of that. The usual protocol there is for the police force in question to write to the Home Office for authority. I do know that when the whole Chinese delegation came through Heathrow they were subject to the usual checks from the UK Immigration Service and the usual protocols applied. In my mind, it was no different to the relationship we had with the gendarmerie last year for the Tour de France, when the gendarmerie asked for permission to bring their motorcycles and uniformed police officers, and we effectively employed them as stewards as part of that. Exactly the same this year. The role of the torch attendants, it is written in the Olympic contract, is to secure the flame. They light the flame at each handover point, they make sure it does not go out, all those protocols around the flame itself.

Q2 Chairman: What were the legal powers of the attendant team that came over? Would they, for example, override the powers of a police officer in London?

Commander Broadhurst: No, they have no legal powers on the streets of London other than the basic right of a citizen to defend themselves and defend their property, a common law power for all citizens in the UK. We made it quite clear in our negotiations beforehand that, as far as we were concerned, they would be, as you saw on the television, no doubt, that inner cordon, as it were. If the torch was attacked, they were clearly told that their job was to fold around it, to turn inwards to protect the torch. They have no powers of arrest, other than those common law powers that we all enjoy; no executive powers per se; they were not armed; they had no weapons with them; and any instructions in terms of disorder would have come from Metropolitan Police officers, not from those attendants.

Q3 Chairman: My colleagues will explore other issues with you but can I put to you a quote from Lord Coe, the gentleman organising the London Olympics, that he was pushed and shoved by these particular gentleman. Is that correct? Is that a correct interpretation of what happened to Lord Coe?

Commander Broadhurst: Unfortunately, I have not seen that footage and I have neither spoken to Lord Coe nor have we had any formal complaint from him or, for that matter, from anybody else around the actions of the Chinese delegation. All I would say, having seen the footage myself, which I am sure the majority of you have seen, is that there was a good deal of disorder. There were a large number of people attempting to get the torch itself. We must bear in mind that these are relatively young men, charged with protecting their property. There was some pushing and shoving along that 31-mile route over an eight-hour day. I did not see what happened to Lord Coe. I obviously cannot explain his comments. I have no doubt they are made in very good faith but nobody has come to us to make a formal complaint about the Chinese.

Q4 Mr Winnick: Has any other country provided such security people in the past?

Commander Broadhurst: Yes, they have. Four years ago the Athens torch came through London and exactly the same protocols occurred. There were runners alongside it who were from the Athens police but, of course, on that occasion there was no disorder and the torch proceeded in the way we would all have expected and hoped.

Q5 Mr Winnick: Unlike what occurred very recently with the Chinese, there was no controversy at all over the Greek people four years ago?

Commander Broadhurst: None at all.

Q6 Mr Winnick: Do you find it surprising that there has been this reaction, unlike what happened previously?

Commander Broadhurst: I do not find it surprising, sir. In fact, for our planning of this, which began over a year ago, and in my decision logs, we had anticipated there would be some form of protest against the torch coming through this time. We actually identified in the region of seven protest areas: clearly, the anti-Chinese; the Free Tibet and the Falun Gong; those that would complain about the Chinese environmental background; those that would complain about the Chinese human rights background; those that would complain about the globalisation of the Olympics and some of the large sponsors; and those who come out and protest whenever there is the opportunity to protest. So we had already planned for a degree of disorder. I think what took me by surprise, I had planned and my tactics were around set-piece demonstrations along the route, which happened; there were eight of those, some 4,000 protesters who had formerly asked permission under the Public Order Act and were granted permission to protest in static positions. I had always anticipated, as we have seen with other torch relays around the world, that there would be occasional attempts by people jumping out of the crowd and trying to grab the torch, but what I did not anticipate was that those attempts to attack the torch would start at Wembley and not finish until 31 miles later in Greenwich.

Q7 Mr Winnick: Is it your case therefore, Commander, that the protests arose because of the position of China over Tibet, the nature of the political society or system in China, and that there was no justification for the concern over the way in which the security people acted or did not act at the time on that day? Is that your case?

Commander Broadhurst: I think the majority of the protest was against China, most of the protesters were from the Free Tibet lobby, and I think we have to remember that for the two or three weeks in advance of it we were all seeing on our television screens the media coverage of events in Tibet itself. I have no doubt that that inflamed some passions over this side, but there were other demonstrators. There was the Burma campaign, there were Reporters Without Borders, who all have slightly different agendas, but I do think that the protests were probably largely generated with some form of anti-Chinese or pro-Tibetan sympathisers. From what I saw, in fact our tactics had to change. We ended up having to protect the torch much more than we would have liked, as I say, from Wembley to Greenwich, which effectively made it a rather undignified spectacle, but in policing terms the actual strategy of getting the torch unhindered from A to B actually worked, disorderly or undignified though it may have appeared on the screens.

Q8 Bob Russell: Commander, this is not the first time that this Committee has looked at the consequences of a high-profile Chinese visit to this country and I recall that a few years ago when a high-profile Chinese visit took place in Cambridge there were suggestions that the Cambridgeshire police colluded with the Chinese authorities to prevent or at least subdue a protest. In your anticipation of what may happen in London, did you have any discussions with the Cambridgeshire Police Authority?

Commander Broadhurst: Not with Cambridgeshire, sir, no. We had similar allegations in London at the Chinese visit in the late Nineties, when there was some concern about the Metropolitan Police tactics and the use of vans to be put in front of protesters, a very similar background. I made it quite clear throughout my planning, throughout my decision logs and through my planning team dialogue with everybody that, as we would always do in any event, we would facilitate lawful protest, we would stop unlawful protest as best we could, and I made it quite clear throughout and in my briefings to all our officers that I would not tolerate anybody being prevented from lawfully protesting. That included advice to the Chinese nearer the time. A large number of Chinese supporters were brought on to the streets, mainly students. Although they are not subject to the Public Order Act per se because they are not demonstrators, they are supporting, and I know that is a very fine line, we made it very clear to their organisers that we would not tolerate pro-Chinese supporters getting in front of pro-Tibetan supporters, or anybody else for that matter. Clearly, my officers were under quite clear instructions: we would allow free protest; would do nothing - I have seen in the papers some allegations that we took T-shirts and other stuff from people. Nothing like that has come to my attention. I made it quite clear we would facilitate lawful protest and do our best to stop unlawful protest.

Q9 Bob Russell: Commander, while clearly the Metropolitan Police found themselves broadly in a no-win situation, what contacts and discussions did the Metropolitan Police have with the Beijing Organising Committee for the Olympic Games?

Commander Broadhurst: Through my planning team and through the Silver Commander, a superintendent, we had close contact, largely through, for us, the event organisers, who are the Greater London Authority and their lead planner, Judith Woodward. Obviously, in the background to that are BOCOG themselves, the Beijing Organising Committee and LOCOG, the London Organising Committee. We always work through the event organiser, which for us is the GLA. I was not personally party to any of those discussions but I know my planning team would have been in the same room with organisers. We work through the GLA but, of course, the event itself, if you like, the contractual rights are owned by BOCOG, who, it seemed to me, would always have the last say in terms of things like routes and changes to the route, et cetera.

Q10 Bob Russell: So that is the discussion with the Beijing Organising Committee. Did you also have discussions with the Chinese Embassy about the policing of the relay and the role of the torch attendants?

Commander Broadhurst: We have very close relationships with the Chinese Embassy. In fact, the whole planning thing was very well organised. Everybody was very supportive. Through the Chinese Embassy we obviously heard of some of their concerns about the protests. There were some concerns that we allowed free protests but we were quite clear that on the streets of London we allow this. That was accepted. I am not sure whether there was dialogue between my officers and the Chinese Embassy around the role of the torch attendants. That was clearly a contractual matter with BOCOG, as I have said earlier. We made it quite clear our expectations of those torch attendants and the role that we would fulfil on the day.

Q11 Bob Russell: What was the role of the Greater London Authority in making arrangements for the relay? Did that place any limitations on what the police could do in respect of the relay?

Commander Broadhurst: They took the lead on the overall event itself, in other words, the look and feel of the event, the overall route, the start at Wembley, the finish. Along the route it passed through ten boroughs. Each of those boroughs I understand had their own community event. That is largely the role of the GLA in terms of the event, the look and feel. The role of the police is quite clear. We are there obviously to uphold the law, to prevent disorder, and to manage the crowds along the way along with all those partners. No limitations were placed on us per se. Our voice was always heard. However, if you like, we are part of a partnership. We did have some concerns that a 31-mile long route was a very long route. I made it quite clear from the beginning that we could not fully secure that route, either in terms of lining it with police officers or in terms of barrier-ing it. The costs and logistics just made that almost impossible but also we would have just ground the whole of London to a halt for the whole of the day. If you like, we are party to the overall piece but, like any other event, it is the event organiser's event. We can only say and advise along the fringes. In the end, we were all signed up to a plan and, as I said earlier, the only part of the plan that differed from my expectations was the sheer exuberance of energy of protesters from start to finish as opposed to what I was anticipating.

Q12 Chairman: Can I just put to you a number of facts concerning the cost of the operation? We have been given a total of £746,000, including £502,000 for opportunity costs that resulted from police being diverted from other activities, £109,000 in overtime, and £135,000 in non-pay costs relating to air support, technical equipment, and the erection of barriers. My mathematics is not perfect but it is just under £1 million. Is that a correct figure or do you have better figures to put to the Committee?

Commander Broadhurst: The overall figure is the first figure you quoted. The overall cost was £746,000.

Q13 Chairman: So all the other figures are included?

Commander Broadhurst: They are included, of which £502,000 is opportunity costs. In other words, we would have had to have paid those officers and staff whatever they had done that day. One of the big parts of my role as the head of public order is to minimise abstractions, because essentially those officers should have been policing the streets of their boroughs or having a day off.

Q14 Chairman: What is the total number of officers who were on duty on that day?

Commander Broadhurst: Two thousand and sixty.

Q15 Chairman: What was the last big event that you had to have that number of officers out for?

Commander Broadhurst: For the Notting Hill Carnival we deploy around about 5,000 officers.

Q16 Chairman: That is over three days, is it?

Commander Broadhurst: On the main day it is about 5,000. New Year's Eve celebrations we have about 3,500. This is very similar to the Tour de France last year. On the day of the long leg, when, again, we had a linear route out of London and into Kent we had about 2,000 officers. Again, I must stress, because this was picked up in the media, 2,000 had been the figure I had been working to some months in advance of any of the disturbances we were seeing around Tibet. The plans were reviewed the week before and we were content that we had the right number. The reason for that number, sir, is largely because we had a 31-mile route. We needed officers along that route for the community events. There were along it known demonstration points. There were officers on those and, of course, the officers that accompanied the torch itself.

Q17 Chairman: Can you give us the figure as to how many of the Chinese Flame Security Team were present?

Commander Broadhurst: My understanding is that there were a dozen.

Q18 Chairman: Twelve?

Commander Broadhurst: Yes.

Q19 Chairman: So the entire delegation from China consisted of 12 people?

Commander Broadhurst: No. Those were the runners you will have seen in the tracksuits. There was a much larger delegation. The convoy of vehicles - and I do not have the exact figure - was around about 30 to 40 vehicles. It is quite a complicated thing. There were actually 80 runners, 80 torches. They run on average 250 metres. Again, that was part of the policing problem because the torch, continually stopping to hand over, becomes very vulnerable in terms of that protest.

Q20 Gwyn Prosser: Commander, in hindsight, are you confident that your officers could have competently policed those demonstrations without the intervention and some would call support of the Chinese flame protectors?

Commander Broadhurst: We certainly could have, sir, but of course, their key role is to keep the flame alight, to make sure the next torch is ready, they have a spare torch. That is not a role of police officers. That is a stewarding role. In terms of the security of the torch, yes, of course we could. I might have needed a few more officers to fulfil that sort of inner role that they had. I come back to the dignity of it. We would have much preferred this to have been like the Athens torch, where the torch is allowed to run down the road with a couple of runners alongside it. It just turned into a rolling melee for 31 miles where, to be honest, I think it was justified that we were all out. We have all seen the attempts to grab the torch, offices were attacked, a couple of times there were fire extinguishers, we had things thrown at us, bottles and cans, et cetera, along not all of the route but large parts of that route.

Q21 Gwyn Prosser: When I watched the live television coverage I was filled with confusion about who they were, what they were doing, what their role was, and we saw them actually taking people by the neck and manhandling them to the ground. Does that fit in with the description you gave earlier where you said they have no powers other than the common citizen's powers?

Commander Broadhurst: Clearly, I would have to look at any individual piece of coverage and anybody would have to make their mind up whether that individual action was appropriate in the circumstances or not. I come back to my earlier point that their role there is to manage the torch, to keep it alight, but they also have a duty - and they are police officers, after all - to protect their property. We similarly have a role to protect them and to keep people from getting close to them. On the day, as you have seen, the number of people attempting to get to that torch and the press of the crowd, bearing in mind we could not barrier the whole route, so it is almost impossible to keep everybody away, I think what we ended up seeing was a natural reaction to people who thought their torch, which, of course, is of huge significance for anybody in the community, but particularly for the Chinese community, and their culture of not losing face publicly. I think we must always bear in mind the pressure on all those people and our officers as well, charged with a duty from me to keep the torch safe. But to be attacked literally for 31 miles, that is quite a lot of pressure on all of those people.

Q22 Gwyn Prosser: Were there issues of who was in charge, who was in command? You have told us the real status of the police officers compared with the torch protectors, but were there issues on the ground of who was in charge and were there conflicts between your police officers and the torch protectors? Were they, for instance, obeying instructions?

Commander Broadhurst: They were. Very early on, from speaking to my officers, there was a very first attempt at that, when the Chinese sought to stamp their authority over the proceedings. They were told in no uncertain terms that our responsibility is to keep the crowd away. They were reminded of their arrangement that they would just turn in on the torch to protect it. From very early days it was quite clear, and I had two Inspectors and a Chief Inspector and alongside that convoy. It was quite clear that we were in charge. They were taking directions from us and not the other way round.

Q23 Gwyn Prosser: Lastly, looking ahead to our Olympic Games, what lessons have you learned about protecting the torch? You have said you look at the length of routes because, depending on the threat, it could be unsustainable to be too long. Would you expect the Metropolitan Police to come out in blue tracksuits?

Commander Broadhurst: I think the tracksuits are part of the Olympic package. You have to wear what the Olympic authorities give you on the day. I think there is a number of lessons. For any event we always use a conflict management model. You look at the event you are policing, what the nature of it is, what you want to achieve. You look at the threats and risks to that event - and it is not just the security threat from terrorism but it is also the implied threats within it itself of disorder, protest, et cetera. Then you make a decision on what your strategy and tactical plan looks like. In hindsight, perhaps an event like that might have been better off, rather as we did for the Tour de France, to have it perhaps in one of our parks, on a route that we can barrier. We can keep the route sterile and clear, we can have police officers on either side, so that the torch is allowed to pass in freedom. Clearly, if we had known perhaps that the threat was going to be what it was, we might have thought about that. When it comes to our torch, there is a discussion to be had by parties other than myself and the Metropolitan Police about whether or not we have a world leg, a world tour. As I say, that element of it is only about two Olympics old. It will suddenly come through the UK. Again, I would hope that we are not subject to the same level of protest that we had with China but in four years' time who knows what the world situation will be? As ever, we debriefed this event. We will learn the lessons. Many of those were tactical. I think strategically overall our job is to protect the torch. The event organisers say, "This is the nature and style of event that we want. We want an open-to-the-public event along the streets of London." We can only advise on that. If the event organisers - and bear in mind the GLA work to the Mayor. If the Mayor says, "This is going to be a 31-mile route from Wembley to Greenwich," we have no power to say no. We only have to police what we are given, if you like. We advise as part of that group. We do not abdicate or walk away from that but I think, sir, when it comes to 2012, which is why we are starting the planning now along with the GLA, we need to look very closely at what type of event we want and what level of protest, if there is to be any, we are going to have, and what sort of security we want to put on it. What we do not want is an event that is so secure that we see what we get in some other countries around the world, where the public just cannot get anywhere close to it.

Q24 Chairman: Commander Broadhurst, some may say you are being a little defensive of the Chinese security team. Presumably, you have looked through the CCTV coverage. You must have filmed this.

Commander Broadhurst: Yes, absolutely.

Q25 Chairman: And you have looked through it yourself? Has somebody looked at the filming?

Commander Broadhurst: Yes.

Q26 Chairman: And you saw no offences being committed by anybody?

Commander Broadhurst: Nobody has come to us and complained, sir. There was disorder. There were probably some things in there that we would not have condoned, probably by some of my officers as well.

Q27 Chairman: But were offences committed by anybody? You have said you have looked at this film, you have heard my colleague Mr Prosser talk about people being dragged to the ground, you are stating that that is what people should do in defence of their property, referring to it as "their" property, in other words, the property of the Chinese government or the security team. By "their" who do you mean? Do you mean the Olympic movement or do you mean the Chinese Flame Security Team when you say "their property"? Whose property was it?

Commander Broadhurst: It is the property of the Olympic movement. They hold the rights.

Q28 Chairman: So in defence of their property they were permitted to drag people down to the ground, were they?

Commander Broadhurst: You could argue not, but of course---

Q29 Chairman: I am not arguing; I am asking: is that an offence?

Commander Broadhurst: Not necessarily, if nobody comes forward and makes a complaint about that. There was disorder. Individuals were throwing themselves and trying to get property that belonged to somebody else. You are allowed to use reasonable force. We would have to look at each individual case, balanced up against who was it that was trying to get to the torch, what level of force did they use, against an appropriate response by the individual they have tried to get past.

Q30 Chairman: Lord Coe, who is the head of this organisation, the London 2012 Organising Committee, said, and I quote, "They tried to punch me out of the way three times. They are horrible. I think they were thugs." Has nobody bothered to ring up Lord Coe or speak to him about what happened?

Commander Broadhurst: I have not seen the quote about punching. I saw the bit about thugs.

Q31 Chairman: Has nobody contacted Lord Coe?

Commander Broadhurst: No.

Q32 Chairman: You had 2,000 officers on the day and since the event you have looked at the CCTV, you have heard what the head of the Organising Committee of the next Olympics has said, and nobody has bothered to contact him?

Commander Broadhurst: I am sure had he wanted to make a formal complaint he would have contacted us, sir.

Q33 Mr Winnick: The previous Mayor of London is quoted as saying, "It should not have happened. We did not know beforehand these thugs were from the security services. Had I known so, we would have said no." Do you feel, Commander, there is understandable concern that, thugs or otherwise, security people from a dictatorship country, acting as they did on that particular day, is bound to cause concern, be it to Members of Parliament or to the wider community?

Commander Broadhurst: I can understand people's concerns, and I understand the point the Chair is making. My point would be, if I genuinely thought or my officers at the time thought the behaviour of the Chinese attendants was unlawful, illegal, we would have dealt with it at the time. As it was, we were collectively charged with getting the torch through the streets of London for 31 miles over eight hours when it was subject to constant attack.

Q34 Mr Winnick: I think you have indicated that, with hindsight, it could have been dealt with better by the Metropolitan Police.

Commander Broadhurst: Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Q35 Mr Winnick: It is always a wonderful thing but, be that as it may, do you accept some criticism of the manner in which all this was done?

Commander Broadhurst: If there is criticism, sir, I take it because I was in charge. In hindsight, tactically we would have done something different. We had no tactic to stop protesters running along the pavement. We would have put in some break points, if you like, to have stopped that movement and slowed them down a little bit. Effectively, we acted within the law. We used the powers that we had. We got the torch from Wembley to Greenwich. It arrived on time. The lighting ceremony happened. There were a number of arrests along the way but relatively low-level public order offences. We have had six complaints from the public overall, three of which have been resolved and three of which are still under investigation. In the great scheme of things, over an eight-hour event with hundreds of thousands of people on the street, whilst it did look undignified, and I am sure along the way if we pursued them very closely we could identify some other issues, it was not over-problematic. What it was was undignified and on the back of, as you say, the problems involving China.

Chairman: I think what the Committee is trying to establish is not that it was an undignified event but the role of the Chinese Flame Security Team, what they did and what perhaps they should not have done.

Q36 Mrs Dean: Commander, are there any other ways in which the arrangements relating to the Chinese Flame Security Team could have been handled differently and, if so, in what way?

Commander Broadhurst: I suppose, had I known how it was going to pan out, had I known that we would have been subject to such violence, maybe perhaps I could have taken a personal steer and said, "Look, you will not do anything other than benignly stay alongside it." To be honest, when those attacks started happening, even that level of instruction would probably have gone out of the window very quickly. The footage did start at Wembley, when they tried to get on the coach and people were being assaulted and pushed and pulled. I think at the end of the day the package is as good as we are going to get. It is an Olympic package, it is a standard process that has stood the test of time. We have not before seen the level of attack and intimidation against the torch, that not only happened in London; it happened in Paris and San Francisco and a number of other cities throughout the world. Hopefully, we will not see that again but, of course, we have to be prepared and ready for it. My honest answer is that, even in hindsight, there is not a lot more we could have done in terms of the Chinese team and delegation. I am not being over-defensive, Chair, and I am sorry if it comes across that way but what I saw for eight hours was those young Chinese torch attendants and my officers, and whilst we had some tactics for them to get out from time to time and run alongside the torch and cycle alongside it, they ended up running 12 to 15 miles that day, which was way beyond the expectations I had of them or even that they had of themselves. They were subject to attack, assault, things being thrown at them. They were dressed in their protective outfits so they were extremely hot and bothered, but they stuck at their task throughout the day, and I think we must always remember what those individuals themselves went through on what was meant to have been a joyous and celebratory occasion.

Q37 Mrs Dean: It is reported that the Australian Prime Minister and other authorities have threatened to ban the Chinese Security Service involvement in the Canberra leg of the relay. In your view, would that have been possible here? Would it have been better not to have them?

Commander Broadhurst: Two things. Although they threatened that before the Canberra leg, of course, the Canberra leg has since happened and the Chinese did run. They brokered an agreement. I think they halved the number or something like that. Actually, the French, the Americans and the Australians all rang us for advice and guidance following it. With hindsight, again, we could have gone to them and said, "We will not have the Chinese in any way, shape or form as torch attendants." I think that we would then not have had the torch relay in London. There were several intimations beforehand, when some of the negotiations got a bit hard, particularly around protesters, that they would not bring the torch through London. Again, that is not my decision. That is a decision for the event organisers. I genuinely think had we expected what perhaps turned out and had we thought that they were heavy-handed and put our foot down, we would not have had the torch. They would said, "This is contrary to the Olympic arrangement. We will take the torch to another capital city and give them the benefit of the exposure." I think that is probably what would have happened, madam.

Q38 Chairman: Have you seen a report in the Sunday Times stating that the Chinese want to parade the Olympic flame back again in London?

Commander Broadhurst: Yes, sir.

Q39 Chairman: Written by Mr Gadher on 13 April. Have you seen that?

Commander Broadhurst: We are aware of that, sir. That is the Paralympic torch.

Q40 Chairman: Is that going to happen?

Commander Broadhurst: Again, Chair, I await advice and guidance from the Greater London Authority. The Chinese let it be known some time last year that the Paralympic torch will go to about three cities around the world before it goes to Beijing to open the Paralympic Games. London was one of those cities. I have been asking the Greater London Authority for the last few weeks what are the plans, what are their expectations. They have yet to come back to me.

Q41 Chairman: Maybe they have been a bit busy!

Commander Broadhurst: They have been very busy, sir.

Chairman: You will get a decision now, I think.

Q42 Gwyn Prosser: Lastly, in terms of the status of the flame protection group, we have seen some reports saying that they were part of the Chinese Security Services but Ambassador Zhang, when he was defending their role, said, "They are trained technically to make sure the flame does not go out. I can assure you they are volunteers, they know the Olympic rules and regulations. If the flame was attacked, they would protect it with their bodies," but in terms of their status, do you understand that to mean they are young men who have volunteered to protect the torch or are they security officers and amongst security officers they have said, "We will volunteer to do this particular job"?

Commander Broadhurst: I would take that to mean that they are volunteers from within the Beijing Police Service, in the same way that we would probably look for volunteers from the Metropolitan Police who have a degree of fitness and who are willing to travel the world for three months and leave their families or whatever behind. I would imagine that is the status of volunteer there, sir.

Q43 Mr Winnick: The word "volunteer" is not unknown because those of us of a certain age group remember when the Korean War broke out, after a short while the Chinese were much involved on the ground, and the Chinese troops were always described as "volunteers", so I think we have a pretty good idea what "volunteers" means in China, which has a somewhat different meaning from in democracies.

Commander Broadhurst: Indeed, sir.

Q44 Chairman: You expected them to be volunteers. They turned out to be Jackie Chan, with their ability to bring people to the ground. Can I just ask you a couple of questions? Did you brief the flame security team when they arrived in the United Kingdom about the powers that they had? I assume that somebody would have had them in a room together and told them what they could and could not do.

Commander Broadhurst: Yes, sir.

Q45 Chairman: Who did that briefing?

Commander Broadhurst: It was the sergeant from our planning team, sir.

Q46 Chairman: A sergeant?

Commander Broadhurst: Yes.

Q47 Chairman: Were they told not to punch and push anyone?

Commander Broadhurst: They were told what their powers were. Whether they were told not to punch and push I do not know, sir, but again, I come back to - and I know this might be unpalatable---

Q48 Chairman: You do not know? You do not have a report of the briefing that was given to the Chinese Flame Security Team when they arrived in the United Kingdom?

Commander Broadhurst: I have not seen it personally, sir, no.

Q49 Chairman: So you do not know what happened at that meeting?

Commander Broadhurst: No, sir. I was not there.

Q50 Chairman: What about the sharing of information? You say that other countries contacted you following the torch going through London.

Commander Broadhurst: Indeed.

Q51 Chairman: Presumably you have given them all the information that they required?

Commander Broadhurst: Yes, sir, yes.

Q52 Chairman: Finally, what was the involvement of the Foreign Office in the meetings that you had with the GLA and the Home Office? Were there any Foreign Office representatives present?

Commander Broadhurst: Not to my knowledge, sir. Again, I was not at those planning meetings. They were my planning team and the Silver Commander.

Q53 Chairman: Commander Broadhurst, I understand you cannot be at every meeting because you are, of course, the Gold Commander but presumably there are minutes of these meetings.

Commander Broadhurst: Yes.

Q54 Chairman: Whenever I have been to a meeting with the police, there are copious notes of who attended and how long it lasted. Are there minutes of meetings which would demonstrate who attended these meetings?

Commander Broadhurst: There are, sir, but there were many and numerous meetings, not all of which, of course, we were at. My understanding was that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had a relatively peripheral role in terms of the overall event. The main players in terms of planning the event were the GLA, BOCOG and LOCOG.

Q55 Chairman: And the police had no direct contact with the Chinese Embassy in London? It was all done through the GLA?

Commander Broadhurst: We had direct contact, usually in those group meetings with the Chinese Ambassador, particularly in the latter part, when she was very concerned for her own security and safety, and we had to work with her and her own protection team around which part of the relay she would take part in. We had very good relationships with the Embassy on those parts of the business that we needed to do with them, but for the most part it was part of that planning team.

Q56 Chairman: Would you write to this Committee and give us an account of what happened in the briefing meeting?

Commander Broadhurst: Of the torch attendants?

Q57 Chairman: Indeed.

Commander Broadhurst: Indeed, sir, yes.

Chairman: What they were briefed to do and not to do. Commander Broadhurst, you have been extremely generous with your time. Thank you for coming at such very short notice to help the Committee with this very short inquiry. Thank you.