Home Office Evidence - Monday 14th March 2022 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:23 [Music] Good morning everyone. Welcome to today's hearing. Today we're going to continue hearing evidence from officials in what was the Department for

00:00:34 in what was the Department for Communities and Local Government. Yes, Mr. Caner. Sir, thank you. May I call Louise Upton? Thank you.

00:00:46 Let's stand behind the chair. Good morning, Miss Upton. I gather you're going to affirm. I am.

00:00:52 I am. Right. Well, the words are there on the screen. Would you read them out, please? Yes. I do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole

00:01:03 shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you very much. Now, please sit down. Make yourself comfortable.

00:01:11 Right. Yes, Mr. Cle. Sir, thank you. First of all, would you please confirm your name for the record? Louise Upton. Thank you, Miss Upton. Thank you for attending today to give evidence. It's

00:01:22 attending today to give evidence. It's much appreciated. Now, I shall try and keep my question short and simple. If I fail in that, please say so and I'll correct that error. Secondly, if at any time during your evidence you feel you

00:01:34 time during your evidence you feel you need a break, please say so. That's not a problem. Thirdly, could I ask you when you're giving evidence to keep your voice up, the microphones simply record what you're saying. They don't amplify

00:01:45 what you're saying. They don't amplify your voice. Now, you have produced two witness statements for the purposes of this inquiry. Um, could we go to the first one, which is a hom

00:01:56 one, which is a hom 46040?

00:02:00 And if we could turn to page 23

00:02:05 and we see it's dated the 12th of December 2018. Is that your signature above the date? Yes.

00:02:12 Yes. And your second witness statement is at hom50082.

00:02:20 And if we could go to page 28 again we see it's dated the uh 1st of September 2021. Is that your signature there? It is. Have you read both of those statements

00:02:31 Have you read both of those statements recently?

00:02:32 recently? Yes.

00:02:33 Yes. And are their contents true? Yes.

00:02:37 Yes. And there are a number of exhibits to both those witness statements. Have you reviewed those exhibits recently? Yes, I have. Thank you. Have you discussed your evidence with anyone here with anyone

00:02:49 evidence with anyone here with anyone before coming here today? No, just my um legal team. Thank you. Now the first topic I'd like to discuss with you is your professional background. Now you began your career in

00:03:01 background. Now you began your career in the civil service in the then department for the environment in March 1988. Is that right? Yes.

00:03:08 Yes. And in 2004 you joined the fire and resilience directorate which was then part of the office of the deputy prime minister. Is that right? That's right. And was that the first position you held

00:03:19 And was that the first position you held which concerned or touched upon fire safety policy matters? Yes, but it in 2004 it wasn't a fire safety policy role. It was more a um

00:03:31 safety policy role. It was more a um director at support role running the program looking at fire reform that came into the MHC at the time. Now in 2007 you joined

00:03:45 MHC at the time. Now in 2007 you joined the fire safety policy team which then sat in the department of communities and local government and you worked mainly on policy issues arising from the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005. Is that right?

00:03:56 2005. Is that right? Yes.

00:03:58 Yes. In 2000 in April 2009 uh you were promoted to civil service grade seven and were responsible for the and were responsible for the fire safety policy team. Is that right?

00:04:10 team. Is that right? And you and your team were responsible for the development, implementation and management of fire safety policies in respect of community fire safety but also fire legislation. Is that right?

00:04:22 also fire legislation. Is that right? Yes.

00:04:23 Yes. And fire safety legislation including the 2005 order? Yes, it was entirely the 2005 order. And also is it right that you held particular responsibility in your

00:04:35 held particular responsibility in your own words to ensure that the wider fire policy agenda within the directorate and across government was coherent and reflected the role of the fire and rescue authorities and others in delivering safer communities?

00:04:47 delivering safer communities? Yes.

00:04:49 Yes. Now if I could look at the size of uh your team um is it right that between 2011 and 12 and 2015 you were essentially a team of three. So yourself

00:05:01 essentially a team of three. So yourself an SEO and an H EO. Is that right? Yes.

00:05:06 Yes. Now

00:05:06 Now sorry, did you want to add to that? You looked you might. Yeah. Only to say which was it in my statement um that we had secunded um support from a

00:05:19 support from a serving fire officer who came in to support the work of the team for a period during that time. I was going to come on to that next, but if we could just deal first of all what is an SEO and what's an HO?

00:05:31 and what's an HO? A senior executive officer is an SEO and a higher executive officer is the HO and um so the HO reported to the SEO

00:05:45 um so the HO reported to the SEO um and the then they both reported to me as the grade seven. Thank you. Now, you touched on this earlier, but in 2013, um, you had additional resources from a member of

00:05:56 additional resources from a member of staff secconded from the fire and rescue service. Is that right? We did. Yeah. And who was that? That was Andy Stapleton from Essex. And how long? Fire and rescue service.

00:06:08 Fire and rescue service. And how long did he stay with you? I think it was I I think it was about a a year, maybe 18 months. And then did you go back down to your core team of three?

00:06:21 core team of three? Yes, briefly. And then we lost one of then we were a team of two after that. Now until January 2016, the secretary of

00:06:32 Now until January 2016, the secretary of state for communities and local government was ultimately responsible for fire safety policy, but day-to-day responsibility was held by Minister of State. Is that right?

00:06:43 State. Is that right? Yes, it is. Sorry, I'll stop I'll stop nodding and talk. Don't worry. I should if if you can say yes or no as the as the case demands, then the transcriber can catch what you say. Now, after January 2016,

00:06:55 say. Now, after January 2016, responsibility for fire safety policy and presumably your team also was transferred to the home office. Is that right?

00:07:02 right? Yes, it is. Now we don't need to go to it but um in uh your statement you say that in relation to the transfer of national fire policy to the home office that and I quote I was keen to see that

00:07:14 that and I quote I was keen to see that the linkage of the FSO that's the 2005 order to the fire safety elements part B of building regulations along the technical expertise that was available on practical fire safety matters was

00:07:26 on practical fire safety matters was maintained. I propose that consideration be given to retaining the element of my team's work on FSO related issues within MHCG.

00:07:36 MHCG. Why were you keen to retain that link? Well, I I think it was quite clear that it sat uncomfortably within um the wider

00:07:49 it sat uncomfortably within um the wider fire and resilience policy directorate which was looking very much at work force governance issues. the the legislation was unusual, I think, in

00:08:01 legislation was unusual, I think, in terms of what the department did in that it applied to businesses. Um the fire and rescue services um were the enforcing authority for the legislation,

00:08:12 enforcing authority for the legislation, but it was very outward facing to um workplaces, b business owners, um responsible people. And

00:08:24 And the link with the building regulations is that building safety and fire safety management of buildings started essentially with what how the building was constructed and you based your fire

00:08:38 was constructed and you based your fire safety management strategies around an an understanding of the building. I came from a policy background. I didn't have any technical

00:08:49 any technical um expertise at all in building safety, but I needed to talk to people in order to do

00:08:56 to do my job effectively. I felt it important to understand more technical information. Um

00:09:08 more technical information. Um and and and if I felt that I felt that business um owners and responsible people would also benefit from having that link between the building that they were occupying

00:09:20 the building that they were occupying and the fire safety management strategy brought together more holistically than perhaps we' done already. So it seemed Okay. Thank you. Now were you successful in maintaining that link?

00:09:32 in maintaining that link? Yes. now. And you remain responsible for the fire safety policy team until what date?

00:09:45 Um

00:09:49 that sorry that's quite hard. I took a career break it up post Greful everything changed quite significantly in terms of my role. So I haven't really

00:10:01 in terms of my role. So I haven't really thought about that so much. So it's hard to say when I moved on to more building safety issues, but I certainly took a career break from the beginning of

00:10:14 career break from the beginning of August 2018. So I would say from from there.

00:10:19 there. Thank you. Now turning to formal reporting lines. Um, is it right that you reported initially to Sandy Bishop and subsequently to Dawn Eastme, Cla Cooper, Khloe Dunnet, and then to Rod

00:10:31 Cooper, Khloe Dunnet, and then to Rod Mlan?

00:10:32 Mlan? Yes.

00:10:32 Yes. And were they deputy directors? Yes.

00:10:36 Yes. In brief, how did the deputy director oversee the work of your team?

00:10:43 Um, we we would have regular meetings, we would have work plans, action plans, we'd discuss um priorities. I had clear work through, you know, um

00:10:56 I had clear work through, you know, um my deputy director um in the in in in in the normal the usual way really. We'd have regular meetings.

00:11:08 way really. We'd have regular meetings. We'd establish links between policies. We'd discuss how we were going to um take things forward. We'd have regular reviews. Um

00:11:19 reviews. Um thank you. Now, could you raise a particular issue with the permanent secretary directly if you considered it to be sufficiently important? Yes. And I I assume that would that

00:11:33 Yes. And I I assume that would that would have been an option available to me. It it would have felt a nuclear option. Um and I didn't feel that the relationships in the team, you know, would have ever necessitated

00:11:45 would have ever necessitated that.

00:11:45 that. So, you never did. you never um could you bring matters directly to the attention of the minister uh for fire if you considered that issue to be sufficiently important?

00:11:58 Yes, through Yes, but generally through written submissions, but obviously if you were in a meeting and something came up, you would obviously discuss it with the minister as part of normal um

00:12:11 the minister as part of normal um conversations, policy conversations. But generally you prepared ministers with written work and a submission. And apart from matters which for example by law required ministerial approval um

00:12:24 by law required ministerial approval um in general terms what criteria would you apply in deciding what issues to put before the minister?

00:12:33 Well, there was a general presumption

00:12:39 that anything significant public safety wise would go to the min minister. We would put correspondence reviews. We would provide advice

00:12:51 would provide advice um on that and in discussions we' say well there's you know this is a significant issue. We should cite the minister on this. We'd know what was coming up. So it would be a fairly

00:13:02 coming up. So it would be a fairly flexible

00:13:04 flexible um

00:13:07 um approach but basically things that would come up in the course that the minister needed to know about in able to in order to respond to parliamentary or business meetings or

00:13:21 parliamentary or business meetings or stakeholder conversations. Could we describe it this way? Um in looking at what is significant for these purposes, you knew it when you saw it. Absolutely. That would have been a much

00:13:32 Absolutely. That would have been a much better way to say it. Now, could we go look at Brian Martin's witness statement which is at CLG0 1 9469/6

00:13:43 and paragraph 19 which starts on page six

00:13:50 and uh we can I'm sorry could I that's perfect because I just have it slightly larger. Don't worry, they will do they'll what will happen the document will come up and then the document manager will focus on

00:14:01 then the document manager will focus on the particular paragraph that we'll be needing to look at. So don't worry. Yeah. But if you can't read something just just right now looking at the last part of the final line on page six, Brian Martin um

00:14:13 final line on page six, Brian Martin um said this with reference to the building regulations. There is an important and if we go over the page distinction between the fire safety for buildings in use which is not

00:14:24 safety for buildings in use which is not within the scope of the regulations and fire safety in the design and construction of buildings which is within the scope of the regulations. And then if we look at the end of the third

00:14:36 then if we look at the end of the third line at the top of page seven he goes on to say this. These two areas of policy were delegated to two different junior ministers throughout my time in the department until January 2016 when the

00:14:48 department until January 2016 when the government decided to transfer responsibility for fire safety of buildings in use as well as responsibility for the fire and rescue services to the home office. Obviously,

00:14:59 services to the home office. Obviously, where there was a policy overlap between fire safety for buildings in use and the regulations, I would assist colleagues if the issue was within my expertise. Now, first of all, is that a fair

00:15:11 Now, first of all, is that a fair summary of the position he's given there?

00:15:13 there? Yes.

00:15:14 Yes. What areas of policy would Brian Martin assist you with?

00:15:21 Technical policy on the building regulations about which I knew um very little. Um

00:15:31 so what was required when a building was constructed? What would have happened when a building had been modified or changed? what what the actual um

00:15:42 changed? what what the actual um you requirement was.

00:15:47 He also helped me from a understanding um

00:15:54 um how fire safety would be looked at, you know, the bigger picture stuff, the connections between the various things that um buildings required. and he understood the legislation and

00:16:05 understood the legislation and stakeholders positions because it it was a small pool of fire safety expertise. We knew the same people. It was useful.

00:16:17 same people. It was useful. And how would these liaison arrangements work in practice? Oh, fairly informally. You know, we'd have we'd have a coffee or we'd be at meetings together or I'd send him an

00:16:28 meetings together or I'd send him an email or he'd send me an email. He was um was a very supportive, open, constructive relationship with Brian. Did those arrangements change following

00:16:40 Did those arrangements change following the transfer to the home office? Yes, because my our roles changed quite significantly. I think you know we became two different um you we weren't

00:16:51 became two different um you we weren't part of the same department. Um, so it did change, but I could still talk about issues of in so far as they related to buildings with with him. We

00:17:03 related to buildings with with him. We were still close colleagues. Can you give the panel only a broad idea of the circumstances in which you'd seek Brian Martin's advice or guidance?

00:17:19 of um when I wanted to test my understanding of things or the approach I wanted to take, I wanted to understand the

00:17:30 take, I wanted to understand the implications of that for a whole raft of people including you know um

00:17:40 know um bu building owners and building regulations and just to make sure that really

00:17:47 really the connection between the way the building had been made and how it was being managed. It was fairly they they were very very closely linked

00:17:58 they they were very very closely linked in in my mind and there was very few independent technical people that I could talk to about things I was thinking might be useful to

00:18:11 things I was thinking might be useful to do or not to do. And um is it fair to say the the impression from what you've said is that you greatly relied upon Brian Martin when it came to the technical matters arising

00:18:23 came to the technical matters arising from the building regulations but also his advice and experience and expertise from the fire safety sector more generally? Yes. Yes.

00:18:32 Yes. Yes. Was there any formal reporting line between you and Brian Martin? No. Was there any formal reporting line between you and for example the chief fire and rescue adviser?

00:18:43 fire and rescue adviser? No.

00:18:46 No. Could we go to um your first witness statement um which we find at HOR0460

00:18:53 4/3.

00:18:58 And if we could look at paragraph nine and the fourth line down

00:19:06 now there you say in that line and I quote it also required close collaboration with experienced fire safety practitioners within the chief fire and rescue advisers unit. Now first

00:19:18 fire and rescue advisers unit. Now first of all on what particular matters would you seek the advice from the chief uh fire and rescue adviser?

00:19:35 Um

00:19:39 I'm not I suppose it was more having conversations. So Ken Knight as chief fire and rescue adviser had um technical support and in his team through Pete Weiss. So I of I would more usually talk

00:19:52 Weiss. So I of I would more usually talk to Pete Weiss who was a fire safety um

00:19:59 um had

00:20:01 had had done fire safety who's a fire safety engineer and had done fire safety enforcement. So on how the order worked practically I talked to Pete but Ken was very engaged in

00:20:13 very engaged in bios safety and was very open and approachable and was a useful sounding board. So I can't remember specific incidents but he was always available to

00:20:26 incidents but he was always available to chat about things too. Thank you. Now the second matter I'd like to discuss with you today is the um document entitled initial evaluation into the effectiveness of the fire

00:20:38 into the effectiveness of the fire safety order. And if we could stay in this your first statement but go to page four and paragraph 14.

00:20:48 Now what you say there is this. One of the first projects that I was involved in on joining the team was the commissioning of an initial valuation of the effectiveness of the FSO. The

00:21:00 the effectiveness of the FSO. The findings of which were presented in a communities and local government report entitled initial evaluation of the effectiveness of the regulatory reform fire safety order published on the 1st

00:21:11 fire safety order published on the 1st of March 2009. Um, first of all, what was your particular role in that project? It was it was the first job I did I

00:21:22 It was it was the first job I did I think when I came into the fire safety team. The order had been um in operation for about 18 months and it was kind of good policy practice to see

00:21:35 was kind of good policy practice to see how um it was really working out in practice. So my role was to um commission the research company to carry

00:21:48 commission the research company to carry out the

00:21:50 out the um project, the evaluation to what work with others to establish the scope what we really wanted to look at to draft the topic guides for the various sectors

00:22:01 topic guides for the various sectors whose views we wanted to understand on the order

00:22:07 the order and who carried out the research. into the effectiveness of the order. Can you remember now? No. Um I'm I'm sorry I can't. Who drafted the report? The company who um did the evaluation

00:22:21 The company who um did the evaluation drafted the report. Uh did you have any role at all in the drafting or did you simply review the the draft texts that were provided to you? No, we we played I I played a fairly significant role in um

00:22:35 fairly significant role in um reviewing the draft and shaping the eventual report. Now if we can bearing that in mind stay with paragraph 14 and you go on to say

00:22:46 with paragraph 14 and you go on to say this and I quote this was intended I the report was intended to assess how the FSO was establishing itself with the enforcing authorities with responsible

00:22:57 enforcing authorities with responsible persons and with the fire safety in uh industry. What had prompted the review in the first place? Oh just the the newness of the legislation. I think it was um the the

00:23:11 legislation. I think it was um the the the legislation was introduced. It was slightly delayed. The team that had um worked on on putting it together had been disbanded and there was no

00:23:24 been disbanded and there was no I don't think there was very much expertise left on what had happened um within the department, you know, on why the legislation was the way it was. So it was just it's just good policy

00:23:35 it was just it's just good policy practice I think to take an early look at is it working as we expected it to? Is there more that we might need to do to smooth it because it was such a significant piece of legislation for

00:23:49 significant piece of legislation for everybody running a business or operating a workplace. Who decided to set up the review? Was it at permanent secretary level or was it at deputy director level?

00:24:01 at deputy director level? Um I

00:24:04 Um I I've don't know the answer. So beyond what you've identified um the report was aimed at giving an overall view of the effectiveness of the legislation and there and there were no

00:24:15 legislation and there and there were no particular concerns about its operation. Is that a fair summary? Yes, that's a fair summary. Now can we go to the report itself which is at hom

00:24:27 go to the report itself which is at hom 4602

00:24:30 4602 slash1.

00:24:36 Can I safely assume that you read the report?

00:24:39 report? Yes.

00:24:41 Yes. Um who was the intended audience?

00:24:47 I think policy officials of the the department but certainly um other other departments would have been interested. It was published. It was of

00:25:00 interested. It was published. It was of interest to business to fire and rescue authorities um the public and to stakeholders. I think it was anybody with an interest in fire safety

00:25:12 fire safety um would have been interested in how this piece of legislation was embedding I imagine. Now can we turn to page eight and the executive summary

00:25:23 and the second paragraph on that page says this. Following a series of scoping interviews with sector stakeholders, face-to-face and telephone

00:25:34 stakeholders, face-to-face and telephone depth interviews were conducted with series of bullet points. Now, 20 enforcers, primarily fire and rescue authorities, FAS, but also the other

00:25:45 authorities, FAS, but also the other enforcers listed under article 25 of the FSA. Second bullet point, 15 representatives from the fire safety industry, including some third party safety consultants. and third 45

00:25:58 safety consultants. and third 45 businesses split across a variety of sectors and company sizes. First of all, who decided the uh substance of the consultes? So, who

00:26:09 substance of the consultes? So, who decided who was going to be consulted?

00:26:18 the um we would have in the policy team decided decided that and was the aim to get as broad a consulty uh constituency as was possible.

00:26:31 possible. Yes, but within constraints I mean it was massive the fire safety order and so it had to be narrowed down you know within affordability constraints and

00:26:43 within affordability constraints and time constraints. So um yeah,

00:26:47 yeah, can we turn to page 11

00:26:53 and we see um somewhere down the start of that page is the heading responsible person's key findings. And if we go over the page to page 12,

00:27:05 you'll see just below halfway there's a heading conclusions. But can we just look at the paragraph above that subheading which says this? There was a concern expressed by some of those

00:27:16 concern expressed by some of those interviewed from each of the interested parties whether enforcers, businesses or the fire safety industry over the variability in the level of competence evident in the work of independent fire

00:27:28 evident in the work of independent fire risk assessors or fire safety consultants. This led to some demands for a system of accreditation to be put in place to quality assure the work of such organizations or individuals.

00:27:40 organizations or individuals. Few of the responsible persons interviewed were aware of any independently operated accredititation schemes for fire risk assessors. Now, were you aware of the nature and extent

00:27:52 were you aware of the nature and extent of those concerns at the time the report was commissioned?

00:28:00 No, I don't think so. I because I think I'd just joined and really pic picked this up then. I think it was this was as much an introduction to me to fire safety issues as it was to um everybody

00:28:12 safety issues as it was to um everybody else.

00:28:13 else. And when you uh saw the draft uh of this report, um were there any conversations amongst policy officials which said, "Well, that's a surprise or

00:28:24 "Well, that's a surprise or alternatively that confirms what we suspected." did anything along those lines?

00:28:29 lines? No, I think I think we we did know that the the order extended previous um regulations, workplace regulations. So there was a cohort of larger businesses

00:28:42 there was a cohort of larger businesses that were well used to or we understood were well used to delivering fire risk assessments in their premises. But it brought in a whole range of smaller

00:28:54 whole range of smaller medium-siz enterprises and other type of premises who for whom the duties to carry out risk assessments would be new. So how we did want to know how they were

00:29:06 So how we did want to know how they were coping with that and where they were getting the advice from and there was obviously the government suite of guidance documents. So understanding how that had landed with the um the people

00:29:18 that had landed with the um the people it was intended for was of interest and obviously

00:29:24 obviously the orders introduction I think created a um

00:29:32 a um industry of people who didn't have qualifications who were able to tout fire risk assessment services to new businesses um were businesses that were

00:29:44 businesses um were businesses that were bought within scope of the order. Um, and so it was an opportunity I mean there was correspondence saying I don't understand do I really have to do this as my fire risk assessor has told me to

00:29:57 as my fire risk assessor has told me to do this. So we did know that there were issues

00:30:00 issues around it and so it was by putting in these questions we were aiming to bottom out some of get some evidence around that. Now, if we can

00:30:11 evidence around that. Now, if we can turn to page 82,

00:30:17 here's the conclusion chapter itself. But if we could turn over the page to 83,

00:30:24 83, we see the emboldened text in the first bullet point at the very top of that page. And it says this, "Greater clarity about who may have an appropriate level of competency to assist with delivering

00:30:35 of competency to assist with delivering compliance under the FSO and advice on how to access it." And below in plain text, it said this. Enforcers recognize that responsible persons may wish to use

00:30:47 that responsible persons may wish to use someone with greater fire expertise than themselves to carry out a risk assessment. They would welcome an agreed accreditation system. Some businesses and some in the fire safety industry

00:30:59 and some in the fire safety industry would also welcome such a scheme. Generally, where responsible persons had used a third party, they tended to be happy with the quality and value of the risk assessment.

00:31:10 risk assessment. Now, it would seem that certainly by March 2009, you and other policy officials were at least aware of concerns amongst enforcing authorities and some responsible persons about the competency

00:31:23 responsible persons about the competency of certain uh third party fire risk assessors. Have I summarized matters fairly?

00:31:29 fairly? Absolutely.

00:31:32 Now, could we go back? Apologies. We're going to be jumping between documents. So, can I apologize in advance for doing so, but if we can go back to your first statement, which is hom46045.

00:31:48 And if we could look at paragraph 16 of your statement, uh you say this. Following the publication of the report, part of the work of the team became focused on designing and implementing a

00:31:59 focused on designing and implementing a program of work to address these early findings, including working with a number of fire safety organizations to establish a process for ensuring and providing assurance of the competency of

00:32:10 providing assurance of the competency of those providing commercial risk assessment services. What was the process you were seeking to establish there?

00:32:20 I think we wanted we wanted to um understand I think from the sector of the what scope there was to um

00:32:36 the what scope there was to um put in place a mechanism which would allow people who wanted to be risk assessors if they wanted to be risk assessors and to then take you to

00:32:47 risk assessors and to then take you to be able to evidence base the fact that they had some competency to do the task in hand. The way it was at the moment in March 2009,

00:33:00 March 2009, anybody could say I'm a fire risk assessor. Um, so we really wanted to talk to people who either

00:33:11 either were professional fire safety expertise or in the fire safety business um to to just work with them to to look at how we could collaborate to support responsible

00:33:25 could collaborate to support responsible persons in identifying people. Um, and at that stage, is it fair to say that neither you or any other policy officials had any firm or developed

00:33:36 officials had any firm or developed ideas of what that process might look like?

00:33:39 like? Yeah.

00:33:40 Yeah. Now, uh, on the 11th of June 2009, uh, you attended a chief fire officers association enforcement working group meeting. Now, the minutes um of that,

00:33:51 meeting. Now, the minutes um of that, uh, um, meeting can be found at hom12153.

00:33:58 If we could look at page two and paragraph 11 in those minutes. Thank you. Now you'll see paragraph 11 roughly halfway down the page there. Um the

00:34:10 halfway down the page there. Um the following is recorded. CLG, that's the department recognized that the recent evaluation of the FSO had indicated that many of those affected by the order would welcome the availability of a

00:34:22 would welcome the availability of a nationally recognized accreditation scheme for risk assessors. Whilst this was not something that government would develop, the CLG were encouraging the industry and others including CEO to

00:34:35 industry and others including CEO to work together to establish such a register to help businesses identify those with an appropriate level competency uh to advise on risk assessment under the order. Now, when

00:34:47 assessment under the order. Now, when had a decision been made that a nationally recognized accreditation scheme was to quote not something the government would develop close quotes.

00:35:00 I think that comes back from when the order had um sto been introduced. It was very clear at the time that this wasn't going to be a consultant's charter. So

00:35:15 going to be a consultant's charter. So um I wasn't involved in those discussions. I don't remember what deliberations were had around it. But certainly the government produced its own guidance to

00:35:27 government produced its own guidance to support the people it thought would benefit from having more detailed risk assessment. The small to mediumsized lowrisk premises. Um there was guidance

00:35:41 lowrisk premises. Um there was guidance documents for them. So I think because we were looking in 2009 at evaluating the effectiveness of the order, we weren't reviewing first principles of

00:35:52 weren't reviewing first principles of the order. Was it right? It was quite clear that you know we couldn't easily introduce a mandatory scheme. So, we were looking at how to

00:36:03 scheme. So, we were looking at how to make it work better and responding to business concerns, saying some businesses saying they would like to know who a competent risk

00:36:15 like to know who a competent risk assessor was. Would it be fair to say, and please shout if this isn't, that you effectively inherited a presumption against um a nationally recognized

00:36:27 against um a nationally recognized accreditation scheme?

00:36:32 No, I'm not sure that I'm I I I think a mandatory, you know, in order for there to be a mandatory system of risk assessor, you would have had to have something um

00:36:43 would have had to have something um behind that. you'd have to have um so so it kind of followed on from the logic of there not being any specification for what a competent person might look like.

00:36:55 what a competent person might look like. So you couldn't introduce legislation on the back of that. You needed to start with the principle of competency first of all. But there was no appetite

00:37:06 first of all. But there was no appetite from business to universally to have um a competent accredited um risk assessor. So

00:37:19 um risk assessor. So at the time we did this, we were looking to see at how we could make the wheels of the order

00:37:28 order roll more smoothly for businesses who wanted it to rather than introduce more legislation. Now can we turn to uh the third topic

00:37:40 Now can we turn to uh the third topic I'd like to discuss with you today and that's the fire that broke out at Latin House in July 2009. Now immediately following that fire uh a report was published by Sir Ken Knight

00:37:52 report was published by Sir Ken Knight who is then the chief fire and rescue adviser

00:37:55 adviser uh before we go to the report itself um dealing with the period up to that report uh you say in your second witness statement at paragraph 7 on page three and the reference for that is hom

00:38:10 and the reference for that is hom 50082

00:38:12 50082 slash3 three at paragraph 7 you said this my team so the end of the first line my team were thinking about how best to make progress

00:38:24 thinking about how best to make progress on this particular finding from spring 2009 I can't recall what progress had been made including whether any early advice had been put to ministers on either the findings of the evaluation or

00:38:36 either the findings of the evaluation or emerging proposals for acting on them however the lack house fire on the 3rd of July 2009 and Sen Knight's report into the emerging findings from the tragedy was a catalyst for focusing

00:38:48 tragedy was a catalyst for focusing effort on this work. Now, is that another way of saying that between March 2009 when the initial evaluation was published and July 2009

00:38:59 evaluation was published and July 2009 when the Lacknel fire broke out that no or no substantive progress had been made on uh evaluating what needed to be done flowing from the initial evaluation

00:39:11 flowing from the initial evaluation report?

00:39:16 Yeah, I think we were thinking our way into it on top of, you know, there were other things going on. I think we were thinking our way into how best we would do it, what resources we would need, but

00:39:28 do it, what resources we would need, but that there was certainly um nothing set in stone at that point. I think we recognized in a small team that it was a a significant chunk of work which would

00:39:42 a significant chunk of work which would require

00:39:44 require careful thought on how to deliver and what

00:39:48 what could we go to your first statement again hom460405

00:39:56 and paragraph 17

00:40:03 What you say there is this. Although the team's priorities changed following the fatal fire at Lacnull House which occurred on 3rd of July 2009, we sought to maintain progress on this work. How

00:40:15 to maintain progress on this work. How did the team's priorities change following Latn?

00:40:21 Well, essentially I kind of became the coordination point of pulling together all of the work that was going on across the

00:40:32 work that was going on across the department um in terms of housing, um

00:40:38 um the fire safety order

00:40:43 regulations, that whole kind of recovery piece of work, understanding what had happened, advising ministers, um daily it became

00:40:54 um daily it became what are we doing to address the issues that the lack house has revealed or you know a potential risk a risk in um

00:41:05 you know a potential risk a risk in um housing and I kind of held the ring on became the conduit the one point of single point of contact from everybody across the department feeding in and I

00:41:17 across the department feeding in and I think it was the fire safety um policy unit that pulled coordinated much of the advice up to ministers um and obviously the order

00:41:29 to ministers um and obviously the order looking at the extent to which it applied how um London Fire Brigade had responded it was it was a really big issue for the whole of the um fire

00:41:41 issue for the whole of the um fire safety unit in terms of work. Now turning to the final report prepared uh by Saken on emerging issues from the fire. Um we can find it at hom

00:41:54 fire. Um we can find it at hom uh quadruple 01092.

00:42:01 Uh we can see it was published on the 30th of July 2009. Did you or your team helped directly with the drafting of Sen's report? No. Uh did you discuss any matters

00:42:13 No. Uh did you discuss any matters arising from his deliberations either with Sen or with Peter Wise? Yes, we would we would have stayed in touch. You know the Yes, probably

00:42:25 touch. You know the Yes, probably or you did. Yeah, we would have. Yeah, it was scope. Yes. Yes.

00:42:32 Yes. Okay. Now, if we can just follow through that. Can we go to an email exchange um uh from Peter Wise to Sen? You can find it hom1161

00:42:49 if that could be amplified.

00:42:54 Is that okay to see Miss Miss Upton? Yeah.

00:42:57 Yeah. Thank you. Now we can see it's an email dated the 28th of July 2009. So 2 days before uh Sir Ken's final report on Lacknel was published. Uh the opening

00:43:09 Lacknel was published. Uh the opening sentence told sen uh that Peter Weise had had a quote very full discussion with you

00:43:16 with you about the FSO recommendation. First of all, do you remember that conversation?

00:43:25 No, I don't doubt it happened. I don't remember.

00:43:28 remember. Can you remember the gist of that conversation at all?

00:43:36 No. But having read further I I can see it was around whether SKEN should would recommend legislation.

00:43:48 legislation. Now had you seen at this stage so late July 2009 just before Sen's final report was published had you seen a draft text of that report before your conversation

00:44:01 of that report before your conversation with Mr. Weise? I can't remember. Are you able to assist the panel? Was it likely that you would have seen a draft text or can you not remember at all?

00:44:14 I suppose it's Yeah. No, I can't remember. I think it was quite kept under wraps. I I might have seen bits of it, but I I don't think I saw the whole report. No,

00:44:27 think I saw the whole report. No, let's go further into this email and see whether this helps recollection or not. Um, Peter Weise reported to Ken this that she I that's you Miss Upton is

00:44:39 that she I that's you Miss Upton is uncomfortable that any recommendations about legislation be made at such an early stage. I pointed out that's Mr. Wise that these are emerging issues and will necessarily have heavily I think he

00:44:52 will necessarily have heavily I think he means caveed and that your report is independent. Now, Saken's evidence was that he'd had in mind amending article nine of the order uh to place a duty on

00:45:03 nine of the order uh to place a duty on responsible persons to retain a competent person to carry out a risk assessment of high risk premises. Was that particular recommendation what

00:45:16 Was that particular recommendation what you'd been discussing with Peter Wise? Yes, I imagine so.

00:45:26 Uh were you uncomfortable with that recommendation? Yeah, I think it was quite clear from the evaluation. I would I would have been quite uncomfortable because it was

00:45:37 been quite uncomfortable because it was quite clear that not all for the reasons we spoke about earlier that it wasn't universal that people wanted um

00:45:49 accredited risk assessors. It was working quite well for some. It was um

00:46:00 too early. I I would have I think we would we had already started working on the idea of what we could do to improve the situation for those that

00:46:11 to improve the situation for those that wanted um

00:46:14 wanted um to employ a competent risk assessor. And it it felt I imagine it would have felt premature given how new the order was to use that

00:46:27 given how new the order was to use that report.

00:46:29 report. Was that view to recommend legislation? Was your view more broadly held at DCLG?

00:46:41 I don't think there was much appetite for more regulation um or legislation at this point in time because

00:46:51 because was that appetite prompted by anything specific i.e. a direction or instruction from a minister or was it a a general assessment that there was little

00:47:02 assessment that there was little appetite from the market for further regulation?

00:47:08 No, I think that I think some in the market would have quite liked more regulation. We were, you know, there was always calls for more regulation. there was no push from ministers around um

00:47:24 was no push from ministers around um more more regulation in this space and we also at this point hadn't had I suppose it felt early the dust was really this was emerging findings on

00:47:36 really this was emerging findings on lacanon we just didn't know what had happened we didn't know whether there had been a risk assess I think we didn't know whether there had been a risk assessment or who'd done it or the quality of that risk assessment. It just

00:47:48 quality of that risk assessment. It just felt early a month after lack house. I'd say

00:47:53 I'd say sorry to interrupt Mr. G. Can you just help me with this? Um I think we've seen from the earlier um review of the order that the department had become aware

00:48:04 that the department had become aware that

00:48:06 that the quality of fire risk assessors out there in the market was a bit mixed to put it at its lowest. Is that fair? Yeah. So what was the government's view on how that should be sorted out? Was it

00:48:19 on how that should be sorted out? Was it thought that the market would sift out the good from the not so good or

00:48:27 or what was it? Yes, I I I think that's probably

00:48:32 probably true that it was early days and that the industry would deal with a lot of the issues that the order presented, but it needed I think it needed the department

00:48:43 needed I think it needed the department to encourage that work. You know, we it needed some focus and impetus perhaps. But that would suggest that the department was content to allow a period

00:48:57 department was content to allow a period to elapse during which at least some of the fire risk assessors operating in the market were not really up to scratch.

00:49:09 up to scratch. Well, we didn't have the evidence of that. I think that was quite difficult. But certainly

00:49:19 certainly in order to have published the FSO evaluation report ministers would have been aware and it would have been cleared. they would have seen the

00:49:30 cleared. they would have seen the findings.

00:49:31 findings. Um

00:49:34 Um and and at that point I think we thought it was it was early days and the market would

00:49:42 could be encouraged to provide better it and it may be that it could but it seems to me at the moment that the government was willing to allow a rather

00:49:53 government was willing to allow a rather mixed bag of fire risk assessors to continue practicing Um,

00:49:58 Um, well, I think it ma made that decision when it introduced the legislation in the way it it did. It was very I wasn't involved at the

00:50:09 It was very I wasn't involved at the time, but it was very clear that I assume people would have made the point, but the fact that the order was never intended to be a consultant's charter.

00:50:19 charter. Well, I'm I'm wondering in part how the responsible person who is the person who must make or procure the suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment would be

00:50:31 sufficient fire risk assessment would be able to judge whether a particular uh person offering services as a fire risk assessor was competent to do it.

00:50:42 I don't I don't know as as they they would we provided guidance to to help people. So um they could do it themselves, you know, with with no other competence

00:50:54 you know, with with no other competence than than the guidance document that was available from the government, but they could.

00:51:01 could. All right. Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Clear.

00:51:03 Clear. Miss Upton, the decision or the view that it was premature to amend article 9 appears to be formed by

00:51:15 amend article 9 appears to be formed by you rather than by a minister. Is that right?

00:51:22 Yes. Me and and in discussion with um I suppose my my policy colleagues and and my team. Um so stopping there if I can stop. Who were the policy officials and colleagues

00:51:33 were the policy officials and colleagues with whom you discussed this particular point in reaching the view that you did? Well, it would have certainly I imagine have been at least my line manager um when we and

00:51:45 when we and her line manager when we had had the report we would have thought what would we do will we so it would have been uh the likes of people deputy director level Dornice me and the likes of her

00:51:56 and the likes of her Sandy Bishop at the time and yes but it wasn't something that was authorized or endorsed by ministers at this stage I don't remember putting advice to

00:52:08 I don't remember putting advice to ministers with a choice. And if you had, there would be a submission that would have shown. Yeah.

00:52:14 Yeah. And there isn't. No.

00:52:17 No. Now, if we can go back to Mr. Weise's email, um, you'll see in the third full paragraph, um, he said this, her view, that's yours, is that any review of the legislation would be unwelcome.

00:52:29 legislation would be unwelcome. First of all, did Mr. Weise accurately summarize your view at the time?

00:52:46 I'm I'm not sure about that. I suppose I mean we'd done the evaluation. We'd always it was it was intended to be a snapshot with view to a formal review later. Um

00:53:00 later. Um but I'm welcome to whom to you to ministers to the part of the part of industry to whom

00:53:12 to whom I think

00:53:14 I think to a lot yes um I suppose

00:53:21 I suppose to industry we would have it I I suppose I would have thought about it in the round. It was new legislation. It was bedding in it needed time. Um we had a government

00:53:35 it needed time. Um we had a government that didn't particularly want more regulation. Certainly the the department wasn't resourced to deliver more legislation at the time. That's not to

00:53:46 legislation at the time. That's not to say we couldn't have been had it been seen as sufficiently um important. I suppose at the time Pete and I talked about this,

00:54:00 Pete and I talked about this, I'm not sure it would have been unwelcome, but it might have been premature.

00:54:07 What I'm sort of going back to is that clearly in the initial evaluation report there are clear express reservations um from some of those interviewed about the

00:54:18 from some of those interviewed about the absence of competency and something need to be done to address that. Yeah.

00:54:24 Yeah. It appears, and correct me if this is wrong, that those views were disregarded for the reason that it was considered

00:54:35 for the reason that it was considered premature to substantially or in any way revise the order. Is that a fair summary in respect of article 9? Yes, I think we thought there were other ways we could

00:54:47 thought there were other ways we could address potentially working with the sector the concerns that had been raised for those businesses that were were asking.

00:54:56 asking. Now, let's assume that Mr. Wise is broadly faithful in reporting your views on uh revisions to the legislation being unwelcome.

00:55:08 unwelcome. Didn't that indication to Mr. wise frustrate the purpose of asking Sir Ken for his views which was to get an independent ostensibly expert view on the emerging matters arising from Latn

00:55:23 the emerging matters arising from Latn well I I I think it was a conversation that might have informed but I but it wasn't a don't don't do this I think you know it was it was a it was a

00:55:36 know it was it was a it was a a policy com it was a a policy conversation probably around um

00:55:44 um bringing in the broader all of the issues that I've kind of touched on there to inform. I'm not sure I know from this what Ken's

00:55:57 I know from this what Ken's recommendation was. Assume it was to make to amend the order to require competent risk assessors. The complexity around that was there just wasn't that

00:56:08 around that was there just wasn't that market even in place at the moment. You know, there was no way to there was no identified competency framework. So you you were starting in the wrong place or

00:56:19 you were starting in the wrong place or you'd introduce potentially without doing the work to get a competency framework in place. There was nothing to introduce that would be that helpful for

00:56:30 introduce that would be that helpful for business. So it kind of caught before horse possibly. But you were sending a a signal and I'd suggest a clear signal to Mr. Wise uh that any proposed revision

00:56:42 Mr. Wise uh that any proposed revision of the order uh would not be looked on favorably

00:56:45 favorably at this point in time on potentially uh because it was so new. So the answer is yes to my question. Yes.

00:56:55 Yes. Can we look at the fourth full paragraph in this email uh where he the impression is that you informed Mr. wise that and I quote policy have already proposed with

00:57:06 quote policy have already proposed with to get together with stakeholders to try and define what a third party accredititation scheme would look like for risk assessors. This would tidy up this area in that it would fit with the government agenda to industryled

00:57:19 government agenda to industryled assurance. Um, had you told him that? So, I've just Yes,

00:57:23 Yes, if I can just pause. Um, I think the transcript may well have stopped working. That's back on. Sorry. Um, had you told him that?

00:57:34 Um, had you told him that? Yes. I mean, it it was a clear recommendation from the evaluation and we were working on it. So, Mr. Weise continues in the next paragraph along the following lines. If

00:57:45 paragraph along the following lines. If the recommendation is to review the FSA, we need to be aware of policy concerns. If we are concerned about competence, then policies present proposals may suffice which could be captured in the

00:57:57 suffice which could be captured in the following recommendation. quote, "A review should be undertaken on how the responsible person under the FSO can satisfy themselves that the suitability and sufficiency of their risk

00:58:08 and sufficiency of their risk assessments is adequate, particularly where the premises is of higher risk and falls outside the scope of CLG guidance documents aimed at low-risk premises. This is particularly important where

00:58:20 This is particularly important where they may rely on employing someone else to undertake the risk assessment." had you suggested that particular recommendation either in those words or the gist to Mr. Weise?

00:58:32 the gist to Mr. Weise? Yeah, that's that sounds um quite likely.

00:58:37 likely. Put bluntly uh Miss Upton, what business was it of yours uh to interfere in the preparation of an ostensibly independent report from Sken in this way,

00:58:48 report from Sken in this way, particularly in relation to recommendations? Well, I think I I I think we would have discussed the recommend if if Ken's I suppose we would

00:59:01 recommend if if Ken's I suppose we would have discussed what the intention of the recommendation was, which from this paragraph, which I'm sorry is a bit small for me. um to review the FS FSO

00:59:15 small for me. um to review the FS FSO might to to make that one change would have been um potentially disproportionate and because I think we probably just I

00:59:26 I think we probably just I I'm not sure I drafted that recommendation for Ken. It would have been up to Ken as you know to decide whether to accept it or not. But it was definitely um

00:59:38 um reflected the work that was ongoing within

00:59:43 within the team and might deal with Ken's particular concern in a more measured way than

00:59:53 I if his um recommendation had been to review the whole of the FSO. But the practical reality there, Miss Upton, and I'd suggest to you, is that you you you were

01:00:05 suggest to you, is that you you you were using back channels to shape and influence Sir Ken's recommendations, which were meant to be certainly to the viewing public independent. Would you

01:00:16 viewing public independent. Would you accept that? Well, we would have policy conversations to inform the recommendations, but I and I think Kim probably would have done that with a number of

01:00:29 that with a number of people to think about the issues that you know were coming out of the fire. I don't

01:00:36 don't the

01:00:37 the but I can see you can see what how you may think that that was influencing his report. Now could we go back to the report

01:00:48 Now could we go back to the report itself on the bottom half of page 11 hom quadruple 0109211.

01:01:03 Uh we see here um the heading regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 and then a subheading emerging issues in italics and the text said this. There is a

01:01:14 and the text said this. There is a requirement in the fire safety order to appoint one or more competent persons to assist the responsible person in undertaking the preventable and protective fire safety measures within premises. However, there is no similar

01:01:26 premises. However, there is no similar requirement for a competent person to be appointed to assist in making a suitable and sufficient risk assessment. It is important that assurance be given to both the responsible person for the

01:01:37 both the responsible person for the premises and the enforcing authority that a risk assessment has been undertaken by a competent person particularly in relation to high risk premises. Now were you clear that sen

01:01:49 premises. Now were you clear that sen considered that it was important that the responsible person should be assured that a risk assessment had been undertaken by competent person. Yes. Uh that was in substance the

01:02:03 Yes. Uh that was in substance the identical issue of competence that had been identified in the initial evaluation report, wasn't it? By some. Yeah. And nothing had been done in the 15 months since the uh initial evaluation

01:02:15 months since the uh initial evaluation effectively to address the concerns about competence or at all. Would you accept that? No, because the report was published in March 200

01:02:26 March 200 n and there was only three months before Lacanol House Ken's report came out, but nothing had been done in the intervening period.

01:02:37 intervening period. Well, I think we probably had some conversation. We could I mean Pete Pete's email suggests that I'd reported back to him that we were looking at this. I just can't remember how far

01:02:49 this. I just can't remember how far those conversations had got with interested parties in the sector. You know, the gearing up that we'd done to look at what we might do. I think

01:03:00 think by the time of lackl house, we would have been working on an action plan. I'm just not sure that there's written evidence of how far we'd got with it. But

01:03:10 But conversations, but nothing had been reduced to paper. In short, is that the position? Now if we can go to page 12 and uh there is a box at the top headed

01:03:22 and uh there is a box at the top headed areas for consideration and it said this consideration should be given to conducting a review as to how the responsible person under the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 can be

01:03:33 reform fire safety order 2005 can be assured that their assessment of risk is suitable and sufficient particularly where the premises is of a higher risk. This assurance is particularly important where the responsible person may be relying on using someone else to

01:03:44 relying on using someone else to undertake the risk assessment. Where appropriate, the current fire safety order guidance should be amended accordingly. Now, did you understand

01:03:55 Now, did you understand uh that to be effectively recommending an amendment to article 9 of the order?

01:04:03 No. What did you understand that to be? I I understood that to be a recommendation

01:04:15 that to be a recommendation that we looked at how to give responsible people assurance and that once a way to do that had been established, we could include that in

01:04:26 established, we could include that in guidance. So it was available for both enforcing authorities or responsible people to decide whether they felt able to do it, whether they were happy with the arrangements they

01:04:38 were happy with the arrangements they had already got or whether they wanted to go to somebody different potentially.

01:04:48 Mindful of that answer, what steps were taken to implement the review commended here by Saken.

01:04:56 So um we acted fairly quickly. We were a very small team. I had discussions with um my line manager Sandy Bishop and we agreed

01:05:08 line manager Sandy Bishop and we agreed that we had some resource within um the unit's budget and that we could employ a um in-house the

01:05:19 that we could employ a um in-house the department at the time had an in-house consultancy unit which we obviously had to pay for um but there was resource available to do this and it was a specific

01:05:31 specific task we could scope about a um contract to bring in consultancy support to help us um navigate with the sector how best we might

01:05:43 we might consider the the big question of what could be done. Was revision or amendment of article 9 effectively ruled out from the outset?

01:06:05 I'm not sure because other anybody could have said, "Well, no, this is so serious. We need to think about um article 9." Certainly, I didn't think to

01:06:17 article 9." Certainly, I didn't think to um that we needed to amend the order at this stage. It felt premature to me, but that's not to say that or did anyone suggest revising amending article 9 as part of the one of the

01:06:28 article 9 as part of the one of the options?

01:06:29 options? No. Could I turn on to a separate topic now which is the competency work plan. Um in September 2009 and after Saken Knight's report had been published at

01:06:40 Knight's report had been published at the end of July uh you drafted a submission on the competency of fire risk assessors uh to Sandy Bishop and Shona Dunn. Um Sandy Bishop was the

01:06:51 Shona Dunn. Um Sandy Bishop was the deputy director to whom you reported. Can we go to hom quadruple0612?

01:07:02 Now we can see from the uh right hand side uh that it was copied to amongst others sen Knight and Brian Martin. Um, why was a paper concerned with

01:07:13 why was a paper concerned with competency of fire safety risk assessors uh copied to Brian Martin uh given that his responsibilities concern the building regulations?

01:07:27 I work very closely with Brian on this. Um, he was kind of technical, independent technical within the department advice. Um

01:07:39 he was copied in because fire bio safety started with the building regulations. Um and so competency seemed to me started with an understand you know

01:07:51 started with an understand you know competency if a fire risker needed to understand the building regulations and how the fire safety could have could have compromised the basic principles of

01:08:02 have compromised the basic principles of business regulation. It was um who was John Johnston? He was a member of my team. Both he and Rianne Blackman were members of my team

01:08:13 Rianne Blackman were members of my team at the time. Junior members of you. Were these the SEO and the HEO that we discussed earlier on? Yeah.

01:08:20 Yeah. Now, um if we look halfway down the first page, we can see u paragraph two under the heading recommendation. Uh this that you consider which course of action we should pursue to address

01:08:32 action we should pursue to address concerns. those offering independent fire risk assessment services are competent to deliver a suitable and sufficient risk assessment as required by the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005.

01:08:44 order 2005. And if we could go to the foot of page two

01:08:49 two and you see there the emboldened subheading consideration and the text underneath that says this. To date, ministers have confirmed that government has no plans to establish an accredited

01:09:00 has no plans to establish an accredited quality assurance scheme for those involved in the provision of fire risk assessments and other fire safety services. A number of professional qualifications exist in this area and we

01:09:11 qualifications exist in this area and we and ministers have taken the view that the development of a nationally recognized scheme is best considered and delivered by the fire safety industry itself.

01:09:21 itself. government has neither the expertise nor the resources available to implement and manage such a scheme. Bearing in mind what we discussed earlier this morning, when if at all had

01:09:33 earlier this morning, when if at all had ministers last confirmed to you before September 2009 that government had no plans to establish an accredited quality assurance scheme for fire risk assesses.

01:09:45 assurance scheme for fire risk assesses. Oh, ministers had never confirmed that to me. I don't think I had any meetings with ministers. Um what was the basis therefore of you saying in a submission? To date,

01:09:57 saying in a submission? To date, ministers have confirmed that. Well, just going on to the next paragraph. Sorry. It appears that there had been conversations

01:10:09 had been conversations with ministers around this. It's just that I was not involved in I, you know, it wasn't a conversation that they had with me, but that's not to say they wouldn't have had a conversation with my

01:10:21 wouldn't have had a conversation with my deputy director or the director of fire and resilience at the time, but it certainly implies

01:10:30 that they'd asked, you know, they'd been willing to for us to engage rather than suggested

01:10:37 suggested regulation in this area. Uh but

01:10:41 Uh but interrupt if this is wrong but you yourself had not been involved in any discussions with a minister on this point. Is that right? Yeah, that's right. And is your evidence that you relying

01:10:53 And is your evidence that you relying upon what had been reported back to you by others? Yeah.

01:10:57 Yeah. You can't identify in respect of conversations on dates you can't help us with about this point.

01:11:08 Yes. So I essentially yes I think I haven't seen um the evidence but there were conversations all the time between my deputy director which would be fed

01:11:19 my deputy director which would be fed and other senior people which would be fed back and inform the work of of our team my team. Um,

01:11:29 Um, had there been to the best of your knowledge

01:11:36 a specific confirmation from a minister, either the fire minister or the secretary of state following publication of the initial evaluation in March 2009?

01:11:49 No, not that. No, we would have put it to them for information and for publication. I don't think it went with advice. What will we do?

01:12:01 will we do? Would it follow? Sorry, I interrupted you.

01:12:03 you. It would have gone with we will be thinking about how we respond to the concerns that have been raised. Had there been a a confirmation from a minister since the publication of Ken

01:12:14 minister since the publication of Ken Knight's report at the end of July 2009?

01:12:21 I can't recall but that's not to say um there weren't discussions I no just not with me

01:12:30 with me and so can you help us whether there was any uh discussion about whether the recommendation that sen made about the FSA had been discussed at directed deputy director level with the minister

01:12:42 deputy director level with the minister or someone higher than you only from the evidence in this this submission here but you have no independent recollection beyond what you're reading today?

01:12:53 beyond what you're reading today? No.

01:12:55 No. Uh can we look at the next paragraph where you say this? However, as the level of concern over this issue becomes apparent became apparent, ministers indicated that they would be willing for

01:13:06 indicated that they would be willing for officials to discuss with interested parties the concept of a nationally recognized accredititation scheme for fire risk assesses. This led to some informal discussions with industry

01:13:17 informal discussions with industry players which indicated that there may be an appropriate leadership role for government in facilitating an exploratory discussion with the interested parties around expectations for any such scheme. Our stated aim has

01:13:29 for any such scheme. Our stated aim has been to get a number of interested organizations around the table before the end of 2009. Having had the opportunity to consider how we might progress this in light of

01:13:41 how we might progress this in light of both the FSO evaluation and Sen's findings, it is clear that there are number of challenges and risks associated with CLG moving forward on this. There are therefore a number of

01:13:53 this. There are therefore a number of key policy issues which need to be considered carefully perhaps in conjunction with ministers before progressing this further. Um, first of all, had you been involved in any of

01:14:04 all, had you been involved in any of these informal discussions with industry players?

01:14:07 players? Probably.

01:14:10 Probably. Uh, do you remember with whom you had those discussions?

01:14:18 Um, no. Probably representatives from the

01:14:22 the um

01:14:25 um FIA, small business, Federation of Small Business. Um I had a large list of stakeholders that um I talked to from outside but I can't remember in detail.

01:14:39 outside but I can't remember in detail. Can you help us? What was the nature of the leadership role that was anticipated for government? I think the aim was to motivate the industry, support the industry, help the

01:14:52 industry, support the industry, help the industry to develop um a scheme. You say there that there are a number of challenges and risks associated with CLG moving forward on this. First of all,

01:15:03 moving forward on this. First of all, what were the challenges?

01:15:10 Um potentially resource I suppose and um getting clarity of agreement getting just even establishing a consensus

01:15:24 just even establishing a consensus approach. Um but it would have been time conssuming and resource intensive um

01:15:32 um and ending up with something that people would want to use. I suppose just whether we could develop a product that would be fit for purpose at the end or encourage the sector to develop a

01:15:43 encourage the sector to develop a product that would be fit for purpose. What therefore were the risks

01:15:52 that are they much the same thing? Yes, I I imagine they were. Yes. Although it would become a governmentowned

01:16:01 scheme. Now, staying on this page, you outline three policy options. One, do nothing. Leave the industry to address this for itself or maintain the status quo. Two,

01:16:14 itself or maintain the status quo. Two, support industry in developing a scheme with encouragement, facilitation, and the possibility of some pump priming. or three, consider with ministers the appetite for establishing a government sponsored scheme. Uh what option was

01:16:28 sponsored scheme. Uh what option was selected and by whom?

01:16:33 Um,

01:16:37 I think the second option was the preferred option and I suspect that was a considered decision by the people that

01:16:49 considered decision by the people that received this submission, but you can't remember who precisely made the decision.

01:16:57 No. Uh sir, that may well be an appropriate point at which to have the midm morning break.

01:17:04 break. Yes, very well. Well, we have a break during the morning and the afternoon and uh this is obviously a good time to take the morning break. So, we'll stop now. We'll come back, please, at 25 to 12.

01:17:18 We'll come back, please, at 25 to 12. All right. And now you've started giving your evidence. I have to ask you please not to talk about your evidence or anything relating to it to anyone while you're out of the room. All right. Good. Thank you very much. Would you like to

01:17:29 Thank you very much. Would you like to go to the usher, please?

01:17:41 Thank you. 25 to 12. Thanks.

01:35:12 Would

01:35:23 you ask Miss Upton to come back in, please?

01:35:33 Thank you.

01:35:36 [Music] Right, Miss Upton, ready to carry on? Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Cano. Thanks, Miss Upton. Thank you. Um, now you explain the work undertaken

01:35:47 you explain the work undertaken following the recommendation uh in your second witness statement at paragraph 9 and page 3 which can be found at h0500823

01:36:04 and there you set out this. So this is following the options we were discussing before the break. Um, as my team did not have the capacity to deliver the work that was needed to investigate and assess options with the sector for

01:36:15 assess options with the sector for improving the competency of fire risk assessors, I agreed with my manager at some point between April and October 2009, that we would appoint a consultant from the department's in-house policy

01:36:27 from the department's in-house policy consultancy service, IHPC, to explore with representatives from the fire safety industry the scope for them to work collaboratively. The aim would be for the sector to develop a

01:36:39 be for the sector to develop a nationally recognized quality assurance mechanism for fire risk assessors and ensure a register of those with appropriate qualifications or certification was available to the public i.e. business responsible

01:36:51 public i.e. business responsible persons. The IHPC was to deliver an options paper for consideration by senior managers and ministers based on the outcome of their discussions with the fire safety industry and

01:37:03 the fire safety industry and professionals. Now was it Jane Boy from IHCP who was appointed to lead the work? Yes.

01:37:11 Yes. Now if we can go to hom trip01290.

01:37:20 Uh this uh is a report entitled fire safety policy quality assurance for fire risk assessors and the subtitle is project specification. Uh now we can see uh on the first page

01:37:34 Uh now we can see uh on the first page the objectives set out for Jane boys are summarized and first under the heading objective one to explore with CLG and stakeholders their aspirations and the

01:37:47 stakeholders their aspirations and the issues and concerns that would need to be addressed in any nationally recognized quality assurance scheme including issues around accreditation and certification. Now stopping there, it's a fair reading

01:37:58 Now stopping there, it's a fair reading of that document that the primary aim of the exercise was to establish the potential content of a nationally recognized quality assurance scheme. Yes.

01:38:09 Yes. At this stage in October 2009, uh why was a nationally recognized scheme deemed appropriate?

01:38:20 because it it reflected the concerns that had come up through the evaluation that there was an appetite within some in the um

01:38:31 an appetite within some in the um responsible persons to have exactly that a nationally rec you know confidence that they were appointing appropriately

01:38:42 appropriately assured risk assessors to carry out their risk assessments. If we can turn to page three and the bottom of that page

01:38:54 uh we can see that under the heading clients

01:38:57 clients you're identified as a project officer. What were your responsibilities as the project officer? Oh, to to manage the project, to engage with Jane boys and stakeholders, to

01:39:10 with Jane boys and stakeholders, to facilitate the meetings, to um ultimately provide advice at the end to um be be the link person between the consultant and um the department for the

01:39:24 consultant and um the department for the commission. Looking further up that page, we see the heading timetable and output. And it says in the second paragraph this a brief final report suitable for senior

01:39:36 a brief final report suitable for senior managers and ministers covering the findings of the stakeholder discussions details of the options identified and considered and any recommendations will be presented shortly after. Now who was

01:39:49 be presented shortly after. Now who was to draft uh that brief final report for senior managers and ministers?

01:39:57 I think that would have fallen between the consultant and um myself. Was that final report ever produced?

01:40:08 Yes, in the form of a presentation.

01:40:13 Um we'll come on to that in due course. On the 14th of December 2009, there was a meeting between representatives of the fire sector and Jane Boy. And we have a

01:40:24 fire sector and Jane Boy. And we have a presentation uh which for that meeting which can be found at hom12752.

01:40:38 Does this look familiar to you? Yeah.

01:40:42 Yeah. Turn to page six then please.

01:40:47 If that could be expanded. This summarizes the various existing competency schemes in the fire assistance sector. At the top of the page, it says that a number of schemes

01:41:00 page, it says that a number of schemes have been developed by the industry. Some describe themselves as accredited. None has been widely adopted. There is no overall agreement within the industry.

01:41:10 industry. Did that in a two sentence pathy form reflect your understanding of the state of play?

01:41:16 of play? Yes. on the basis of the discussions that Jane had had with the stakeholders. I think that's true. Yeah. Could we go to page 12

01:41:30 and if that could be expanded.

01:41:34 The yellow box at the top says this. CLG has an interest in ensuring that the regulatory reform order is implemented effectively. They recognize that progress needs to be made and are

01:41:46 progress needs to be made and are seeking advice on the way forward. Uh we then see on the right hand side uh concerns from stakeholders. Um stakeholders were they representatives

01:41:58 stakeholders were they representatives of the fire sector or was it more broadly drawn as a group? Yeah, I think it was more more broadly drawn. I think it included businesses and fire and rescue authorities. Now the

01:42:10 and fire and rescue authorities. Now the bullet points on that right hand column say this.

01:42:13 say this. Ignorance among responsible persons about the requirements of the FSA. Existing guidance is not userfriendly. Too long for a simple case. Inadequate for a complex building. Not clear how

01:42:26 for a complex building. Not clear how CLG expect people to respond. Many competing firms and schemes for assessors but little transparency confusing for customers. among four in 10 audits in 20089 were unsatisfactory.

01:42:40 10 audits in 20089 were unsatisfactory. Now what was your reaction on reading that summary of the concerns?

01:42:51 I suppose not not too surprised but I I think I'd need to go back to actually understand who who had informed those concerns who

01:43:04 who who had informed those concerns who actually Jane had spoke to whether it had been whether they reflected the concerns from the industry the stakeholders she was talking to or whether she drew more widely. Uh but it

01:43:16 whether she drew more widely. Uh but it is right to say though that these concerns reflected the concerns of some that had been reported in the initial evaluation. Would you accept that? Yes, of course. Yeah. And am I right that it was at this

01:43:28 And am I right that it was at this meeting that it was decided to establish the fire risk assessment competency council

01:43:34 council in December 2009?

01:43:41 Yes, I think that that is right. And if we can stay in the presentation but go to page 17.

01:43:55 The heading is benefits of a UKASS delivery framework. The first bullet point says UKCAS is an established governmentapp appointed agency for accreditation.

01:44:06 accreditation. uh did you consider that a competency framework which required UKCAST accredititation uh of each relevant scheme was necessary and desirable to address the concerns that have been

01:44:17 address the concerns that have been reported back?

01:44:21 I'm not sure I thought it was necessary but I thought it was probably desirable. Why given the concerns that have been reported back did you not consider it to be necessary?

01:44:33 be necessary? Because

01:44:35 Because I think at the time I thought it was possible for the sector to work together to pull together a agreement that would be a sector owned

01:44:46 agreement that would be a sector owned that wouldn't require you know that would be credible and adopted by business without the need for UKcast accredititation because because there was an overhead

01:44:57 because because there was an overhead potentially in UKASS. Well, could we or is it fair to say that the benefit of UKCAST accredititation um was that it

01:45:08 UKCAST accredititation um was that it would bring together a number of disperate schemes and resolve the problem indeed what appears to be a long-standing problem that there was no overall industry agreement about what a competent fire risk assessor should look

01:45:20 competent fire risk assessor should look like

01:45:24 potentially. Yes. Yes. Could we go next to an email which was sent after that meeting which we can find at hom quadruple0 3817.

01:45:39 And at the bottom of page one we see the start of an email uh from you to Jane Boy dated the 15th of December 2009. Um copied in are Rian Blackman, one of your

01:45:51 copied in are Rian Blackman, one of your team, Brian Martin and Peter Wise. Um, what was Brian Martin's interest in the boys review?

01:46:04 Well, we were we were um I overall um fire fire safety of buildings. He was a technical expert with responsibility for building

01:46:16 with responsibility for building regulations, fire risk. He was a a really useful point of um contact and knowledge and expertise. I would have sought to involved in to make

01:46:27 would have sought to involved in to make sure that the two policy sides aligned and that the the outcome we were seeking to achieve with this was sensible and pragmatic and robust um and reflected

01:46:41 pragmatic and robust um and reflected the start of fire safety um with the construction and does it go back to the fact as we discussed earlier on that you place great reliance upon his advice and guidance? Yes, absolutely. Now you

01:46:54 guidance? Yes, absolutely. Now you summarize um the discussion in uh the meeting on the 14th of December that we've just considered and that the first bullet point on this page you say this

01:47:05 bullet point on this page you say this some of those present notably if uh RIS BAFE AFC aspired ultimately to the development of a mandatory scheme under which responsible persons would be

01:47:17 which responsible persons would be required to use accredited quality assured risk assessors but meeting recognized that the current absence of any scheme meant it was far too early to think this far ahead. Why was it far too

01:47:30 think this far ahead. Why was it far too early to think that far ahead? I think because the um actually what a competent risk assessor would look like hadn't been established.

01:47:42 would look like hadn't been established. So it was a kind of it was an ultimate, you know, it was where they wanted to get to. It couldn't happen immediately. Um

01:47:51 Um you've got some significant players in the industry there uh if RIS BA and AFC um as you say there seem to be consensus

01:48:02 um as you say there seem to be consensus about the end goal. Is that a fair summary

01:48:05 summary between these people? Yes. And yourselves did you agree? Did you share that end goal?

01:48:14 Not necessarily that they would be required. it would be a a statute requirement for them to use this. I don't think we did share that. We weren't looking for a mandatory scheme

01:48:27 weren't looking for a mandatory scheme necessarily. We being the department or we being the attendees at this meeting. We being the department but it appears that certainly if RIS BA

01:48:38 but it appears that certainly if RIS BA and the FC did. Is that a fair sum? So government was the uh the body to be persuaded if I can put it neutally of the merits of a mandatory

01:48:49 neutally of the merits of a mandatory scheme.

01:48:51 scheme. Yeah. And ultimately business as well because you would have had Yes. Well, you've got quite a some representative uh feeling for business in the bodies there, haven't

01:49:03 business in the bodies there, haven't you?

01:49:03 you? Oh, yes. but not the not the people that would be required to use the mandatory services of a fire risk assessor. I think that was where the um these

01:49:15 think that was where the um these large a significant portion of the fire sector industry thought there should be mandation for for their services to be used. I think business and responsible people it wasn't

01:49:26 people it wasn't as clearcut.

01:49:30 Well, we'll come on to that in due course. But turning to the second bullet point, you say this uh government had no plans to require responsible persons to use third party risk assesses. The work

01:49:41 use third party risk assesses. The work was in response to business aspirations to know where, if necessary, to go for appropriate help with their responsibilities under the FSA. Neither did we have plans to require all risk

01:49:52 did we have plans to require all risk assessors to be quality assured. Experience suggested much could be achieved with a voluntary approach. how a responsible person chose to comply with the FSA was for them and would be

01:50:03 with the FSA was for them and would be picked up through FRA that's fire risk uh fire and rescue authorities sorry yes fire um rescue authorities audit and enforcement responsibilities what experience had suggested to you

01:50:15 what experience had suggested to you what were you relying upon when you said much could be achieved with a voluntary approach

01:50:27 because businesses weren't telling us they wanted a

01:50:33 wanted a wanted more regulation. Um so what we wanted to do was to respond to their concerns but in a way that gave them the flexibility to put in place their their

01:50:44 flexibility to put in place their their own arrangements but have confidence that the people that they were using were

01:50:51 were competent. So you didn't have, if I can summarize your evidence, you didn't have a particular precedent in mind. Um, the hope for the voluntary approach was simply that, a hope. It was an

01:51:03 simply that, a hope. It was an aspiration, wasn't it? Rather than anything more substantive. Yes.

01:51:08 Yes. But I think at the Yes, was an aspiration. Now exhibited to your second witness statement uh you exhibited a note of uh the meeting which we can found at

01:51:19 the meeting which we can found at hom5090.

01:51:24 This is the meeting on the 14th of December 2009. Can you remember who drafted this note? Was it you or someone else?

01:51:38 Um,

01:51:42 I can't I know I can't remember. Could we turn to page three and look at paragraph 7?

01:51:51 It says this. The meeting agreed that the proposed fire risk competency council should aim for UKCASS accredititation. Any voluntary approach was likely to perpetuate current

01:52:02 was likely to perpetuate current confusions about who was competent and what this means. UKcast confirmed its support for the approach being outlined. Similarly, BAFE recognized the value of this approach

01:52:14 recognized the value of this approach and sought to ensure the requirements of companies employing fire risk assessors who act as consultants were reflected. They confirmed willingness to play a significant role in running and maintaining any schemes.

01:52:27 maintaining any schemes. Now, that paragraph makes it clear that there was little if any support for the voluntary approach. Is that a fair reading?

01:52:46 I I'm not sure it is actually. I think they would have had to voluntarily agree these schemes to have a to to go to UKASS to together. I I I

01:53:00 UKASS to together. I I I believe so. The fact it was a UKASS accredited scheme didn't necessarily mean it was a mandated scheme. You could hold the two together. You could have a

01:53:11 hold the two together. You could have a voluntary scheme with UKCAST accreditation, I believe. Um because that's

01:53:18 that's you know once you'd agreed the principles of what a competent risk assessor was those schemes operate working within that would could be

01:53:29 working within that would could be competent. Miss Upton the paragraph says this any voluntary approach was likely to perpetuate current confusions about who was competent and what that and what

01:53:40 was competent and what that and what this means. That's clear, isn't it, as to what the view of the attendees was. Yes,

01:53:48 Yes, that is clear. What your answer tends to suggest, if this reflects what you thought at the time,

01:53:58 time, that you're anxious, almost keen, to uh invent reasons not to go down the UK route. Is that a fair observation?

01:54:10 UK route. Is that a fair observation? No, I think we we would have liked a UKASS approach. I I think what what I'm not clear about is that had it been a UKASS um scheme would have

01:54:24 had it been a UKASS um scheme would have made it mandatory, it would have just given transparency to businesses that those certifying the competency of risk assessors had the processes behind that would have been robust.

01:54:36 would have been robust. Well, let's look at page four of this document.

01:54:41 And we see there top third of the page the heading outcome and a number of points set out there under. The first is and I quote consider an overarching set

01:54:52 and I quote consider an overarching set of criteria against which to assess competency of risk assessors under which all existing schemes could sit. Now looking at that phrase under which all existing schemes could sit. Can you

01:55:05 existing schemes could sit. Can you recall now how it was envisaged that the criteria would work in practice?

01:55:14 No, I'm afraid I can't. The second point says this UKcast accreditation would be on would be the basis of the scheme. Why had the parties agreed to UKCAS in

01:55:27 Why had the parties agreed to UKCAS in particular?

01:55:34 I think because

01:55:39 possibly they already had you or some of them already had UKCAST accredititation but it was seen as an independent assurance of quality

01:55:53 presumably the best available. Yeah. Can we go to paragraph 31 of your second statement which we find at hom trip050082

01:56:05 slash9

01:56:09 and we see there in the third sentence it's the fourth line down you say this the main priority at the beginning was to start to develop a consensus around what competency may look like as the

01:56:21 what competency may look like as the basis for a competency standard I recall it being a very controversial process process with a range of interests at play which took some time and effort to work through and coales around a single

01:56:32 work through and coales around a single objective. I suspect at the beginning the issue of UKcast accredititation may simply have been parked in order to preserve as far as possible a working coalition across the sector.

01:56:46 coalition across the sector. The impression from this minute though of the meeting of the 14th of December is one of unonymity rather than dispute. Is that right? Yes.

01:57:00 So UKCAST accredititation does not appear to have been parked. The parties seem to have endorsed it without qualification. Is that right? Yes.

01:57:10 Yes. Uh can we turn to paragraph 37 of your second witness statement and it's can be found at page 11.

01:57:30 Thank you. What you say there at the start is this. I think I'm likely to have recognized there were significant issues for the professional bodies and that UKASS

01:57:41 professional bodies and that UKASS accredititation was not necessarily appropriate for them. Now that observation is difficult to tally with paragraph 7 of the note of

01:57:52 tally with paragraph 7 of the note of the 14th of December 2009. Do you accept that?

01:57:55 that? Yes.

01:57:57 Yes. Can you help us therefore as to which professional body you had in mind when you wrote this sentence in your statement?

01:58:12 No, I No, I'm afraid I can't. Uh,

01:58:16 Uh, can you help us as to why uh you'd apprehended that UK accredititation was not necessarily appropriate for these uh unidentifiable professional bodies?

01:58:29 No. No, I'm afraid I can't. I'm sorry. You continue in that paragraph. Thus, it would have been inappropriate if the outcome of the work of frack and the

01:58:40 outcome of the work of frack and the government's encourage engagement in it were to be considered whether in practice or perception disadvantageous or unfair to professionals operating in the field a potential distortion of the

01:58:52 the field a potential distortion of the market or by promoting a restricted choice of service providers i.e. those uh providers with UKCAST accredititation to place an unnecessarily high cost

01:59:04 to place an unnecessarily high cost burden on business responsible persons. Now, what work had you done to determine that an unnecessarily high cost burden

01:59:17 that an unnecessarily high cost burden would be the consequence of requiring registration uh with a UKASS accredited scheme?

01:59:24 scheme? Well, we were being um um the Federation of Small Businesses. Did did If it helps you, my question was what work had you done?

01:59:35 work had you done? I'd only engaged. Yes, we hadn't done an impact assessment of any of this. Um we had just taken views from sector

01:59:46 had just taken views from sector representatives and business um and from the fire sector who said that there was a cost attached to

01:59:59 said that there was a cost attached to UKcast accredititation. you know, going through that process and getting it was not necessarily for all businesses and I suppose we wanted to.

02:00:13 businesses and I suppose we wanted to. Had any of the people with whom you consulted produced anything that could be described as a costbenefit assessment? No, not as far as I recall.

02:00:25 No, not as far as I recall. What did you do to critically analyze their assertions? If this is what they did say that there was an unnecessarily high cost burden

02:00:36 was an unnecessarily high cost burden flowing from UKcast accredititation nothing I'm afraid. So you pared the assertion apologies for putting it bluntly but does it amount to that?

02:00:47 that? Yes.

02:00:48 Yes. So no critical scrutiny scrutiny at all was applied by you in making this observation.

02:00:58 No, probably I can't recall now. Pro probably not.

02:01:06 It seems an odd concern for the government itself to raise when if the notes of the meeting of the 14th of December are to be accepted,

02:01:18 of December are to be accepted, responsible persons and persons involved in the trade who are best placed to judge costs weren't making that uh complaint to you at that meeting.

02:01:29 Well, they I suppose they were the big players in in in the market. They had um they they would have like they would they'd been quite clear they would have

02:01:40 they'd been quite clear they would have liked regulation. They would have liked it to have been a requirement for responsible people to use it. the the I suppose we wanted to bring together a broader church of

02:01:52 to bring together a broader church of people because the the the range of businesses that might want to use these it was perfectly possible for businesses to do a suitable and sufficient risk

02:02:05 to do a suitable and sufficient risk assessment without using a UKAS accredited um provider. This was really to see how we could

02:02:16 This was really to see how we could support those who didn't feel confident that they could do it to get somebody whose competency had been assured and UKCast accreditation was kind of the

02:02:27 UKCast accreditation was kind of the goldplated standard possibly. Um but you'd done no work to assess costs in any way, shape or form? No.

02:02:37 No. Can you help us? What work had you done to consider whether a UKASS accredititation scheme uh would be likely to distort the market and if so to what extent? No. No. None.

02:02:52 Amongst other things, weren't you ducking the basic problem that the unregulated market was prompting concerns

02:02:59 concerns for some time now about the competence of fire risk assessors which would persist in the absence of an effective and crucially independent scheme to assure competence?

02:03:14 Well, I think we were working towards setting up a something that businesses would ch businesses providing risk assessment

02:03:25 businesses providing risk assessment services would choose to be a part of that scheme so that

02:03:35 there was a bigger market available for responsible people to choose from. Can we go to paragraph 33 of your second witness statement which is in page 10 at page 10 of the document that's on the

02:03:47 page 10 of the document that's on the screen.

02:03:52 uh you say uh there it's a few lines down from uh the top or two down from the top the competency of those qualified through and registered with the professional bodies where

02:04:03 the professional bodies where certification did not apply was considered at least equal if not better on what evidence did you conclude that registration with professional bodies

02:04:16 registration with professional bodies was at least equal if not better or was it simply an assertion of personal opin opinion.

02:04:27 I think it reflects the opinion of the professional bodies. I'm not sure. I was saying that we considered that they thought I I I think that's saying that

02:04:39 thought I I I think that's saying that the professional bodies had an issue with that because they felt that their skills were

02:04:48 were equal to

02:04:50 equal to if not better and that by going down um

02:04:57 potentially UKCast accredititation process you'd

02:05:02 prevented. they they'd not necessarily be able to um be a part of that and that they could they could provide

02:05:14 and that they could they could provide highquality services to responsible people as they had been before without the need to be UKCAS accredited wasn't the problem and indeed the

02:05:25 wasn't the problem and indeed the obvious problem uh with that that registration with professional bodies wouldn't satisfactorily or obvious obviously addressed the concerns that had been identified for some time now

02:05:37 had been identified for some time now about competence in the market which could be guaranteed or better assured at least by a UKASS accredited scheme

02:05:48 potentially but but but

02:05:52 but but not everybody was saying they wanted a they just wanted they didn't necessar it wasn't a universal commitment that everybody wanted a UKcast accredited scheme It was one way to demonstrate

02:06:05 scheme It was one way to demonstrate um

02:06:07 um but there were other ways and professional professionally competent people had gone through a certification

02:06:18 people had gone through a certification and accreditation process. Would you accept it's not so much what people want? The question is what does the situation require?

02:06:29 require? And here you'd had consistent reports of concerns about FRA competency and a UKCASS accredited scheme was the best available means of addressing those concerns. Would you accept that?

02:06:42 concerns. Would you accept that? Yes.

02:06:43 Yes. Could I now turn on to a separate meeting which is a lay cause meeting which was held in January um 2010. Uh leor is a somewhat unattractive acronym

02:06:54 leor is a somewhat unattractive acronym uh for the local authority coordinators of regulatory services. Um and this meeting was held on the 19th of January 2010 uh to discuss the topic of fire safety in purpose-built flats

02:07:07 of fire safety in purpose-built flats and the meeting was described as a round table to discuss the need for new guidance. Now the minutes are at hom quadruple03853.

02:07:23 Now uh you attended uh the meeting. We can see from the second line of the list of attendees. Um can you help the panel first of all what is lay cause? We know what it stands for but what is it?

02:07:37 know what it stands for but what is it? It was a it was I think it was a directorate within the local government association which brought together um

02:07:48 um regulatory service. So, environmental health,

02:07:52 health, um,

02:07:56 fire safety officers, I think it was the arm of the local government association that had the specific brief to look at how regulatory services for which local

02:08:08 how regulatory services for which local authorities were responsible operated.

02:08:12 operated. Thank you. Now if we look at the foot of this first page, there are a number of issues raised and identified in bullet points. The first said that this lake's

02:08:23 points. The first said that this lake's nonprescriptive fire safety guidance was not designed to cover fire safety in purpose-built blocks of flats. Had that always been your understanding of the position, do you remember?

02:08:34 position, do you remember? Yes. that no guidance on fire safety was prescriptive. The the regulatory fire safety um order had done away with prescription. All of the

02:08:45 away with prescription. All of the guidance was um non-prescriptive. And if we could turn to the second page, uh we see the following bullet point roughly halfway down the page which says

02:08:57 roughly halfway down the page which says this. FRAAS had been disappointed. It's that fire and rescue authorities had been disappointed at the quality of some excuse me fire risk assessments. It suggested a lack of understanding on the

02:09:09 suggested a lack of understanding on the part of some assessor who then made false assumptions about the design and structure of the building. There also questions about the extent of intrusive investigations being carried out. Now

02:09:20 investigations being carried out. Now surely you'd accept that this wasn't the first time that you'd been made aware of concerns about the quality/competence of fire risk assessors. Would you accept that?

02:09:32 that? No. I think that's talking about fire and rescue authorities have been disappointed in their enforcement capacity.

02:09:39 capacity. Yeah. But what does that say to you, Miss Upton, which may indeed be the answer to the question? There are concerns about how they're being carried out. Yes.

02:09:49 Yes. Which reflects competence of those doing it.

02:09:53 it. Yes. But I I I suppose there are all, you know, in the in the kind of regime that was set up, you know, a self-compliance regime where you could choose how you delivered the um outcome

02:10:05 choose how you delivered the um outcome intended. There were always concerns from um around the quality of risk assessment. you know the enforcing authorities had a

02:10:19 would always like more and responsible people you know may be doing the best but yes I I agree sorry

02:10:31 sorry so again that wasn't the first time you'd heard concerns about fire risk assessments and the competency of those carrying them out do you accept

02:10:42 of those carrying them out do you accept that I think you do. Yeah.

02:10:44 Yeah. Was this the first time you were made aware of what were described there as false assumptions um being made by risk assessors in respect of the design and structure of buildings being inspected?

02:10:55 structure of buildings being inspected? So these are talking about residential premises specifically whereas I think everything I've said before was talking about the

02:11:03 about the until the lack or house fire we were talking about you know the the raft of responsible people and persons to premises which were covered by so this

02:11:15 premises which were covered by so this was focused specifically on um by safety in housing blocks um and I until

02:11:27 until the lacor house fire this hadn't been articulated so obviously that there were so many concerns around fire safety

02:11:38 were so many concerns around fire safety in purpose-built flats so it was the first so was it the first time it' been put with such clarity at this

02:11:45 this meeting yeah I think so definitely was this the first time you'd heard reference to or questions about the extent of intr intrusive investigations.

02:11:58 Yes. If we can turn to the fifth page in this document under discussion three and that's entitled, are there other

02:12:09 and that's entitled, are there other residential fire safety issues you would like to raise that do not reli relate to the production of guidance? And again, we see a series of bullet points. The second one says this or asked this. Do

02:12:21 second one says this or asked this. Do we fully understand the level of fire risk in purpose-built blocks? Is there a need for CLG to commission further research? Now, is this the first time

02:12:32 research? Now, is this the first time you are aware or made aware of concerns about the understanding of the level of fire risk in purpose-built buildings? It's slightly more

02:12:43 It's slightly more particular question, the one I asked you earlier on.

02:12:48 Yes, I think so. Can you remember now who raised that particular concern? Can you remember? No.

02:12:57 No. Did you discuss that particular concern with any other policy colleague at the department? Yes, I imagine I would have discussed it in the rounds rather than specifically,

02:13:09 in the rounds rather than specifically, but with both um Brian in building regulations and Pete Wise in the chief fire and rescue advisor's unit and with housing

02:13:21 advisor's unit and with housing colleagues um

02:13:25 um because of the responsibility under that housing legislation to ensure risk was in these premises. is you said you imagined you did so. Did

02:13:36 you said you imagined you did so. Did you or is it likely that you did so? Yes. I'm I can't recall it, but I will have either through email or through meetings and yes.

02:13:47 meetings and yes. Do you remember advising the minister about this particular concern following the January 2010 meeting?

02:13:56 I remember advice was put up to ministers through um Richard Longman who's in house who's the housing um I'd need to check the date I'm afraid

02:14:09 um I'd need to check the date I'm afraid but certainly a submission reporting on lots of issues which included a reference I think to the fact that we had met with the sector both housing

02:14:21 had met with the sector both housing fire safety chief fire and rescue advisor unit and building regulations had all been at this this meeting and that the sector had confirmed that more guidance would be helpful to

02:14:33 more guidance would be helpful to address the concerns set out in this paper.

02:14:36 paper. Thank you. Advice certainly went. Now the next meeting with Jane Boy and uh stakeholders about fire risk assessment was on the 9th of March 2010. Again, you attended and that is notable

02:14:49 Again, you attended and that is notable because it's the first meeting of the fire risk assessment competency council. Yeah.

02:14:53 Yeah. Now, if we go to HOM013530,

02:14:58 we find a note of that meeting. Uh you'll see at the top the list of attendees. Were they all the members of the Frack?

02:15:12 I think they were the the group that had gone forward after the meeting in December to say that they would um lead the work on this. Then the

02:15:27 would um lead the work on this. Then the frack became a bigger thing after this I think or okay

02:15:33 okay a number more people but they were definitely the core people leading the work. Now if we turn over the page to page two and we see the heading at the very top of the page agreement and it

02:15:46 very top of the page agreement and it says this. The agreement reached on the 14th of December was reaffirmed in particular and again another series of bullet points which say this. It was desirable to have agreement of an

02:15:57 desirable to have agreement of an overarching set of criteria focused on competency to undertake fire risk assessment. These criteria could provide a basis for individual schemes that could be accredited by UKASS both for

02:16:10 could be accredited by UKASS both for individual fire risk assessors and for risk assessment services provided by companies. It was important to maintain the momentum on this work now that a goal and working group had been

02:16:21 goal and working group had been established. Now certainly looking at that minute at least the goal in March 2010 remained UKcast accredititation as

02:16:32 2010 remained UKcast accredititation as the basis for the competency scheme again is that a fair reading?

02:16:39 Yes. Or that the individual schemes would all share UKCAST. Okay. Or would would all the individual constituent parts UKCAST accredititation was seen as

02:16:51 parts UKCAST accredititation was seen as the basis. Yeah. Thank you. Now, on the 10th of March, the day after this meeting, you were sent an email from another attendee called Martin Russell Croucher, who's from the Royal Institute of Chartered

02:17:03 from the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. That email chain can be found at hom13486.

02:17:14 And if we can uh go to the second uh page of the chain and there we have the uh the start of it with Mr. Russell Crow's email. Uh

02:17:27 with Mr. Russell Crow's email. Uh can I just read this? If we take it take it stage stage by stage, you'll see in the first paragraph um he said this. I'm sure that you are as disappointed as I was by the step

02:17:38 as disappointed as I was by the step backwards. I suppose that is the price of democracy. Uh, can you remember what the step backwards was?

02:17:57 That they would I think it was

02:18:02 that they would all

02:18:08 If you don't remember, Miss Upton,

02:18:12 no. Let's say I don't know I don't I don't think I do remember actually. So I don't want you to speculate. If you can't remember, say you can't remember. Um can you remember in broad terms any

02:18:23 Um can you remember in broad terms any sense of disappointment by the outcome of this meeting?

02:18:29 Yeah, I think it had been a a very bad tempered meeting. I think they hadn't reach I think what had happened in December had fallen apart slightly. Um

02:18:41 December had fallen apart slightly. Um whether that was over UKcast credit I can't I can't quite remember but it it felt like we had lost some ground and I do

02:18:52 we had lost some ground and I do remember it being a very difficult meeting. I think some of that recollection uh Miss Upton is reflected in what now follows. If we can look at the fifth full paragraph which is about halfway down the page um

02:19:06 which is about halfway down the page um Mr. Russell Croucher said this. Um, in addition,

02:19:12 I take issue with his assertion, I think that's Mr. Colin Todd, that the industry can sort this out. They haven't up until now, hence the proliferation of registers to date. You are probably not

02:19:24 registers to date. You are probably not aware that I approached if when the RRO first came. That's the the order to propose a joint project to develop an industry register based on the Warrington UKcast certification

02:19:37 Warrington UKcast certification subsequently developed. Colin, so that's Colin Todd was then with if shouted down this approach at that meeting in the same way as he was seeking yesterday to shout down the work already carried out

02:19:49 shout down the work already carried out so far by RIS, Warrington and if you remember now what the gist of Mr. Todd's position was at this meeting in March 2010.

02:20:00 March 2010. I

02:20:03 I I think the gist was that

02:20:07 there was a onesizefits all approach wasn't

02:20:13 wasn't appropriate or possibly.

02:20:18 possibly. So if we can go to the penultimate full paragraph of this email, Mr. Russell Croucher explains the following. I'm sorry that this is a bit of a moan, but the fire risk assessment sector is far

02:20:30 the fire risk assessment sector is far too important to be influenced by one man's attempt to manipulate things to the advantage of whoever he is working for at the time. Now, taking that stage by stage, was Mr. Russell Crouch

02:20:42 by stage, was Mr. Russell Crouch Crouch's preference for a national register of competent fire risk assessors? Yes, I think so. Had Mr. Todd suggested to use the phrase

02:20:54 Had Mr. Todd suggested to use the phrase the industry can sort this out. Yes, I I I think that was the upshot that the industry really wanted to sort this out that the the fact the industry

02:21:05 this out that the the fact the industry couldn't agree I mean couldn't agree initially? Um

02:21:11 Um and were you and by that I mean the department uh content to see whether the industry could sort itself out? Oh yeah, we definitely wanted to um

02:21:25 we definitely wanted to um for them to have have a go at sorting this out. Yes. Now, in response to your email, we see at the top of page one a response from Jane Boy.

02:21:36 Jane Boy. And we can see she opened very useful response from Martin. I too pondered his decision to stick with the process and even offer a place to meet. But of course, they want to run a register. They presumably been

02:21:48 to run a register. They presumably been RIS, I assume. Yes.

02:21:53 Yes. Um, he has his eye on a business opportunity. He's also well aware of the politics in inverted commas in this. Uh, is that observation of Jane boys fair or

02:22:06 is that observation of Jane boys fair or did you consider it fair at the time? I would have considered it fair at the time.

02:22:11 time. What were the politics in this?

02:22:18 I think it's politics with a small P and I think it was a

02:22:26 a group of people who knew each other very

02:22:30 very very well. It was a very small world and they liked all they um

02:22:40 um spent a lot of time arguing about the detail and um you know that their interests were not necessarily aligned. There were it was one sector but they all had a vested interest somewhere

02:22:52 all had a vested interest somewhere within the sector to promote a particular product or service and it was very hard to get a consensus view on um

02:23:05 the single best thing to do because there wasn't necessarily a single best thing to do. There was a range of things that you could do to deliver the same outcome. Now, looking back at Jane Boy's

02:23:18 outcome. Now, looking back at Jane Boy's email, um she said this in the third paragraph. Meanwhile, my thoughts on some of your track changes on the meeting note, mainly let's keep it short. Every word is one more to argue over. I tried to avoid mentioning things

02:23:31 over. I tried to avoid mentioning things that were not agreed or outside the scope of the meeting.

02:23:36 Is that again um a useful insight into the the nature of the discussions between these various parties that um

02:23:48 between these various parties that um one more word was something more to argue over? Yeah, I think so. Now looking at the penultimate substantive paragraph of the email, Miss Boyce said this. The meeting was build

02:23:59 Boyce said this. The meeting was build about process not content and it was totally unrepresentative. Um, by unrepresentative, was Jane Boy referring to the attendees or some other facet?

02:24:10 facet? I think attendees. And do you know what she meant when she said they were unrepresentative? Was it a point she'd made earlier to you?

02:24:21 No, I um No, I think in her stakeholder discussion Yes. Um,

02:24:33 no. I think they were all people I think the attendees at the meeting were all people who had um possibly more to gain than than than the broader.

02:24:48 Yeah. One thing that's striking um may I suggest to you about this email correspondence is that um it's a study in miniature of the various tensions uh

02:24:59 in miniature of the various tensions uh that uh existed in the industry that even where there was ostensibly widespread agreement over the solution. uh the the

02:25:10 uh the the feelings

02:25:12 feelings evidenced by this email change didn't all go well for the industry sorting out the problem for itself. Would you agree with that? I would agree with that but it was early

02:25:24 I would agree with that but it was early days at this stage. You say early days. Um, we'll come on to it, but there's no impression at any time that you said something along the lines of we'll give them 6 9 12 months

02:25:37 lines of we'll give them 6 9 12 months to see whether they can sort it out and then we'll take action. Did you ever articulate that to the industry at any time?

02:25:48 No. No. Why?

02:25:56 I I just don't think we thought I I think we thought we'd we'd see where we got to. I mean, it wasn't we didn't have an infinite you we we just didn't have a a a goal, an end point in time. It was

02:26:09 a a goal, an end point in time. It was let's see how they get on. And I think at this meeting or the one that came after it, there were

02:26:18 were things things changed again that gave us more confidence that what had happened

02:26:27 at this meeting could be addressed. You just might need more time. It was a it was uncharted territory for us. I think we were

02:26:38 territory for us. I think we were feeling our way and it it felt premature to um

02:26:44 to um potentially start imposing deadlines that we really didn't have is the reality though at the very least did this exchange and what went on at the meeting and you I think you

02:26:56 the meeting and you I think you described it as difficult euphemistically did it at least sew the seed of doubt that the industry was not going to find a clear satisfactory effective solution

02:27:07 a clear satisfactory effective solution to the problems that everyone agreed existed.

02:27:11 existed. No, I think it just set us back. I think I I don't think I did think that it was never going to happen. I still think I was optimistic that

02:27:22 something could be developed that would meet the aspiration of businesses. Now, earlier on in your evidence, you referred to a submission being put up to ministers that was drafted by Richard

02:27:33 ministers that was drafted by Richard Longman. Uh can I take you to that? And that can be found hom5008

02:27:42 and it's dated the 18th of March 2010. So eight uh eight or nine days after this meeting. Now is this the submission that you had

02:27:53 Now is this the submission that you had in mind when giving your earlier evidence?

02:28:03 Yes, I think so. Yes. Well, let's see as we go through. If you have any doubts, say so. But could we go to page two and look at paragraph one?

02:28:26 Thank you. Uh, paragraph one says this. Local authorities were asked to provide further information about high-rise housing blocks and the status of fire risk assessments. This submission

02:28:37 risk assessments. This submission summarizes the analysis of responses and proposed actions. Um, is it right that local authorities had been asked in 2009 to provide this further information following the Lacnal fire?

02:28:49 following the Lacnal fire? Yes.

02:28:51 Yes. Did you contribute to Mr. Longman's submission?

02:28:58 No, I think I would have probably read it in draft and been aware of it, but I don't but but no, it was a it was No,

02:29:06 No, he held the pen. Yeah, he Yeah. Now, if we can turn to the substance of the submission and if we can go to the the foot of page five

02:29:18 and we can see at paragraph 19, Mr. Longman said this one particular area where authorities asked for assistance was about the competence of people carrying out fire risk assessments.

02:29:29 carrying out fire risk assessments. Colleagues in FRD, that's the fire resilience directorate, I think, are carrying out a separate initiative to explore with the fire safety industry and professionals the scope for a national quality assurance scheme to be

02:29:41 national quality assurance scheme to be developed for those wanting to sell fire risk assessment services. Again, this would appear to be another piece of evidence that uh and this time that

02:29:52 evidence that uh and this time that local authorities uh were generally concerned about the competency of fire risk assessments. Would you accept that?

02:30:01 Yes. And it echoed uh the views that were reported in the initial evaluation of March 2009. Would you accept that too?

02:30:12 Yes, it echoed some of the views from that evaluation. Yeah. Uh could we go um to page four of your second witness statement which is a hom50082

02:30:24 slash4 and if we could look at paragraph 15. Thank you. And in that paragraph you explain this on the 22nd of March 2010. So it's 4 days after the Longman

02:30:35 So it's 4 days after the Longman submission. I provided a briefing to senior managers on the progress made to date on the work to address the competency recommendation from the FSO evaluation and on the next steps. Now we

02:30:48 evaluation and on the next steps. Now we have that briefing at hom quadruple0735.

02:31:00 There we go. And if we can turn to the bottom of page two of that document,

02:31:08 we'll see um in the uh final paragraph it says this meeting, so that's the meeting on the 14th of December 2009, which we've been discussing,

02:31:19 discussing, was successful in reaching an agreement on the way forward. Notably that there should be an overarching set of criteria focused on competency to undertake fire

02:31:30 focused on competency to undertake fire risk assessment. These criteria could provide a basis for individual schemes that could be accredited by UKCASS for both individual fire risk assessors and for risk

02:31:41 fire risk assessors and for risk assessment services provided by uh companies. That comment there suggests that you considered that the criteria would form the basis of accreditation schemes which

02:31:53 the basis of accreditation schemes which would or could be UKCAS accredited. Is that right? Yes.

02:31:58 Yes. Now on the 23rd of March 2010 you were copied into an email from Jeff Deacon of Exova uh to Rian Blackman who you explained earlier was in your team. Now

02:32:10 explained earlier was in your team. Now we find that at CLG104295

02:32:16 and if we go to the foot of page two

02:32:22 uh there uh Mr. Deacon said this as you were aware uh Warrington Certification Limited operates a scheme for the certification of competent fire risk assessors which is accredited by UKcast

02:32:35 assessors which is accredited by UKcast to the British standard. Following the presentation by Jane So that's Jane Boy given at the December review meeting and the subsequent developments. You'll also appreciate that there is little question

02:32:47 appreciate that there is little question that such certification of competence has to form the basis of any national recognition of competent fire risk assessors whether this is the autonomous fire risk assessor i.e. those that

02:32:58 fire risk assessor i.e. those that operate as individual consultants or those that operate through corporate bodies.

02:33:04 bodies. Now, did you agree at the time, so this is late March 2010, that the December meeting had left little questioned, quote, that UK accredited competence had

02:33:15 quote, that UK accredited competence had to form the basis of a national scheme?

02:33:22 It was certainly the preference, but yes, it was yeah, quite clear. And could we go to the top of page two um in this chain and we see an email from you um to

02:33:33 chain and we see an email from you um to Jane Boy, Brian Martin, and David SS. Can you help us? Who is David SS? He he he was in our um one of our lawyers.

02:33:44 lawyers. Thank you. Now, you write in the second paragraph of that email this. I'm pretty sympathetic to this and would like to reply confirming that this is indeed an option that is open to us and on which

02:33:55 option that is open to us and on which we will offer advice to ministers in in due I think in due course you meant to say there. Can you help us why were you uh sympathetic to the views expressed by Mr. Deacon?

02:34:10 Because it reflected our starting point and what what we wanted to achieve. Now you continue in that paragraph that you had and I quote no immediate plans to review the guidance. So it would be a

02:34:21 review the guidance. So it would be a while before such an amendment could be written in. Can you help us? What guidance were you referring to there? That would be the guidance to responsible

02:34:33 responsible persons that the that was issued under article 50 of the fire safety order by the department to help people.

02:34:45 So, so it told them how to do a risk a fire risk assessment for specific types of or offered advice on how to do a risk assessment for specific types of premises. And that would be the vehicle

02:34:56 premises. And that would be the vehicle where if we were going to say if this is beyond your competence, we could give advice on where they could go to find quality competent people.

02:35:08 quality competent people. Thank you. Now, can we go to CLG1 trouble 043604?

02:35:17 [Music] Can I apologize about that about that uh intermittent buzzing? I hope it's not too distracting, Miss Upton. No. Yeah, it's not a fire alarm.

02:35:28 No. Yeah, it's not a fire alarm. No.

02:35:29 No. Could we um look at the email that was sent on the 16th of June, 2010 at 3:50 p.m. um from Graeme Wilds, the managing director of International Fire

02:35:40 director of International Fire Consultants Limited. Um he'd emailed Brian Martin under the heading identified deficiencies in the regulatory reform fire safety order and possible long-term savings. Um, am I

02:35:52 possible long-term savings. Um, am I right in understanding that Mr. Wales was a member of the competency council? Yeah.

02:35:58 Yeah. Now, we can see that you're not copied in, but if we look at page three, uh, we can see that you were copied into the reply from Brian Martin to Graeme Wilds, which was sent on the 29th of June at

02:36:09 which was sent on the 29th of June at 3:27 p.m. Is that right? Is that a yes? Yes. Sorry. Um, if we can turn back to page four of Mr. WS's email, he wrote the following.

02:36:23 It was good to see uh both yourself and Louise from CLG at the fire risk assessment competency meeting at LFB last week. Um

02:36:34 last week. Um can you remember uh what was discussed at that particular meeting? Could you just remind me of the date again?

02:36:42 again? It would be sometime in June 2010 at the LFB.

02:36:48 LFB. No, I'm afraid I can't remember. The fourth paragraph down says this. Most around the table at the meeting last week and listening to subsequent discussions have serious concerns that unless there is some compulsion or

02:37:01 unless there is some compulsion or driver to comply, few will adopt any new system. With the exception perhaps of the bigger and more ethical building owners and operators, few will spend the

02:37:12 owners and operators, few will spend the money needed to use a qualified fire risk assessor as schemes cost money and therefore risk assessment fees will be relatively expensive for those in schemes and cheap from those cowboy

02:37:24 schemes and cheap from those cowboy providers not in approved uh schemes. Now is it right that the view was that absent compulsion few would adopt any

02:37:35 absent compulsion few would adopt any new scheme? Are you able to assist us? I think it was definitely the the sector's view. I'm not sure we we shared that view. We felt um I'm not sure we

02:37:46 that view. We felt um I'm not sure we did share that view but certainly there was an appetite within the industry for compulsion and because of the problem that Mr. Wells identifies

02:38:00 essentially that unless there was compulsion, few would adopt it. Yeah. And I think that's what we didn't necessarily share that view. We we felt that the the findings of the evaluation

02:38:12 that the the findings of the evaluation had suggested people were looking for um to you to use services. They weren't looking to be compelled to use services.

02:38:24 looking to be compelled to use services. Now he goes on in the next paragraph to say given the fact that we have been moving towards deregulation and functional building regulations for some time now and the fact that we have recently lost six people in the Latin

02:38:36 recently lost six people in the Latin house fire and seen several near misses in the recent past. Surely we should not leave corrective regulation until we have a really serious fire and losses as

02:38:47 have a really serious fire and losses as we saw at Bradford and Windsor. Government must create some form of regulatory or legislative driver. Signposting is not and will not be

02:38:58 Signposting is not and will not be sufficient. Do you know what near misses were being referred to here?

02:39:06 Um well Bradford related to the Bradford football stadium fire and Windsor was the fire at Windsor at the castle at

02:39:14 at at the castle. um

02:39:19 um life

02:39:20 life lives

02:39:22 lives weren't lost I think at Brad Bradford possibly but certainly not at Windsor. Are you able to help us as to why the Bradford and Windsor fires may have

02:39:34 Bradford and Windsor fires may have related to the question of uh fire risk assessors and accrediting their competence? No.

02:39:46 Now if we can go to the top of page five, Mr. Wild says this. Firstly, just below the top I should say. Firstly, the purpose of having establishing levels of competency and

02:39:59 establishing levels of competency and mapping them to risks was to try and ensure that people only operate within their proven abilities. If we let the competence debate drift towards one level of minimum criteria for competence, as I suspect many will try

02:40:11 competence, as I suspect many will try and propose, we will do nothing toward preventing the man-in-H van extinguisher brigade from undertaking more complex risk assessments. Reputable fire safety

02:40:23 risk assessments. Reputable fire safety and engineering companies are employing experienced and qualified staff. And yet work goes to cheap, unqualified, and inexperienced technicians. Now, at the time, what did you make of

02:40:35 Now, at the time, what did you make of his concerns that setting minimum criteria for competence would not prevent the man in a white van extinguisher brigade?

02:40:47 I think I was um

02:40:51 persuaded by the view that it was a very difficult thing to one of the key things about competence is knowing when you reach the limit of it. and if that was

02:41:03 reach the limit of it. and if that was and where you needed to get more additional support. And I think that was one of the key objective of a competency scheme was that people

02:41:14 of a competency scheme was that people would

02:41:16 would know when they'd reach the limit of their to be a member of an accredited scheme. You would almost be understanding when you'd reach the limit of your competence. So you would give advice to the building owner that they

02:41:29 advice to the building owner that they needed

02:41:32 needed different technical support. It would get away from the the man in the white ban approach because

02:41:45 you you you would have certified that you were competent up to a point and then the market would then I suppose create different levels of competency. So it felt the the first place to start

02:41:58 So it felt the the first place to start was to get um people understanding when they'd reached the limit of their competence. So in a nutshell, you were not

02:42:11 So in a nutshell, you were not immediately persuaded of the view that setting minimum criteria would eliminate, to use his pajorative phrase, the white van brigade.

02:42:21 brigade. I'm trying to understand your view. No, but you would be you would be having people whose competency had been assessed. You would be rather than it

02:42:33 assessed. You would be rather than it being a complete freefor all, you would have more companies with an independent assessment of competency than just the man in the white van. There would be a baseline.

02:42:44 There would be a baseline. Yeah.

02:42:45 Yeah. Now, could we go to page one in the chain? And there's an email halfway down page one sent on the 1st of July 2010 and you sent a proposed draft to Brian

02:42:57 and you sent a proposed draft to Brian Martin. You also copied in Ken Knight. Again, is this an example of an issue on which you'd seek Brian Martin's advice?

02:43:11 Yes, I think so. It was Yes, it was. There's an impression, and please say if this is wrong, that not only did you seek Mr. Martin's advice,

02:43:23 only did you seek Mr. Martin's advice, you tended to defer to it. Is that fair?

02:43:30 I took it very seriously. I clearly respected Brian's advice. He was independent in by virtue of being a civil servant. The

02:43:41 by virtue of being a civil servant. The the people I could speak to about fire safety and get an unbiased, impartial, independent view were few and far between. So yes,

02:43:54 few and far between. So yes, but being a civil servant, it means that you are free uh from the interests that uh concern business. But it doesn't necessarily mean that

02:44:06 But it doesn't necessarily mean that that individual is objective or impartial. That individual will have his his or her own views, won't they? Yes. And I was interested in Brian's views on on the these questions because

02:44:18 views on on the these questions because it helped calibrate, I suppose, my own thinking and the same with Ken. They both knew way more about buyer safety and the sector and

02:44:31 buyer safety and the sector and than me.

02:44:32 than me. Can you remember an instance when you didn't accept or prefer Mr. Martin's advice on an issue concerning the competence of fire risk assesses?

02:44:49 No, but I think we both were working within the same policy environment and had access to the same No, I can't. So if we can look at page

02:45:01 No, I can't. So if we can look at page two of this email chain and really the third substantive paragraph down, it's the one that begins clearly and you say this in your draft response that you were seeking Mr. Martin's views on.

02:45:14 were seeking Mr. Martin's views on. Clearly there are a wide range of interests and viewpoints represented within the sector on what the criteria against which to assess the competency of a risk assessor should look like. Bottoming this out and getting a

02:45:26 Bottoming this out and getting a majority to agree competency criteria has to be the first step along the way to the development of a national register or scheme which can be independently quality assured

02:45:38 independently quality assured via accreditation with UKASS. Again in July 2010 it looks as if the national scheme or register with UKCAST accredititation was

02:45:51 register with UKCAST accredititation was the end point. Is that right? Yeah. Now, if we can go back to the top of page one, we see uh Mr. Martin's response to you. Hi, Louise, we spoke.

02:46:04 Hi, Louise, we spoke. And then he goes on to say uh further down in the second line of this opening paragraph, the only point I would change is in uh the seventh paragraph, which is

02:46:16 is in uh the seventh paragraph, which is the one we've just looked at. This implies that there would be only one national scheme and that this would be UKASS accredited. I took the expectation from industry is that there

02:46:28 expectation from industry is that there would be a number of schemes probably but not necessarily UKCAST ones all using the same standard. Now that doesn't necessarily reflect

02:46:42 Now that doesn't necessarily reflect what had been discussed and agreed on the 14th of December 2009. Is that right?

02:46:50 Yes, that's right. Did Mr. Martin's understanding of the expectation of industry accord with your own?

02:47:03 Yeah, I think there was Yes,

02:47:08 Yes, I think it did. But that is contrary to the consistent theme of the discussions since 2009 certainly December 2009

02:47:21 December 2009 about UKcast accredititation forming the basis of schemes. Yes or

02:47:27 Yes or scheme? Yes. But I think there wasn't that consensus within the industry. And when we were when I was writing back

02:47:39 it it it

02:47:44 was a a way of not being um of not putting that you know a way to a pragmatic way through perhaps

02:47:55 pragmatic way through perhaps that might be so but did Mr. Martin's email uh prompt a change in the direction away from a single national UKCASS accredited scheme.

02:48:09 A single yes I think I'd have to see what what my actual reply was. Um well it's just I'm more concerned here to see what um Mr. Martin's views were

02:48:22 to see what um Mr. Martin's views were on it. Um, we can go to it if you'd like and we can go to hom trip038269.

02:48:42 And

02:48:47 what we can go to if we go to the second paragraph on page two. So I can direct you closely to the paragraph we're concerning about the clearly and what you said here was there are a wide range of interests and viewpoints represented

02:48:58 of interests and viewpoints represented within the sector and what the criteria against which to assess the competency of a risk assessor should look like. Bottoming this out and getting a majority to agree has to be the first step along the way to the development of

02:49:09 step along the way to the development of registration schemes which we can all recognize. Now what is missing there

02:49:21 Now what is missing there is the statement of the end goal namely the step along the way to the development of a national register or scheme singular which can be independently quality assured via

02:49:32 independently quality assured via accredititation with UKCAS. Would you accept that to a point but then I had it looks like attached the outcome of the meeting which had been the note of the meeting.

02:49:44 which had been the note of the meeting. But it's interesting that there's you did drop and I can put both Yes,

02:49:49 Yes, you had dropped that reference to a national UKASS credit scheme, hadn't you?

02:49:54 you? In this email, although it would have still been in those notes of the meeting,

02:49:59 meeting, but what we're looking at here is that it appears that you changed the draft response as a direct result of what Mr. Martin had written to you. Is that right?

02:50:11 right? Yes, that that's right. And what has been clearly dropped is the reference to a national register or scheme underpinned by UKCAST accredititation. That's right, isn't it? Yeah.

02:50:25 Now, um, turning to the next document, uh, in July 2010, you put up a submission to Bob Neil, who's then the fire minister on the subject of regulation for commercial fire risk

02:50:37 regulation for commercial fire risk assessors. And that submission can be found at hom quadruple0884.

02:50:53 Uh what uh you say there in paragraph 2 is this. The submission seeks confirmation that you are content with our current approach of encouraging the sector itself to address business

02:51:04 sector itself to address business concerns, that some form of quality assurance for commercial risk assesses would be helpful, and that the sector itself is best placed to affect business confidence and improve fire safety

02:51:16 confidence and improve fire safety outcomes. Businesses are unlikely to welcome the burden of further regulation in this area and any new requirement in this area would undermine the fundamental principle of the regulatory

02:51:27 fundamental principle of the regulatory reform fire safety order which is to allow those best placed to understand the risks to manage them down to an appropriate level as they see fit.

02:51:38 appropriate level as they see fit. Now what it appears is that you are not not now advocating the development of a national register of scheme underpinned by UKcast accredititation. Is that

02:51:51 by UKcast accredititation. Is that right?

02:52:08 Not at this stage. I think we we've broken it down to to be more um to take it in stages. I think

02:52:22 um to take it in stages. I think um I know I Yes. Well, looking at that summary, this is what you're putting up to the minister.

02:52:32 You are laying down factors there which are unqualified. Reference to businesses not welcoming further regulation, reference to undermining fundamental principles of

02:52:44 undermining fundamental principles of the legislation. It is clear, isn't it, that in July 2010, you are no longer advocating a national register or scheme underpinned by UK

02:52:55 register or scheme underpinned by UK accredititation. Is that right or am I wrong?

02:53:02 That's right. That uh development, put neutrally, appears to have been prompted by Brian Martin's email that we recently

02:53:14 Martin's email that we recently considered. Is that right?

02:53:19 I'm not sure as my thought process is took it to that. It seemed more an issue to

02:53:30 more an issue to keep the sector together and not I suppose put red rags up. It was kind of let them see where they get to. It was kind of I do think it's more that it had been parked for now while they focused

02:53:44 been parked for now while they focused around developing a standard of competency, but I can't there does appear to be a chronological

02:53:58 uh consistency between Mr. Martin's email and suggested change in his response to Graeme Wilds and

02:54:09 and again put neutrally a downgrading of the aspiration away from a single national register with UKcast accredititation. Now

02:54:20 Now simply because something came after it doesn't mean it was caused by it. But here there does appear to be a mark change of view which followed close on Mr. Martin's email. Did Mr. Martin's

02:54:31 Mr. Martin's email. Did Mr. Martin's email at least have an influence on the thinking that's represented by this submission?

02:54:39 Yes, pro. Yes. Yes.

02:54:44 Now, can we turn to paragraph 8 at the bottom of page two of this submission?

02:54:52 And we see uh there you advise the minister as follows. Although agreement on the way forward was reached in December and reasserted at a meeting in March, this

02:55:05 reasserted at a meeting in March, this may be fragile, there are a number of vested and narrow interests at play. Are the vested and narrow interests those which you referred to earlier? Yes.

02:55:17 Yes. In paragraph nine, you go on to say this. The next meeting of the competency council under the chairmanship of COA is scheduled for the 17th of September. It aims to consider the progress made by a

02:55:29 aims to consider the progress made by a smaller group of practitioners including Graeme Wilds who volunteered to work on the development of competency criteria. In the light of the outcome of that meeting, we aim to provide ministers

02:55:41 meeting, we aim to provide ministers with further advice on the progress being made by the sector and if necessary to consider whether other options may exist for delivering the kind of a quality assured accredited scheme or register of commercial party

02:55:53 scheme or register of commercial party risk assessors that business is looking forward.

02:56:00 Now again on one reading that seems to be further indication of the move away from the single national register underpinned by

02:56:11 single national register underpinned by UKAS. Is that a correct reading of what you are commending to the minister?

02:56:33 If I can put it differently, this paragraph is not characterized by any or any specific re reference to you Cass. No. So clearly um that that's right. Could we go um to your

02:56:47 that's right. Could we go um to your second statement uh which we can find at hom50082

02:56:54 slash5 and if we could look at paragraph 16

02:57:02 uh you explained there that uh the suggested response to uh John Burko who's then MP for Buckingham in whose constituency I think Grim Mars's company was incorporated

02:57:13 was incorporated reflected both the government's deregulatory principles and business's lack of appetite for increased regulation and its adherence to the principles of localism which place the responsibility for leading and

02:57:25 responsibility for leading and delivering change with the fire safety industry itself.

02:57:30 I've touched upon this earlier but at this stage what was the evidential basis for your conclusion that business had a lack of appetite for increased regulation? The reason I asked that is

02:57:43 regulation? The reason I asked that is that that appetite, that lack of appetite rather, was not obvious from Mr. W's email. No. Well,

02:57:52 No. Well, as I think I said before he the fire safety industry, businesses in the fire safety industry were very keen for more regulation and he was a part of that

02:58:03 regulation and he was a part of that constituency whereas the wider thrust of business um they hadn't they and and the whole policy

02:58:14 they and and the whole policy environment was for um less regulation and it certainly hadn't come through the evalu valuation or subsequent chats with the CBI or um

02:58:27 the CBI or um any business representative of responsible persons that more regulation was

02:58:35 was desirable in any way lots of but that's not a sensible question to ask them is it? If you ask businesses would you like more regulation in a vacuum they're bound to say no. If you

02:58:46 vacuum they're bound to say no. If you ask them, would you like to have a regulated scheme to enable you to find a competent fire risk assessor with confidence? You might get a different answer.

02:58:56 answer. Yes. And and we had had that answer that some businesses were looking for that. Yeah.

02:59:02 Yeah. Yeah.

02:59:04 Yeah. Well, had you had any responses from industry generally that they would they would not welcome that?

02:59:16 No, I'm No, but we hadn't done any tests. I suppose that would have rec Yes. No, we hadn't had that. But there would have I suppose been that would have been a there' have been a cost you

02:59:30 have been a there' have been a cost you that there was a complex set of questions behind that I suppose we would have had to go into and and we didn't. So to tell ministers that business doesn't want any more regulation is somewhat

02:59:41 somewhat uh beside the point isn't it?

02:59:47 Well, I suppose so, but we were in a very deregulatory environment at at at this point. Well, that's another question. Minister might not might say they might like it,

02:59:59 might not might say they might like it, but they can't have it, but that's a different question, isn't it? Yeah.

03:00:03 Yeah. Thank you. On that note, sir, it's an opportune point to break, is it? Right. Thank you. Um, we almost up. It's time we all stop for some lunch. So, we'll break there. Um, we'll

03:00:15 lunch. So, we'll break there. Um, we'll come back, please, at 2 o'clock. And again, please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're away from the room. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much.

03:00:34 Thank you very much. 2 o'clock. Thanks.