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

Full transcript

00:00:26 would you ask for something to come back in please

00:00:42 yes thank you thank you very much yes thanks sir um it's up to the next topic i'd like to discuss with you is the london assembly report on tall and timber framed buildings which was

00:00:53 timber framed buildings which was published in december 2010. now um the report uh was prepared by the london assembly's planning and housing committee and to give its full title it was

00:01:04 and to give its full title it was entitled fire safety in london fire risks in london's tall and timber-framed buildings

00:01:11 buildings copy of the report and recommendations was sent to the prime minister the report can be found founded inq 00147.1

00:01:25 if we could turn to page 11 in this document

00:01:28 document hopefully we'll find the executive summary

00:01:38 and we see in the second third paragraphs on that page of the relevant background which is as follows in january 2010 the london assembly called for an inquiry into the fire safety of

00:01:51 for an inquiry into the fire safety of london's tall and timber-framed buildings it was prompted by a series of series of fires that included the fatal lachnal house blaze in july 2009 that cost six lives

00:02:03 cost six lives this inquiry was commissioned specifically to look into issues around fire safety in london's residential buildings with a particular focus on timber frame structures and tall buildings and to make recommendations to

00:02:14 buildings and to make recommendations to the mayor of london and her majesty's government with regard to building regulations now if we can go directly to the recommendations which are at page 41

00:02:27 and if we look at recommendation 7 which is at the top end of this page it said this

00:02:33 this by 2012

00:02:35 by 2012 dclg in association with relevant bodies such as the local authorities coordinators of regulatory services lake halls and chief fire officers association

00:02:46 association should draw up national guidance to ensure mandatory minimum standards of competence for training and accrediting fire risk assessors at the time so december 2010 what was

00:02:58 at the time so december 2010 what was your response to that recommendation

00:03:03 i can't i can't remember i imagine we would have said that we were working with the

00:03:08 with the sector to develop standards of competency now if we

00:03:16 now if we in your statement you mentioned that you coordinated the proposed departmental response and provided the minister with advice on the actions being taken to address the recommendations and proposed an official reply to the scrutiny

00:03:28 an official reply to the scrutiny manager at the london assembly now we have a copy of the draft reply you propose to mr neil then fire minister at h o m zero four six zero seven two

00:03:49 and if we go to the second page and look at the fourth paragraph

00:03:54 it says this we have no plans to introduce a mandatory minimum standard of competence for training and accrediting fire risk assessors

00:04:04 assessors but we very much welcome the fire sector's decision to lead the work to develop an agreed criteria against which to assess the competency of those offering risk assessment

00:04:15 of those offering risk assessment services

00:04:16 services um can you help us at all was the letter sent as drafted here can you remember

00:04:26 no i can't remember um did you advise the minister that uh the

00:04:32 uh the assertion

00:04:34 assertion sorry you

00:04:35 sorry you so sorry was this is is this the letter that was sent no this is the draft we think all right that hence why our students sent in this form

00:04:46 in this form finally i'm i'm not sure i haven't wasn't i think i think the final form of the letter was in my bundle okay well

00:04:56 well can we look at what you've said here yeah

00:04:59 yeah when you said we have no plan to introduce a mandatory minimum standard of competence for training and accrediting fire risk assessors uh did you advise the minister that that was

00:05:10 you advise the minister that that was put neutrally a departure from what had been agreed in december 2009

00:05:22 i i i don't

00:05:24 i don't expect so

00:05:26 expect so why not

00:05:32 um

00:05:38 yes just because of the the question i i i suppose i i can't remember what was what what i've read but i suspect you've asked the question because i haven't i didn't so um

00:05:50 didn't so um i don't know i'd need to look at the advice that we put to ministers well looking at matters slightly differently um did you advise the minister to consider whether the approach you set out here i.e you have no plans to

00:06:02 out here i.e you have no plans to introduce the mandatory national standard remained appropriate given

00:06:08 given the concerns that were set out in this report and which was summarized in the executive summary

00:06:15 no we didn't we didn't i don't believe we ever put a question to ministers should there be a mandatory

00:06:24 stand a minimum standard of comment i don't believe we ever did that given its importance and prominence in the discussions you are having with the sector why didn't you put that to

00:06:36 sector why didn't you put that to relevant ministers

00:06:39 i suppose in the interest of keeping things short saying what we were doing [Music]

00:06:44 [Music] um

00:06:44 um [Music]

00:06:47 [Music] expediency i expect when you say expediency what is that a euphemism for is it that you didn't want to put this before the

00:06:58 you didn't want to put this before the minister because you didn't want an answer you didn't want or like

00:07:13 i'm not i'm not sure i think we recognized in the fire safety unit you know

00:07:18 know we would have had we would have had discussions with

00:07:24 with my manager around the advice that we put to ministers i think

00:07:31 we kind of just i suppose just understood the direction of

00:07:36 of the policy direction around regulation so um

00:07:41 so um i think we just made assumptions that it there would be little appetite for this without

00:07:49 without i suppose actual evidence and the resource to pull together evidence and consider it was something that we didn't have at the time within my unit

00:07:59 my unit but

00:08:00 but a number of points arise from that first of all as we established before the lunch break you didn't for example ask business about their views about what was needed to address what appear to be

00:08:12 was needed to address what appear to be fairly long-standing concerns about the competency of fire risk assessors that's right isn't it

00:08:20 in town but we would have had views from business they would it was a range of views because we were talking talking to them all

00:08:28 them all i suppose

00:08:30 i suppose a lot

00:08:31 a lot well the transcripts we didn't code yes the transcript of what you said before lunch stands obviously but can we maybe look at it slightly differently at the start of your evidence today you

00:08:42 at the start of your evidence today you said you'd put matters that were significant before the minister for information or indeed decision given the nature of the concerns arising

00:08:54 given the nature of the concerns arising out of fire risk assessor competency why were those concerns not sufficiently significant for you to put these matters and advise the minister fully about what the options were

00:09:07 i don't have a good answer for that i'm afraid well do you have any answer to that

00:09:12 that you just didn't we just said no we just didn't can i now turn on to the fire futures review and fire futures national interest work stream report which was

00:09:23 interest work stream report which was also published in december 2010 and we can find that at fsf quadruple zero double zero three seven

00:09:37 now is it right that the fire futures review was launched by bob neil mp in july 2010 when he was or became the fire minister

00:09:46 minister yes i believe so can you remember now what was the purpose in establishing the national interests work stream

00:09:56 no i'm afraid i can't remember i wasn't very close to this work i fed in but um it was left by others in the unit

00:10:07 uh can you who or which department within dclg commissioned uh this uh report from the national interest workstream

00:10:20 um i think this was the team that was led by dawn eastmead

00:10:28 and i think at the time i was still in a different team led by sandy bishop now

00:10:35 now mindful of that could i just nonetheless go to some recommendations made in the report can we go to page 10

00:10:45 if we can look at the beginning of the second paragraph in the left-hand column it said this the built environment continues to become more complex and the threat of fire more difficult to counter

00:10:56 threat of fire more difficult to counter we have found that there is significant evidence that fire safety is currently lagging behind these changes and needs to catch up otherwise there is a major risk that fire safety problems

00:11:07 a major risk that fire safety problems are simply inadvertently created and locked up in the built environment to cause problems for fire safety in the future

00:11:14 future did you agree with that view in december 2010

00:11:20 i'm not sure i don't think we have the evidence from the data of fires i mean i could see it was a risk but um

00:11:33 i don't know what evidence they were talking about when they say there was significant evidence it was lagging behind changes did you have any reason to doubt the accuracy or the reasonableness of that

00:11:44 accuracy or the reasonableness of that conclusion that there was significant evidence that fire safety is currently lagging behind these changes

00:11:58 um

00:12:01 i'm not sure i can i can answer that i think i'm sure i

00:12:07 had a view i would have liked to have seen the evidence do you remember contacting the colleagues in the department who are responsible for this document to ask

00:12:18 responsible for this document to ask what was the evidential basis for the conclusion that fire safety was lagging behind

00:12:28 no if you had had substantive concerns would would you have made contact with the relevant policy officials to raise that point

00:12:39 yes i imagine i would could we look at the start of the fourth paragraph in the left-hand column it says this

00:12:46 says this there is currently a perceived low level of competency within the sector in relation to fire safety and built environment not helped by the fact there is no common qualifications framework that

00:12:57 common qualifications framework that covers building and fire safety competencies did you understand the phrase fire safety competencies also to include fire risk assessors

00:13:09 also to include fire risk assessors yes

00:13:10 yes probably

00:13:11 probably that conclusion is a substantially the same as that reached by the initial valuation report and sir ken's final report following lachma isn't it

00:13:22 lachma isn't it yeah

00:13:24 could we look at the penultimate paragraph in the right hand column which says this there is undoubtedly an important role for industry industry-endorsed third-party certification schemes

00:13:36 third-party certification schemes but the schemes must themselves be fit for stated purpose and properly accredited the optimum effect will only be achieved by officially mandating third-party independent schemes or by receiving much

00:13:49 independent schemes or by receiving much wider specifier and client endorsement by insisting on third-party schemes to mitigate risks by specification now this report appears to be calling

00:14:01 now this report appears to be calling for industry-endorsed third-party certification schemes for fire risk assessors would you accept that yes

00:14:09 yes to your mind did the observation that the optimum effect will only be achieved by officially mandating third-party independence schemes

00:14:19 schemes require a sanction from a body such as ucas or alternatively the department itself

00:14:28 yes i understood it to be officially mandating to me in the department itself did you think that officially mandating third party schemes at this time was

00:14:40 third party schemes at this time was necessary and desirable

00:14:49 no can you help us as to why

00:14:55 because i i think i thought the process we were engaged in should run out i didn't think we'd had enough evidence to conclude that it wasn't going to deliver something of value

00:15:08 something of value can you help us you've referred in a number of answers to not having enough evidence

00:15:13 evidence we're now december 2010 we've been going through a series of reports that have been published since march 2009 all of which are characterized by

00:15:24 all of which are characterized by consistent reports of concerns regarding fire risk assessor competency what was the critic what was the scale of the critical mass of evidence that

00:15:35 of the critical mass of evidence that you were looking for that would persuade you that an officially mandated third-party independent scheme was necessary and desirable

00:15:54 i don't know i i think is the answer probably fire

00:16:04 a collected view from fire and rescue services perhaps based on

00:16:12 enforcement action that they've taken or

00:16:18 yes i don't know it was kind of it was kind of bobbing up every now and then again and it wasn't

00:16:29 every now and then again and it wasn't it kind of didn't have the critical mass of an issue lots of things didn't in fire safety but it was kind of it was action underway to deal with it it was the same concern coming up but it was kind of being

00:16:41 coming up but it was kind of being worked through well we have two reports both dated december 2010 did you discuss the recommendation for an officially

00:16:53 the recommendation for an officially mandated third party scheme with the minister given what you'd recommended on the back of the tall and timber frame buildings report i didn't know

00:17:04 i didn't know to your knowledge did anyone i don't know whether anyone did

00:17:13 you say these issues were bobbing up

00:17:17 what we've been going through today is a series of reports in a 20-month period between march 2009 and december 2010.

00:17:28 december 2010. would you agree with me that the theme emerging through all of those reports is clear and consistent that there were reservations put mildly about the competence of fire risk assessors in england

00:17:40 england yes

00:17:42 yes and equally consistently there were calls for an officially mandated system supported by independent accreditation ucas or something else

00:17:54 that line of concern was loud clear and consistent would you agree with that yeah

00:18:00 yeah then why

00:18:01 then why did you hold to the view that an officially mandated scheme wasn't necessary

00:18:10 i suppose as i said because we had started this work it hadn't concluded

00:18:16 concluded we

00:18:19 weren't in the business the minis you know we just i suppose the environment was we just knew it would be unwelcome by business and ministers but but we didn't test it

00:18:31 ministers but but we didn't test it you're right it was we made us i made assumptions that weren't sound that weren't sound could we turn to page 11.

00:18:42 could we turn to page 11. and here is set out you'll see a number of

00:18:46 of recommendations and the first recommendation you'll see on the

00:18:52 left hand side is this there is no need for further legislation however the sector should lead on the application of knowledge linked competency certification data sharing and awareness programs the government

00:19:04 and awareness programs the government should endorse this process and ask that part of the sector for a formal plan of action did that reflect your considered position in any way

00:19:19 yes i think so we didn't ask for a plan of action which we should have obviously

00:19:26 obviously can you

00:19:27 can you do you know why a plan of action wasn't sought

00:19:40 no no on the 7th of february 2011 you prepared a submission to the minister bob neal which we can find at home quadruple zero one double 0 3.

00:19:59 now we can look at paragraphs 8 to 13 which are on the second page of the submission where you set out various considerations could i ask you to read those paragraphs

00:20:11 could i ask you to read those paragraphs to yourself and if you could indicate when you need the document manager to turn the page and when you're finished

00:20:46 i'm ready

00:21:34 why does the submission of february 2011 not note that the fire futures report had recommended mandatory third-party accreditation to the minister in december 2010

00:21:49 i don't know maybe i'd forgotten could we go to page 3 and stay on that page and look at paragraph 11 and it said this we propose to offer continued support

00:22:01 we propose to offer continued support and potential barrier-busting resource to the sector to effectively resolve any concerns that the existing certification bodies including the professional institutions may have over applying for

00:22:13 institutions may have over applying for ucas accreditation and develop consensus as the future basis of any scheme or schemes

00:22:22 schemes what did you mean by the phrase potential barrier busting resource

00:22:29 um i suppose if they encountered a problem

00:22:35 it was really saying we'll engage if they want us to engage on an issue that they can't sort out for themselves i think

00:22:44 what form would quotes continue to support close quotes take

00:22:53 um attending meetings being available to talk to them not not very much really not

00:23:01 not other than keeping a watching brief over the progress being made probably as you say that's not very much no how is that

00:23:11 is that continued support as you called it how is that going to address the problems that have been identified regarding fire risk assessor competency well well essentially we were hoping

00:23:23 well well essentially we were hoping that they they were aware of the concerns and our

00:23:28 our hope and aspiration was that they would address the concerns and we would support them to do that this is february 2011. the first meeting of

00:23:40 the first meeting of the frac councils in december 2009 industry hadn't met the hopes that you'd set for them had they

00:23:54 no but i think they will work still working on it at this stage

00:24:07 but can you explain because one of the difficulties arising out of your evidence miss upton is is quite why you were extending continued hope to them

00:24:18 them absent much meaningful development or work coming from them

00:24:27 yeah i i all like yes i don't have a good answer apart from the policy environment was very much hands off we were stepping

00:24:38 very much hands off we were stepping back we didn't have the resource if there was a problem we expected and ministers expected the sector and the fire futures is very much around people

00:24:50 using their influence where to to deliver the change that was needed it was it was a very clear government is you say we didn't have the resource yet

00:25:02 you say we didn't have the resource yet you

00:25:03 you offered the prospect of quotes potential barrier busting resource on what basis did you advise the minister that what appeared to be

00:25:14 minister that what appeared to be significant additional resources on what basis they were available well i think that was really that that was a way of saying we would pull people in if they couldn't agree and bank heads together possibly

00:25:27 bank heads together possibly area boston suggests money rather than personal doesn't it oh no

00:25:32 oh no no

00:25:33 no no i don't i don't think so actually i don't think there was any money i'm not sure there was money i don't i genuinely think that was a people resource rather than a

00:25:44 a people resource rather than a financial resource would it have been helpful to minister to have said i put this bluntly you were chucking more people at the problem as opposed to it chucking more money at the problem

00:25:56 it chucking more money at the problem yes

00:25:57 yes well i said i suppose advice but the environment when this was written it was there was very little money around now could we look at paragraph 12. now

00:26:08 now could we look at paragraph 12. now i'll read it out so people watching uh know what i'm referring to you said this without our continued engagement there is a risk that the sector which remains relatively fragile would stall

00:26:21 remains relatively fragile would stall on its work to develop one or more national registers of competent risk assessors

00:26:25 assessors this would perpetuate the difficulty responsible persons already face in identifying with any degree of confidence the competency of those offering risk assessor services and may

00:26:36 offering risk assessor services and may lead to accusations from the business sector that the government has not done enough to ensure the responsible persons are readily able to identify suitable support to deliver a sufficient level of

00:26:47 support to deliver a sufficient level of fire safety on their premises in addition having initially facilitated bringing the sector together to lead this work the frac may perceive any scaling back of dclg engagement as withdrawal of

00:26:59 of dclg engagement as withdrawal of support to the sector in professionalizing the risk assessor market

00:27:08 at the time did you think there was a likelihood probability that the sector would quote stall on its own work close quote yes think so it was a risk

00:27:20 yes think so it was a risk did you think there was a an appreciable risk if i can put it like that that the sector even if willing would be unable to

00:27:29 to bring about the required changes to assuring fire safe risk assessor competency

00:27:41 i'm not sure i think i have i i think i had an optimism bias eventually but it wouldn't be quick were there any benefits looked at differently were there any benefits to scaling back the department's

00:27:53 scaling back the department's involvement

00:27:58 no it was very minimal anyway our involvement um i'm not sure you know we were really just saying we would maintain the presence and support

00:28:09 would maintain the presence and support as required because withdrawal of the department such minimal benefits as mayor crew were unlikely to outweigh the risks would you agree with that

00:28:26 well i think we probably would have had leavers that we could have used such as

00:28:35 while having you know

00:28:39 you know discussing it thrusting out the problems at a more senior level than than mine without with with you know my managers and with ministers and coming

00:28:50 managers and with ministers and coming up with a

00:28:52 up with a you know more considered plan potentially so further discussions rather than substantive policy intervention in the forms of regulation or whatever

00:29:03 yes but i suppose those those other discussions might not have precluded the introduction of you know

00:29:11 you know regulation or could we now turn to a separate topic which is your involvement with the competency council um am i right in saying that you attended most frack meetings until april 2011.

00:29:23 meetings until april 2011. yes

00:29:24 yes why did you attend them

00:29:29 to kind of keep to unders to try to understand what was going on within um

00:29:37 within um a difficult um

00:29:42 discussions to make sure that the um

00:29:47 um that it was staying on track really that there were that there were serious discussions going on around what a competency standard might look like that there was that sense of ownership and that there was

00:30:01 ownership and that there was that there was a process in place to get to the a point at which we could then take it further potentially did you attend the enforcement work stream of the fsf's

00:30:12 enforcement work stream of the fsf's work

00:30:15 excuse me the the working group the enforcement working group you're made up of fire safety officers yes i did would you routinely brief colleagues

00:30:26 would you routinely brief colleagues from the department following these meetings whether informally or otherwise yes

00:30:31 yes could we go to clg trouble zero three double five one zero

00:30:42 and if we look at the foot of this first page there's an email from anthony maude who was one of your colleagues in the department to you and other officials which was sent on the 6th of may 2011.

00:30:54 which was sent on the 6th of may 2011. now

00:30:55 now the substantive email is at the top of page 2 if we can go to

00:31:24 thank you uh where he says i attended the second meeting of the first partnership last month they've changed the name from fire community partnership lists of members attached neither seafarer or the lga attended

00:31:37 seafarer or the lga attended partnership are mainly concentrating on setting up working groups to take activity forward they then set them out naturally matters are at an early stage mainly concentrating on scoping but

00:31:48 mainly concentrating on scoping but there did seem to be some energy amongst the group brian robinson is keen to get dclg observers on the working groups as participating observers as you know he sees the sector very much

00:31:59 as you know he sees the sector very much in the lead but clearly there are issues where we can offer some input into the deliberations not least an in-depth knowledge of where matters currently stand

00:32:09 stand i think this fits in with the department's approach of not leading but seeking to contribute and influence where necessary would you be content for the chairs of work groups to contact named individuals here regarding

00:32:21 named individuals here regarding involvement did you think getting involved in the way commended by mr mort was a worthwhile endeavor

00:32:31 yes did you think that the recommended approach was consistent with the with the

00:32:38 the department's approach of not leading yes

00:32:42 yes could we turn now to another chain of email correspondence and particularly an email sent by brian martin on the 9th of august 2011 which can be found at clg one travel zero four eight double six

00:32:55 one travel zero four eight double six forward slash five and if we could look at the bottom of that page

00:33:04 here we can see that uh brian martin asked for your advice on an extract from the draft minutes of a meeting of the fire sector partnerships technical standards committee which had been held

00:33:15 committee which had been held in july 2011. we can see that he includes their the following excerpt from the draft meeting report and he says this diaz who we understand to be

00:33:26 says this diaz who we understand to be dave sibbett said that any organization has always had the right to produce its own guidance concerning fire safety in the built environment but from somewhere there has to come a

00:33:37 but from somewhere there has to come a single minimum standard if it draws on other sources that should be applied in order to claim that good practice has been used to deliver a reasonable standard of life safety

00:33:49 standard of life safety historically that minimum standard has normally been described within government publications or publications endorsed by government however government has stepped back from this role and intends to leave it up to

00:34:01 this role and intends to leave it up to the sector now brian martin then continues it's in the blue text it would be helpful if we could clarify exactly what the department's line is on

00:34:12 exactly what the department's line is on the government stepping back as far as building regulations are concerned there are no plans at present to withdraw approved documents has any such statement be made in relation to the fire safety order

00:34:25 relation to the fire safety order if not then what is the policy there is considerable confusion over what the department is saying in this respect did you think there was a lack of clarity about what precisely was meant

00:34:38 clarity about what precisely was meant by the government stepping back from the extent of its historic role

00:34:46 no can you help us why um

00:34:54 yeah unfortunately i'm just thinking i recognize this i kind of remember this i thought this was well if we can go to let's look at can we go down let's look at the foot of page two

00:35:10 and you say this can you see the your email there 10th of august yeah you said my view is that the last sentence is absolutely wrong but i don't know what has been said previously or where

00:35:22 previously or where and that last sentence was however government to step back from this role and tend to leave it up to the sector yeah so i yes um

00:35:32 um i mean i think that that is true in relation to the work we were doing or supporting on the development of competency for risk assessors but i think this

00:35:45 for risk assessors but i think this the context of this i think was broader guidance and i think it was the fire sector federation or partnership really

00:35:55 being maybe having a green light again which i we had i hadn't been aware of until i'd read this that we were somehow interested in them rewriting the

00:36:08 somehow interested in them rewriting the guidance

00:36:09 guidance for responsible persons that was made available under article

00:36:15 article 50 and that i think is where we we we hadn't gone as far as stepping back from that at this point i just think this is talking about something

00:36:25 something slightly different you're not talking about fire risk assessor competency no

00:36:31 no good right can we move on to a separate topic which is the definition of common parts under the order and i'm going to ask you about a letter that was sent by commissioner ron dobson

00:36:42 commissioner ron dobson uh to brandon lewis on the 11th of december 2012. yeah now if we go to that letter clg quadruple zero zero two seven four

00:37:00 um you can see it's addressed to brandon lewis who's then the fire minister i think he'd succeeded bob neal um

00:37:07 um have you seen this letter before first of all

00:37:09 of all yes

00:37:10 yes um would you have seen it at the time it was received by the minister

00:37:15 minister yes

00:37:17 yes now this document sets out various recommendations following the lfb's investigation into the lachnal house fire and before crucially the inquest started in january 2013.

00:37:29 in january 2013. now we can see at the bottom of the screen there the first and second recommendations the first one commended this but government provide further guidance regarding a

00:37:40 regarding a which parts and areas of buildings containing multiple domestic premises can be described as parts used in common common parts and b how the fire safety order is intended to

00:37:51 how the fire safety order is intended to operate in relation to these premises where the responsible person does not necessarily have control over features affecting common parts and or common fire precautions

00:38:02 fire precautions recommendation 2 that when clg sleeping accommodation guide is revised consideration is given as to how the guide might provide greater assistance for risk assessors

00:38:13 greater assistance for risk assessors owners and managers as to how they as responsible persons might comply with the order with regards to the common areas of domestic premises now first of all did it fall to you to

00:38:25 now first of all did it fall to you to respond to commissioner dobson's letter yes

00:38:29 yes was there any discussion with the minister about how best to respond before you put pen to paper

00:38:37 no i don't think so no would it be unusual for you to have preliminary discussions with the minister as to how best to respond to particular pieces of correspondence yeah very

00:38:49 correspondence yeah very now your reply is at lfb treble zero three two one five three

00:39:04 now

00:39:07 you've seen the response deals with the scope of the fire safety order and definition of common parts within it the final paragraph on this first page

00:39:18 the final paragraph on this first page says this

00:39:19 says this although ultimately only the courts can decide

00:39:23 decide we have no evidence to suggest that the order was intended to apply generally to the structure of a block of flats in brief

00:39:32 in brief this is because it would be artificial to delineate the domestic premises for the purposes of the order in such a way that it excludes the structure such as external walls around a flat

00:39:43 external walls around a flat we consider this is the case regardless of whether the structure is in property law terms comprised within the lease or tenancy of a flat because considering the variety of possible arrangements an

00:39:54 the variety of possible arrangements an extent to which various combinations might apply in one building the results are anomalous we therefore do not consider that the order could have been intended to apply in this way

00:40:06 in this way now in one reading the letter appears to contradict itself on the one hand you say that the order was not intended to apply generally to the structure of a block of flats but on the other hand you

00:40:18 block of flats but on the other hand you say it would be artificial to delineate premises

00:40:22 premises so as to exclude the structure around the flat

00:40:25 the flat is that a fair observation to make in relation to that paragraph yes i think so it it's always given me some difficulty and it is my

00:40:37 it is my a huge regret that at the time i didn't

00:40:43 really bottom that issue out before responding to the commission oh sorry

00:40:58 before responding to the commissioner's letter and did you seek any legal advice on

00:41:04 on the approach the correct approach to be taken to

00:41:07 taken to the common parts yeah

00:41:10 yeah yes and it was very clear that um it wasn't clear and i think this this response reflected that lack of clarity although

00:41:22 clarity although i should have done more to understand and

00:41:27 and put it in plainer english possibly but looking at it from a slightly different perspective would it be fair to say that there was a lack of clarity within the department itself

00:41:38 itself about the scope of common parts for the purposes of the order

00:41:45 yeah yes i think that that's absolutely the case

00:41:50 the case yes i don't think it had been thought about particularly at the time of the legends when the legislation was

00:41:58 now can i turn to uh the question of competency of fire risk assessors as touched upon by the commissioner's letter of the 11th of december

00:42:08 december and if we could go back to clg quadruple zero zero two seven four forward slash two

00:42:28 and we can see the recommendation seven

00:42:32 which read that government provide guidance for the responsible person as to how they might assess that the risk assessor has sufficient training experience and knowledge to carry out a suitable assessment of the risk in

00:42:44 suitable assessment of the risk in complex and high risk premises now that recommendation is the subject of an explanation at the bottom of page seven in this document

00:42:57 thank you and you'll see there the explanation says this next the word note and a colon this issue was identified early on in

00:43:10 this issue was identified early on in the investigation since then the fire risk assessment competency council has been established although the council is in its infancy it seems likely that it will address the

00:43:21 it seems likely that it will address the issues raised in recommendation seven however recommendation seven has been included uh for completeness now

00:43:30 now we can go back to it if you'd like but there's no need to but in your reply to mr dobson you didn't address recommendation seven no why not

00:43:40 why not i i think on the basis of this test we you know we don't say more in than we

00:43:47 than we needed to he was clearly aware and had um some confidence in the work of the competency council but there's no good reason stopping you

00:43:58 but there's no good reason stopping you simply saying that was there in the response to the commissioner no

00:44:04 no no i think i didn't say something else either in the letter did i i'm sorry i'm jumping ahead well that begs a number of uh questions but you certainly didn't respond to recommendations

00:44:15 respond to recommendations now the reply was in a letter from brandon lewis to james cleverley uh chairman of the london fire and emergency planning authority dated

00:44:24 dated october 2013 and we can go to that which is a lfb

00:44:28 is a lfb quadruple sorry lfb triple zero five eight treble nine forward slash two

00:44:39 apologies you want to go to page one just to make sure so you can see what i'm looking at

00:44:48 there we go now if we can turn to the second page and look at the second paragraph on the second page uh

00:44:54 uh you wrote this for your minister finally your letter notes that london fire brigade did not receive a response in respect to the recommendation that the government provide guidance the

00:45:05 the government provide guidance the responsible person on how they might assess that the risk assessor is competent to carry out a suitable assessment of risk in complex and high-rise premises fire sector federation published in

00:45:17 fire sector federation published in february 2013 the competency criteria for fire risk assessors that had been developed and agreed by the fire safety sector

00:45:25 sector these criteria which have been adopted by a number of certification bodies was published alongside guidance for responsible persons looking for help in finding an independently certified

00:45:36 finding an independently certified competent fire assessor to help them comply with their duties under the fire safety order the guide is available on the federation's website and my department has along with the chief fire officers

00:45:47 has along with the chief fire officers association encouraged individual fire and rescue authorities to make it available to the public on their websites

00:45:59 had there been any review by this day since october 2013 of the effectiveness of the frac guides in dealing with the problems about competency

00:46:10 competency no

00:46:11 no had anyone suggested any such review of their effectiveness no

00:46:19 could we now turn to a separate topic which is the letter to dclg that the secretary of state received from the coroner who sat on the lac north inquest

00:46:31 on the lac north inquest now

00:46:32 now the secretary of state received what was then described as a rule 43 letter and it was dated the 28th of march 2013. we can find that letter at h o m zero four

00:46:43 can find that letter at h o m zero four five eight six five

00:46:51 and could we turn to page two

00:46:55 and in particular the text under the subheading fire risk assessments pursuant to regulatory reform fire safety order 2005. and the letter said this

00:47:06 and the letter said this the evidence seduced indicated that notwithstanding publication of your department's 2006 guide fire safety risk sleeping accommodation and of the local government association's august 2011 guide there

00:47:19 association's august 2011 guide there remains uncertainty about the scope of inspection for fire risk assessment purposes which should be undertaken in high-rise residential buildings evidence was induced which indicated

00:47:31 evidence was induced which indicated that inspection of the interior flats or masonettes and high-rise buildings was necessary to enable an assessor to identify possible breaches of the compartment which have the potential to

00:47:42 compartment which have the potential to impact on the fire safety of the resident or others it is recommended that government provide clear guidance on the definition of common parts of buildings containing multiple domestic

00:47:54 buildings containing multiple domestic premises

00:47:55 premises inspection of a maze net or flat which has been modified internally to determine whether compartmentation has been breached inspection of a sample of flats or masonettes to identify possible breaches

00:48:07 masonettes to identify possible breaches of the compartment would you accept that it's plain that the coroner concluded that there was uncertainty about the scope of inspection in fire risk assessments in high-rise buildings

00:48:21 yes and in particular there was a lack of clarity regarding the definition of common parts in the order yes now if we can go to your first statement which is a hom treble zero

00:48:34 which is a hom treble zero four six zero four zero forward slash ten

00:48:41 and if we could look at paragraph thirty five you said this i was responsible for the submission dated 17th of april 2013 to parliamentary under secretary of state

00:48:52 parliamentary under secretary of state with responsibility for fire brandon lewis on matters under the heading fire risk assessments pursuant to regulatory reform fire safety order 2005. it recommended that the government

00:49:03 it recommended that the government provide clear guidance on the definition of common parts of buildings containing multiple domestic premises

00:49:10 premises inspection of a maze net or flat which had been modified internally in order to determine whether compartment has been breached an inspection of a sample of flats or masonettes to identify possible breaches of compartmentation

00:49:23 breaches of compartmentation you go into paragraph 36 to say my submission advised that the lga's guidance has been well received and was well known across the housing and fire sectors it had been

00:49:34 the housing and fire sectors it had been evaluated by the lga in 2012 and found to be fit for purpose now the first question is this what were the terms of the 2012 review

00:49:45 what were the terms of the 2012 review to which you were referring there

00:49:48 the lga um

00:49:53 engaged with the people who'd been involved i i believe the lta led that that review can we go to if we go to hom trouble zero two three two eight zero

00:50:11 now this document's entitled fire safety guidance and purpose built blocks of flats project evaluation july 2012. is that the review that you're referring to in paragraphs 35 and 36 of your first

00:50:23 in paragraphs 35 and 36 of your first statement

00:50:27 yes yes although i don't think i think i

00:50:32 i think i i hadn't realized that this was here but yes definitely this is what you had in mind yeah

00:50:37 mind yeah now if we can go to the top of the fourth page

00:50:42 there's the heading gaps in the guidance and it said this although 70 percent said that the guidance did not have any gaps the following key issues were highlighted as

00:50:53 following key issues were highlighted as areas that stakeholders wanted more information and guidance on flat entrance doors ownership and enforcement vulnerable people personal evacuation plans

00:51:05 personal evacuation plans competency of fire risk assessors

00:51:10 why were you satisfied given that feedback

00:51:14 feedback that the lga guide was quotes fit for purpose in respect of the concerns raised by the coroner

00:51:24 um i think

00:51:29 i suppose because you can never be a hundred percent but but generally the the feedback had been very

00:51:37 very positive and i think that was covered in in the submission

00:51:43 i don't know why i didn't spend more time thinking of this thinking about this in the bigger scheme of things um [Music]

00:51:54 [Music] but we had addressed you've done our best i think to address some of these issues with with the guidance

00:52:05 but is it fair to say that when you were looking at the guidance you didn't have this report and in particular this page of the report headed gaps in the guidance on your desk at the same time to check

00:52:17 on your desk at the same time to check whether the lga guide actually did address these particular points that had been identified yeah i think so i i can't really remember this it didn't have any impact

00:52:28 remember this it didn't have any impact on on your thinking then

00:52:32 i'm not sure i'm sorry

00:52:35 i'm sorry could we look at h-o-m zero two three two seven nine

00:52:46 really it's the second email um

00:52:49 um at the bottom of the page and it's an email from is it caroline bosday or bosdit to you date of the 31st of july right

00:53:00 2012. there we go thank you

00:53:05 uh you received the draft evaluation report

00:53:11 which you then forwarded to brian martin mary marshall dornist me peter wise and others

00:53:17 others and if we go to the top of the page

00:53:25 you say this hi brian mary you'll be interested to see this draft report

00:53:30 report which demonstrates that the pbbf guidance has been really positively received by the sector now pwbf is the lga guide isn't it yeah purpose-built blocks of flats

00:53:41 yeah purpose-built blocks of flats headline results 92.2 percent said they believe the guidance was effective in overall terms in contributing to improving the fire safety of residents in purpose-built flats

00:53:52 flats 86.6 said that the guidance helped them understand their legal responsibilities 76.9 said the document was easy to use there remained some issues about take-up

00:54:04 there remained some issues about take-up across fras and consistency of approach presumably fire and rescue authorities there which i will raise with ewg in due course what's ewg the enforcement working group

00:54:16 what's ewg the enforcement working group and grey areas around fire safety and sheltered housing which of course was not within its scope although helpful principle-based advice was included i will revisit this with the

00:54:28 i will revisit this with the fire safety federation group when we met in the autumn to discuss clarifying technical standards in relation to sheltered housing i don't think i have any comments on the

00:54:40 i don't think i have any comments on the draft report they will ask lgid who's that that was what lay calls became local

00:54:50 local government improvement directorate i think but i can't remember acronyms changed all the time they do you they will ask uh algied for a list

00:55:03 you they will ask uh algied for a list of respondents particularly fire and rescue authorities and an indication of whether on the spectrum of using it or not

00:55:10 not did you intend to raise the gaps in the guidance that we've we've just been looking at as part of the evaluation exercise with either ewg

00:55:20 ewg or some other group

00:55:25 um

00:55:28 it doesn't look from this the the the idea that i was intending to did you discuss the gaps in the evaluation report or the gaps identified

00:55:39 evaluation report or the gaps identified by the evaluation report with anyone on this distribution list so brian martin mary marshall dawn eastmead james webb mike larkin or peter wise

00:55:53 i can't i can't remember

00:55:58 is it likely probable unlikely improbable

00:56:06 it's more likely than not um

00:56:09 um but but again i don't remember i mean now turning back to your first witness statement you say on page 11 which we can find at hom

00:56:20 on page 11 which we can find at hom trouble zero four six zero four zero four slash eleven if we look at paragraph thirty six and the end you say this i reported our forthcoming meeting with the lga

00:56:32 meeting with the lga to consider whether in light of the rule 43 letter there was a case to consider whether any amendments were needed to the guidance including on the definition of common parts

00:56:44 now can you remember whether you received uh any decision instruction or whatever from the minister brandon lewis uh following your advice no

00:56:55 no no

00:56:56 no i would have had no feedback was there anything discussed whether from the minister or any special adviser or anyone in his private office about what was being done about the definition of common parts for example

00:57:11 no i don't think so i don't believe so now you repaired a prepared a submission to the secretary of state to inform his response to the coroner's rule 43 letters

00:57:22 letters and that can be found at h o m quadruple zero double four zero three

00:57:33 we can see from the top right it's dated the 13th of may 2013 so six weeks or so after the letter had been sent

00:57:43 been sent on page two and a paragraph seven of the submission you said this

00:57:52 we are content in the third line we are content that the lga guide provides sound advice on both the fire risk assessment process and the issues that housing providers should consider

00:58:04 that housing providers should consider if they are to ensure an acceptable level of fire safety it also identifies appropriate inappropriate approaches to risk assessment including sample inspections of individual flats

00:58:16 of individual flats and provides examples of the fire safety advice landlords may want to make available to their residents now on what basis had you satisfied yourself that the lga guide provided

00:58:28 yourself that the lga guide provided sound advice through that review process and feedback from i suppose informal feedback that it was

00:58:41 i suppose informal feedback that it was um

00:58:43 um good guidance

00:58:47 given that the coroner after hearing some months of evidence had concluded that the question of the scope of inspection remained uncertain didn't that or shouldn't it have

00:58:59 didn't that or shouldn't it have prompted deeper reflection on your part about the need for a more considered reflection consideration of the contents of the lga guide

00:59:12 yes except i think by this point it was clear that we couldn't clarify easily the scope of common parts and we

00:59:23 easily the scope of common parts and we couldn't give guidance

00:59:27 on that that

00:59:29 that so

00:59:33 was there an element of ostriching about that in the sense you put your head in the sand because it was too difficult to resolve

00:59:46 yes i think i think i understood it could only be resolved through a

00:59:53 a proper review of the legislation which was not

00:59:56 was not on the cards at this point so it was i think the guidance we'd done our very best in the guidance to make sure that people knew how to assess the risks throughout the whole building

01:00:09 the risks throughout the whole building while the focus the coroner's focus was on the

01:00:12 on the fire safety order the housing act provisions which i'm definitely not an expert on but the whole consensus in the department

01:00:23 in the department at the time was that the housing act provisions were sufficient to manage the risks from fire and by building owners

01:00:36 by building owners but i

01:00:38 but i i do take the point of course that this was an opportunity that

01:00:43 that there may be an element of that in the two difficult box at this stage well

01:00:50 well the coroner had heard evidence inquests into the death of six people after hearing that evidence she

01:01:00 she identified a lack of certainty regarding the definition of common parts that ought to have prompted you to review at least that issue arise in relation to the order shouldn't it

01:01:11 relation to the order shouldn't it in more detail than you did yes well we did go on because it came i suppose

01:01:17 suppose the sequencing in in my mind as i recollect things we have the letter from ron dobson london fire brigade and

01:01:27 and i

01:01:28 i which had been copied to the coroner i'd then replied to or the minister replied to ron dobson and had also copied in the

01:01:39 the coroner and we'd reflected in that letter

01:01:43 letter that we were looking again at common parts although it was a very complex area

01:01:49 area i didn't follow the discussion or the um lachenal house inquest and i so i just had you know so the

01:02:01 so i just had you know so the recommendation came was it i'm not saved it didn't come up during the um evidence but it came more through london fire brigade

01:02:13 london fire brigade in my mind than it did through the then through the actual

01:02:20 actual narrative verdicts i think it's easier than that though isn't it miss upton the question of common parts had been set out explicitly in the letter the coroner sent to the secretary of state

01:02:32 of state you could and should have done more to consider the definition of common past do you accept that

01:02:42 we should yes it wasn't clear that we did consider the definition of common parts and and it wasn't clear but i think whether we should have done more to

01:02:54 whether we should have done more to advise ministers that we needed to clarify it and how best we would do that we should definitely have done now if we can look

01:03:05 now if we can look at paragraph eight of this ministerial submission on page two you said this the lga plan to undertake a quick review with the housing sector to ensure

01:03:18 review with the housing sector to ensure this guidance adequately addresses the issues the coroner has raised dclg officials have offered to assist the lga where appropriate and what was the purpose of this quotes

01:03:30 and what was the purpose of this quotes quick review close quotes

01:03:35 to find out how the guidance had been reviewed

01:03:38 reviewed how it had landed with with with the sector who was to decide the scope and parameters of the review the lga

01:03:50 given that you were responsible ultimately you have been by the department ms upton uh were responsible for regulating uh these matters um is it right that you

01:04:01 these matters um is it right that you could have commissioned or asked the lga to undertake any form of re review that you considered necessarily inappropriate in order to answer effectively and fully the coroner's

01:04:12 effectively and fully the coroner's recommendations

01:04:15 we we could have had had there been um resource to do that i admit it's not a question i think that i certainly asked whether there was a resource to do that

01:04:29 but it had been quite an effort to secure the funding to actually produce the guidance given the complexity of the issues what

01:04:40 given the complexity of the issues what were the reasons for deciding that only a quick review was necessary and appropriate

01:04:49 i i think that that was again

01:04:54 a resource you know the the current assessor would come in we wanted

01:05:00 wanted it was important to know how the sector felt about the guidance

01:05:07 i think the timing of that was to satisfy ourselves that it was

01:05:12 kind of good enough fit for purpose and it had i mean

01:05:19 i mean we had recognized how difficult the issue of common parts was but it had given

01:05:27 guidance to people on how they might assess the risk in

01:05:33 in flats and in the common part and how they might make sure um

01:05:39 um the premise you know the whole building was was safe now the reference there is to consulting the housing sector um did that include fire and rescue authorities and fire and rescue services

01:05:56 i don't know actually i know it says the housing sector i don't know whether fire and rescue services were were consulted now sticking with paragraph eight it

01:06:07 now sticking with paragraph eight it says this and the third line as part of this process we will consider whether it may be helpful to define the term common parts which is used extensively in the guidance to describe those areas which

01:06:18 guidance to describe those areas which fall within scope of the fire safety order but which in terms of these regulations relate only to those areas which constitute a workplace which provide access to or from one

01:06:29 provide access to or from one now did you mean there that whether the phrase common parts needed to be defined was intended to be considered as part of the lga review

01:06:49 um yes

01:06:57 yes i think we i probably did mean that yes you sure about that no not really could you think could you repeat the question i'm sorry yeah did you did you mean that

01:07:09 you did you mean that whether the phrase common parts needed to be defined was going to be considered as part of the lga review yes i think well i think it came out whether we

01:07:21 well i think it came out whether we whether it yes i think we i must have meant that yes because if it was because it was answered wasn't it in me and if it wasn't going to be them who buy

01:07:32 who buy yeah

01:07:33 yeah so if we can go to cst quadruple zero five four eight four

01:07:47 here's a letter from helen murray who's the head of programs at the lga appears to be a round robin letter sent as part of the lga review do you

01:07:59 sent as part of the lga review do you remember seeing this at the time

01:08:08 um i i don't remember um see i i don't but that's definitely not to say that i didn't it just doesn't stay in the memory

01:08:20 memory can we look at the penultimate paragraph we see that console teas were given until the 30th of may 2013 to respond did you discuss with helen murray whether that was sufficient time for

01:08:32 whether that was sufficient time for consultees to respond properly

01:08:35 properly given the nature and complexity of the issues covered by the lga guide

01:08:42 no did you think therefore it was about right from your perspective six weeks yes

01:08:51 yes looking at the fourth and fifth paragraphs of this letter helen murray said this fire safety and purpose built blocks of flats was developed in response to requests from the housing sector for

01:09:03 requests from the housing sector for specific guidance in this area dclg considers that the guidance provides sound advice on the fire risk assessment process and on the issues that those responsible

01:09:15 and on the issues that those responsible for purpose-built blocks of flats should consider in ensuring an appropriate level of safety however like the lga dclg is interested to know if you as a

01:09:26 dclg is interested to know if you as a key stakeholder are satisfied that the issues raised in the rule 43 letters are adequately addressed by the existing guidance

01:09:34 guidance now do you know why

01:09:37 dc the why the view of dclg that the guidance provided sound advice was set out before the outcome of the consultation itself

01:09:48 consultation itself no

01:09:48 no it's slightly what gives the indication well quite that the matter had been pre-judged

01:10:00 i didn't i didn't draw off that letter but that was i i

01:10:06 i i can see where that's coming from did you have any discussions with helen murray as to the uh the guidance or the emphasis that this letter would contain

01:10:17 this letter would contain uh from in terms of echoing the department's point of view

01:10:22 no i said my contact i suppose i'm not sure i ever spoke to helen murray i suppose amen was my contact at the lga but it tends not to encourage a full and

01:10:33 but it tends not to encourage a full and frank provision of views doesn't it if the lga is already indicating that the department considers the advice to be sound

01:10:42 yep is that a yes yes that's a yes

01:10:51 um the paragraph referred uh the reader that we just considered referred the reader to the rule 43 letters but the letter did not expressly ask recipients whether it would be helpful

01:11:03 recipients whether it would be helpful to define the term common parts did it

01:11:07 no was that a result of a considered discussion between you and the lga whoever at the lga you are talking to

01:11:17 no i i don't think so and so if if the review was as you indicated to seek the views of stakeholders on common parts that

01:11:28 stakeholders on common parts that particular issue wasn't flagged up in the covering letter was it

01:11:35 no can you help us as to what you did to ensure that stakeholders views on the definition of common parts would be sought

01:11:48 no i don't remember doing did it cross your mind at all

01:12:02 no was it sorry can i just be clear was this the letter that generated the report

01:12:10 report that said

01:12:12 that said that there was still issues well this is the no um it's the timing i'm sorry i lose the sequencing of these no if we maybe de-amplify the letter

01:12:26 this is sent to may 2013 it followed your request the lga to carry out or to take ex conduct a consultation exercise

01:12:38 take ex conduct a consultation exercise in relation to the lj guide right following the coroner's left following the coroner's letter you'd indicated earlier that this review

01:12:49 that this review was to ask for views on the definition of common parts and my question was a simple one this letter does not refer to that issue at all does it no

01:13:00 all does it no so on what basis were you going to obtain the views of stakeholders on the definition of common parts in order to reach a considered view to respond to the coroner

01:13:11 respond to the coroner i

01:13:13 i i think we would have waited to see what they said if they'd seen the letters i suppose we left it open to them we weren't very directional in what we wanted them to look at but if they'd

01:13:25 wanted them to look at but if they'd come back and said

01:13:29 common parts we would have but you weren't directional you just didn't mention it at all no but but we sent the

01:13:40 the the rule 43 letters did we attach them yes so so the stakeholders had

01:13:50 the rule 43 letter and could have come back on anything i suppose with within that

01:13:55 that no we weren't directional i accept or at all or at all

01:14:02 why it wasn't just the coroner's letter that flagged up this issue you'd also had the letter from commissioner dobson in which he said clarity was required

01:14:14 clarity was required given that you had a letter from the commissioner of the lfb given that you'd had the letter from the coroner who'd carried out inquests into the deaths of six people at lachnal why did this letter not deal with an

01:14:26 why did this letter not deal with an issue which had clearly been the subject of a recommendation from the coroner the definition of the common parts under the order

01:14:35 order i suppose because we knew i suppose because we felt we had covered the point or the point had been covered around how they needed to do it and actually

01:14:48 for the purposes of delivering safe premises it was the guidance told people how they needed to do it

01:14:58 to do it what i think was much more difficult was amending the order to do it or whether and so

01:15:08 there were two there were two different i suppose approaches to it

01:15:16 um which was the issue of actually we could only amend the fire safety order with legislation

01:15:28 it was early days

01:15:33 was it well no not by then i suppose but not by then we could have it was seven years yes we could have yes i suppose the broader context of this is

01:15:45 i suppose the broader context of this is the fact that we had been through by this point the red tape

01:15:53 red tape challenge process the whole deregulatory um

01:15:57 um agenda i think where it had been very clear that ministers hadn't wanted then to review does that put the fire safety order

01:16:08 does that put the fire safety order partly as a um

01:16:12 um i hadn't wanted to put it through given how you knew it was and it and i think the idea was that 10 i suppose 10 years on would

01:16:23 was that 10 i suppose 10 years on would be a good point to review the legislation there were no e we'd made the easy tweaks we could make without opening it all up to full legislative

01:16:34 opening it all up to full legislative review for which would have been i suppose extremely

01:16:41 resource intensive within the fire directorate and if i can stop you there just yeah

01:16:48 just yeah had any minister in the department directed

01:16:53 directed decided or instructed you that there was to be no review of the 2005 order no

01:17:00 no so you assumed that was the case yes did you check whether that assumption was sound either with your immediate superiors or indeed with either the secretary of state or the fire minister himself

01:17:13 kind of did you do that yes in in the discussions around i suppose it was always quite clear um

01:17:23 um within the unit that the fire safety order

01:17:28 order was just too too difficult to beast at that particular time to handle but that was through informal discussions what do we do it's within the unit yeah

01:17:41 what do we do it's within the unit yeah and so the mata never got to ministers no we never put advice to ministers

01:17:52 could we so i'm just wondering well this is an appropriate point well how does it suit your questioning um as good a time as any being practical about it sir

01:18:05 about it sir probably a good idea if we had a break as it was up then we'll we'll do that now we'll

01:18:10 now we'll uh stop uh now and resume please at 25 to four

01:18:16 to four and as before discuss your evidence with anyone all right okay thank you very much

01:18:28 thank you 25 to 4.

01:37:45 would you ask this option to come back in please thank you

01:37:55 thank you

01:38:00 alright supton ready to carry on yes thank you yes ms thank you uh miss upton can we go back to eric pickles's response the coroner and that was sent on the 20th of may

01:38:11 and that was sent on the 20th of may 2013 and we can find it at home trouble six zero double seven forward slash two

01:38:26 now what the then secretary of state uh said in the second paragraph of that letter looking at the third line was this

01:38:33 this however

01:38:34 however we are not complacent i fully support the local government association's proposal to consider with my department and other partners whether whether there are any implications for the guidance arising from your rule 43

01:38:47 the guidance arising from your rule 43 recommendations which may need to be addressed in a revised document my officials are engaged with the local government association on this matter so the response the coroner seems to

01:38:58 so the response the coroner seems to have left over from the possibility that the lga review would prompt a revision to uh the lga guide which would address the coroner's concerns is that a fair was that the intention behind these

01:39:09 was that the intention behind these words

01:39:13 yes we would i yes the intention is that we we would look we would look at what the review said and consider whether anything needed to be done so

01:39:24 whether anything needed to be done so the door was open to that extent yeah could we go to the lga's review which is hom trouble zero four six zero four zero forward slash eleven sorry turning to the review if we

01:39:36 eleven sorry turning to the review if we just go to your statement first though

01:39:42 so hom trouble zero thank you and if we look at paragraph 39

01:39:51 you said this the lga informed you in june 2013 that there had been little response from stakeholders on its proposed review of the guidance which was interpreted as an indication that

01:40:03 was interpreted as an indication that the housing and fire sectors were content that the guidance remained appropriate now

01:40:10 now if we can go to hom trouble zero four six zero seven four and go to the foot of page three

01:40:26 we see an email there from eamon lally at the i think at the lga to you on the 21st of june 2013 and he wrote this we've had very little

01:40:37 wrote this we've had very little response to our request for stakeholders to review the guidance however we've had a very robust endorsement from the authors not sure there is much else we can do so

01:40:48 not sure there is much else we can do so we will take down the caveat from the web page reword the web page introduction to refresh the endorsement um when you received uh that email did you ask how many people had in fact

01:40:59 you ask how many people had in fact responded

01:41:02 i don't think so did you ask to see any of the responses no i don't think so um were you concerned by the fact that

01:41:13 um were you concerned by the fact that there had been very little response

01:41:19 um no not not really um

01:41:26 i said i said

01:41:29 i suppose it's it's interesting there wasn't i should have been more interested in in it i should have been um but it was it wasn't just me who should have been

01:41:40 it wasn't just me who should have been interested i suppose housing colleagues should have been interested as well

01:41:48 and would you agree i am now well

01:41:52 well would you agree that a robust endorsement from the authors was not quite the same as obtaining the oh absolutely yeah

01:42:03 now if we can go back to the middle of page three in this chain of correspondence

01:42:11 uh you say in your response to mr lally this

01:42:17 like you we have had no indications from the housing sector that the guidance was in need of revision following the outcome of the inquests um wasn't it perhaps

01:42:29 of the inquests um wasn't it perhaps more accurate to say that you'd had little indication either way because of lack engagement with the consultation

01:42:39 um yes yes i'm not sure i mean the consultation would have been one indication but i suppose housing

01:42:47 housing authorities could still have been writing to ministers or to the department with concerns around it and you don't recall anything coming

01:42:59 and you don't recall anything coming through

01:43:00 through other than ron dobson's letter which seemed to

01:43:04 seemed to stem from something which i suspect we'll talk about now in your first witness statement which we can find at hom treble zero four six zero four zero four slash

01:43:15 four six zero four zero four slash eleven

01:43:18 we've got paragraph thirty nine in the first sentence um you said the lga informed me in june 2013 that there'd been little response from stakeholders on its proposed review

01:43:29 from stakeholders on its proposed review of the guidance which was interpreted as an indication that the housing and fire sectors were content that the guidance remained

01:43:37 remained appropriate

01:43:42 now if we can go actually if we do need to go to it

01:43:48 recipients had been asked whether you as a key stoke stakeholder are satisfied and the fact of a low response may indicate dissatisfaction

01:44:00 indicate dissatisfaction would you accept that as a possibility

01:44:04 i said i must accept that as a possibility but this guidance when we started the process and pulled them all together it was a very very engaged sector

01:44:15 sector with this guidance um it was all

01:44:21 all given how totemic i suppose lacking or house had been it was conceptually inconceivable with hindsight that nobody would have been interested in this guidance when it

01:44:32 guidance when it had been the thing that was most wanted after the fire and seemed to address the points with the exception of common parts and defining that for the purposes of the order

01:44:47 so i so

01:44:50 so my assumption had been genuinely that the fact there was very little response to this was a positive indication that it was

01:45:01 a positive indication that it was embedding

01:45:02 embedding but yes given the vociferous sector yes

01:45:07 yes now can i turn to um a letter that was sent by the coroner to the fire sector uh federation the fsf also sent at the end of march 2013 and

01:45:19 also sent at the end of march 2013 and we can look at it briefly which is hom quadruple zero four three five six

01:45:30 do you remember seeing a copy of that letter at the time yes

01:45:38 and could we go to page two and look at the third full paragraph from the from the top of the page which starts it appears that

01:45:48 that your federation is well placed to shape policy at a national level relating to the scope of fire risk assessment and in particular with regard to assessment of high-rise residential buildings and to offer guidance as to how assessment

01:46:00 offer guidance as to how assessment should be carried out i trust that your federation will consider whether it has a role in clarifying the scope of fire risk assessments and in offering further guidance as to training of fire risk

01:46:11 guidance as to training of fire risk assessors

01:46:12 assessors now if we turn to h-o-m zero four seven double four zero

01:46:25 we see um an email uh from you on the third of april uh 2013 to colleagues within the department in which you comment upon the extract of the coroner's letter

01:46:36 the extract of the coroner's letter which we've just read and you say this interesting this will do much to embed the fsf as a real entity and so it'll be interesting to see how they handle it

01:46:48 to see how they handle it why did you consider it to be interesting

01:46:58 um

01:47:01 because i think there was such a very diverse coalition the fire futures have tried to pull them together with two into

01:47:09 into a sector leadership body

01:47:13 body um

01:47:15 um and i think the fact that the coroner wrote to them was um

01:47:26 it did much to to make them a thing outside of the department if you know what i mean to

01:47:34 did they see you gave them a credibility and status now

01:47:40 now flowing from that uh i'd like to turn to discuss with you proposals for a passport scheme in relation to fra competency and uh

01:47:50 and uh that uh report was prepared by dennis davis who we heard from last week and

01:47:56 and i think you became aware of a paper that was produced for an fsf forum meeting and which was to take place on the 1st of may 2013. now if we go to the report itself which is hom quadruple 0-1351

01:48:16 now we know that this was prepared for the competency and accreditation work stream um of the fire sector federation and it contained

01:48:26 contained a proposal

01:48:29 which we can find at page seven

01:48:39 and under the heading competency and assessment it said this the fsf was not to be seen as a third-party competency council but did have as the coroner put it national influence and as such should act as the

01:48:51 influence and as such should act as the guard in the gold standard therefore the objective should be to create a quality assurance board charged with ensuring the parties such as those who are signatory to the double c

01:49:01 double c double c fra abide by their commitment and introduce processes to enable their risk assessors to clearly demonstrate competency now i think the somewhat inelegant

01:49:12 inelegant abbreviation there double c double c fra is a reference to the guide for choosing a competent fire risk assessor is that right um can you remember possibly um

01:49:25 um can you remember possibly um i'm not sure i would have got that acronym now but um i think you might be right thank you now underneath that paragraph you'll see there are a number of a series of numbered points and if i

01:49:37 a series of numbered points and if i could look at the second and third ones in particular miss upton number two says this the fsf should recommend to each certification scheme owner in the double c cfra that their

01:49:48 owner in the double c cfra that their scheme offers specific recognition against each of the existing nine areas covered in the double c double c fra that the individual assessor is judge competent and this would be known as a

01:50:00 competent and this would be known as a passport

01:50:01 passport three

01:50:03 three that each passport scheme should also offer a graded level of competency in each area from one to three where three is highest in each level reflecting skills and understanding um do you remember those recommendations

01:50:17 um [Music]

01:50:20 [Music] a little bit yes yes well if we go to your second witness statement this may help which is hom trouble zero five double zero eight two forward slash one three

01:50:34 and we can see at paragraph 45 at the top of the page you say this my initial view was that the paper indicated a positive fsf approach to working with the lga and that anything they could do to

01:50:46 and that anything they could do to promote awareness of fire safety issues and the availability of competent risk assessors within the housing sector was to be welcomed however others read the fsf's paper more closely more closely

01:50:58 fsf's paper more closely more closely and drew their reservations to my attention including sir ken knight who in a later email on the 29th of april 2013 flagged the fsf's intention to write to lga with proposed amendments

01:51:11 write to lga with proposed amendments that recently issued pwbf guidance like my colleagues i felt this introduced a risk that confidence in the achievements to date could be undermined why was there a risk in your view that

01:51:24 why was there a risk in your view that confidence in the lga guide would be undermined if the fsf developed a passport scheme along the lines proposed i'm not sure it was more around i think is it the confidence and it was really

01:51:36 is it the confidence and it was really around the handling of it i think that didn't tell us very much we i think i was worried that they may

01:51:48 react rather than consider a way forward and that in reacting um

01:51:56 um i kind of agreed it

01:51:59 it may undermine confidence if if the fire sector federation

01:52:06 instantly said we need to review the recommendations on with very little evidence behind that other than this this one paper there wasn't it was hard to see what was

01:52:19 to see what was behind

01:52:20 behind um

01:52:22 um that paper but but in terms of hand it was more in handling we we would want to be clear that they didn't do anything i suppose

01:52:34 didn't do anything i suppose very reactive without thinking about the wider implications but hadn't there been concerns about fire risk assessor competency for some years by this stage yes and they yes and

01:52:46 years by this stage yes and they yes and they were tasked with with leading the work and so i was optimistic that this paper demonstrated that there they were keen to lead the work it was more for me really around i

01:52:57 work it was more for me really around i suppose how they how they may go about handling that work program rather than but did you have any evidence or

01:53:08 but did you have any evidence or information that gave you cause for concern that there would be a risk to confidence in the guide if the fsf proceeded as they intended i'm just trying to understand what the factual basis was of your fear

01:53:21 what the factual basis was of your fear or was it more in the level of a sort of hypothetical apprehension

01:53:39 he um

01:53:43 i think i just

01:53:46 just worried

01:53:49 at the very kind of narrow view that the fire sector federation might have had it was it wasn't

01:53:58 it wasn't an outward-facing body i'm not sure it hadn't spoken to business it seemed it was really talking about how it

01:54:08 how it policed itself and some of these issues a lot of the members of the fire sector federation had been on the um

01:54:15 the um [Music]

01:54:16 [Music] competency council risk um

01:54:20 um assess the council the council sorry yeah thank you um the frack um

01:54:26 um and had agreed with you know because the discussions there had gone through you know do you have a graded level of competency and that had been

01:54:37 that had been kind of talked through and the difficulties around that um established and it was just clear that

01:54:44 that there needed to be more thought and it seemed to me that this letter this report was aiming to really enable the fire sector federation to

01:54:56 enable the fire sector federation to respond to the coroner

01:55:02 and it was important i suppose to me that that response was as measured as possible rather than um

01:55:12 kind of saying we need to review the purpose-built flat guidance can i just ask when i read this it seemed to me that your last sentence

01:55:23 last sentence where you say like my colleagues i felt this introduced a risk i rather read this as referring back to the proposal to suggest amendments to the

01:55:33 the recently issued pbbf guidance is that the right way to read it or just does it refer back to the whole business of our i will i

01:55:44 the whole business of our i will i competency uh passport

01:55:48 passport yeah i think when i drafted my statement i was definitely thinking of it in the context of the um passport scheme for competent risk assessors

01:55:58 assessors um all right thank you and i think that's because i have the first sentence of the paragraph that's how i read it um

01:56:05 um but could we go on to um some email correspondence following um circulation of the report from the fsf and could we go to clg quadruple zero zero five two seven forward slash one

01:56:23 you see at the very bottom of page one start of an email from brian martin if we turn over the page to the head of page two

01:56:31 he said this to you and ken knight copying others looks to me like the fsf is in danger of trying to do more than is necessary desirable or within its ability

01:56:42 desirable or within its ability did you agree with that opinion

01:56:51 i wasn't very close to the fire sector federation particularly but but

01:56:59 but but but they

01:57:00 but they they did have grand ambitions um and yes i'm not sure how much i agreed with it but i was certainly sympathetic to brian's a broad sympathy yeah

01:57:13 you reply to ken knight and brian martin on the 29th of april it's at the top of page one of the chain oh lordy

01:57:22 oh lordy let's have a meeting sooner rather than later to see what we can do to steer the fsf away from its worst excesses in respect of control freakery i.e the development of a passport scheme

01:57:33 i.e the development of a passport scheme it seems that intervention is not without risk and we need to think about how we can best manage it now

01:57:41 now when you

01:57:43 when you conclude ken and marie will you set something up please sir ken had left position as chief fire and rescue adviser in january 2013 hadn't he

01:57:53 hadn't he yeah yes

01:57:55 yeah yes why were you still emailing him in april 2013 about these matters then well i suppose he'd drawn it to my attention the the original email so he

01:58:08 attention the the original email so he was very involved in in the sector anyway

01:58:15 to be honest i don't think i gave it any thought at the time i was just responding was the fact that he was still around that it seemed perfectly normal for you

01:58:29 that it seemed perfectly normal for you to direct him to set up a meeting to discuss the matters raised by the fsf report

01:58:41 yes i think i i don't think i was directing him to do that i think i was just

01:58:47 just probably acknowledging that his diary took precedent over minds um and so maybe if they picked a time when we could talk about it but

01:58:56 but i think probably focusing on the wrong bit of my question which probably because my question wasn't succinct but was it the fact that he was around that you considered oh sorry was it the fact that he was still around a lot or around

01:59:07 that he was still around a lot or around at all

01:59:08 at all that it seemed perfectly normal for you to retain him in these discussions yes i think he'd flagged it with me i think okay i think i'd been unaware until he'd sent

01:59:20 until he'd sent the email and i just um you said you didn't have or didn't have great knowledge of the fsf but on what basis did you form the view

01:59:31 what basis did you form the view that uh the scheme was at least evidence of its worst excesses in respect of control frequently

01:59:42 that's a terrible phrase yeah

01:59:45 yeah um i think they found it very very difficult to agree anything amongst themselves and i think there was an element of who shouted loudest um

01:59:56 um i don't think they were particularly well joined up and i always suspected that whoever wrote the paper it was their view that was productive predominating

02:00:08 predominating um

02:00:09 um and

02:00:10 and and but that's not the criticism that's made here though is it because you're you're saying steer the fsf so the organization not any individual there away from its worst excesses in respect

02:00:23 away from its worst excesses in respect to control freakery uh that suggests

02:00:26 suggests inordinate control rather than an insufficiency of control from a lack of coherence doesn't it

02:00:34 yes and i suppose it was the basis on and under understanding the basis on which they sought that control was kind of

02:00:43 of what i really wanted to get under the skin of

02:00:47 skin of later i suppose but in but my immediate concern was that

02:01:00 they didn't submit an

02:01:03 submit an ill-informed response to the rule 43 or set out things that would

02:01:12 compromise confidence in [Music]

02:01:17 [Music] both the guidance and the work of the frac

02:01:20 frac now it appears that there was a meeting between you brian martin anthony maude and sir ken knight on the 30th of april 2013 either following day do you remember that meeting

02:01:32 remember that meeting um

02:01:34 um no i think we um well not in detail but can you remember the gist of sorry can you remember that meeting yeah i think anthony moore was the

02:01:46 anthony moore was the um my colleague anthony maude was the person attending the meeting as stakeholder manager i think we wanted

02:01:55 we wanted to

02:01:57 to understand the background more to the meeting where this might have come from to get more information and to

02:02:06 make i suppose anthony aware of our concerns around where we were with the rule 43s and the sector response to the guidance which had generally been very

02:02:17 guidance which had generally been very positive notwithstanding the issues that they had identified and also the

02:02:26 competency the risk assessor guidance which was available i think we just wanted to steer them away from writing a response that says we're going to

02:02:37 going to change everything because

02:02:40 because we weren't aware of the evidence and this

02:02:45 and this i suppose one of the aims of government policy that you've explained to us during the course of today is for there to be a sector-led approach um you got a sector-led approach and didn't seem to like it much is that a fair observation

02:03:02 you wanted to retain control didn't you still over the process

02:03:09 i think we wanted to make sure that when

02:03:15 that when that any changes to the process were clearly understood and that there was a plan around doing doing that um

02:03:25 but yes um i i think so never see for what you want in case you get it is the lesson here isn't it misupped

02:03:37 but well they yes i mean it was up to them the response they put into the

02:03:44 into the you know

02:03:45 you know it was their response to the coroner i think it was just important that at that meeting with anthony just gave them a sense of a bigger picture that anthony could um

02:03:56 picture that anthony could um relay some some of this back to them but i think the response okay

02:04:02 okay can you just tell us what was wrong with the passport scheme in a nutshell

02:04:09 i think it was focused on buildings that i think the idea behind it as i recollect was that you would be certified competent to do particular types of buildings so

02:04:22 types of buildings so um and the way they and and it would be graduated so higher risk people with more competency but

02:04:32 but at that stage in the process the

02:04:36 the competency hadn't been broken down into that way it was just a single competency it was a kind of the necessary evolutionary step towards

02:04:48 the necessary evolutionary step towards having

02:04:49 having degrees of competency within an overarching standard hadn't been worked

02:04:55 worked through yet as far as i'm aware to the layman that sounds not

02:05:00 not unreasonable because some people would be competent to do complex buildings and some people competent to do any less complex buildings and yeah the criteria might be worked out in the course of the

02:05:11 might be worked out in the course of the developing the scheme but you didn't care for it no i think that that was the competency crisis

02:05:19 crisis that had been developed had said well i'm not you know the competency criteria for the

02:05:24 for the allowed the assessor to say i'm beyond my competency now so it was

02:05:33 not sure what what you objected to that's all that

02:05:39 i i don't think we would there would have been an objection in you know that that could that work could have been done and delivered passport scheme it just

02:05:52 needed more thinking about probably can we see what was being discussed at the time to see whether that answers the chairman's question it may not necessarily if we go to the minutes of

02:06:05 necessarily if we go to the minutes of an executive group meeting of the fire sector federation a meeting that's held on the 1st of may 2013 can be found at fsf quadruple 002.44

02:06:20 uh we can see that uh anthony moored attended

02:06:25 attended left hand column about halfway down if we go to page four

02:06:32 at the top we see am so anthony maude commented that there was some concern from dclg on the criteria and competency council work as it looks like the proposal is to review elements which

02:06:44 proposal is to review elements which have only just been agreed following recent discussions there is concern on the lga work and guidance and dennis davis's document mentions reviewing this with dclg confirming that additional

02:06:56 with dclg confirming that additional guidance is not required so essentially your essential concern was not the substance of the scheme it would appear but the general problem

02:07:07 but the general problem that it may be perceived to cast doubt or diminish confidence in the lga guide is that first of all is that right

02:07:18 yes i think so and is that what you directed or asked mr moore to communicate to the fsf at this meeting

02:07:29 yes yes

02:07:32 yes i think we we've had the results yes

02:07:37 yes i think so now could we go back to mr davis document which we find hom quadruple zero one three five one forward slash six

02:07:55 remember these are the bullet points we were looking at previously if we can look at number three

02:08:02 there's the following comment there was an absence in the ccfra of reference to risks posed by modification and refurbishment this could be a new section or subdivision of

02:08:13 could be a new section or subdivision of the existing nine sections the fourth point on the same page there's a recommendation which mentions h1 that's part of the competency criteria it says this a greater emphasis

02:08:25 criteria it says this a greater emphasis on the risks posed by the introduction of new materials building design modern engineering practice and building methods was required and then looking at five the importance

02:08:36 and then looking at five the importance of gaining access into individual premises rather than just to common areas to be incorporated highlighting how compartmentation could be weakened by occupiers

02:08:47 by occupiers now would you agree that cumulatively these points represent significant concerns about the adequacy of the competency guidance that was in place at the time

02:09:06 i'm to be honest i'm not sure i would because the competency guidance was signed off by so many fire sector federation members who sat on that group it was

02:09:19 members who sat on that group it was partly where this this how

02:09:23 how plugged in the sector was to whether this was simply one person's view with very little knowledge of what who hadn't been a member of the

02:09:34 who hadn't been a member of the um competence council um

02:09:41 i think that that's what i think it was just something that hadn't been put together with the with the benefit of full engagement from the

02:09:50 the competency council and of the biosector federation the extent to which this reflected everybody's views

02:09:59 views i felt was still not clear

02:10:03 not clear could we turn to a separate topic which is the draft paper on a national regulator for fire safety now

02:10:11 now you wrote a document in december 2013 which was entitled draft national regulator paper and we can find that at hom triple zero four six zero three nine

02:10:31 now was that document drafted to identify possible options in response to yet another review which is called facing the future

02:10:44 yes i think it was and was the paper intended to be the starting point for discussions with dawn eastmead

02:10:54 yes i think so can we turn to page two and roughly uh midway down that page

02:11:04 we see a paragraph starting

02:11:10 starting following the fire futures review and it says this following the fire futures review in 2011 minister's expectation has been that the fire sector will step up to the plate

02:11:21 fire sector will step up to the plate and work together to develop a strong self-governing sector supporting compliance with the regulatory requirements through the provision of relevant guidance to industry and others to date none of the

02:11:32 industry and others to date none of the key players cfoa the lga or the fire sector federation had made progress did that summary reflect your considered views in december 2013

02:11:46 views in december 2013 yes

02:11:47 yes was it your view that in effect sifoa lga and the fsf had not made any or indeed any sufficient progress to trust to address the concerns that various

02:11:58 to address the concerns that various reviews and reports that identified since march 2009 about the competency of fire risk assessors

02:12:10 yes in terms of the speed that's not to say they weren't doing it but it hasn't been quick you referred earlier i think to an optimism bias on your part i hope i

02:12:22 optimism bias on your part i hope i recall that accurately what had happened to diminish that optimism bias

02:12:36 i suppose it was just the general thrust of

02:12:41 of um

02:12:43 um the deregulatory policy it was the resource constraints austerity to having there were 43 fire and rescue authorities i suppose my

02:12:55 authorities i suppose my all of whom were enforcing the fire safety order in a range of premises they all did it 43 different

02:13:04 different ways there was no

02:13:07 no um common standard of competency of fire safety enforcing officers i think when you looked at the big picture was probably these were national issues

02:13:18 these were national issues you know there were the same types of premises and risk replicated throughout authorities and if there was i suppose a national regulator

02:13:29 national regulator solely looking at fire safety in buildings and fire safety management and looking at risk and mitigation strategies

02:13:42 and mitigation strategies that everybody could tap into

02:13:46 tap into it would be um more consistent for businesses potentially it hadn't that state of affairs though existed for some time though what what

02:13:57 existed for some time though what what was it what happened in december 2013 uh that caused the optimism bias to diminish

02:14:06 i think it was the opportunity to be able to feed something in that would change you know the five futures was a range of options for consideration and so it was a kind of

02:14:18 look away from the delivery delivery of the day job to actually could we do something

02:14:27 maybe more effective and efficient okay can we turn to page four in this document please we see there in the options roughly halfway down the page they start one is

02:14:39 halfway down the page they start one is to do nothing and the title of the second is make additional resources available to identify and analyze options to provide a national strategic oversight of fire safety standards and guidance up to and

02:14:51 safety standards and guidance up to and including the establishment of a national regulator for fire safety now if we look at that first bullet point it says this increasing resources available to uh fred what's fred or who

02:15:03 available to uh fred what's fred or who is fred oh sorry fred is the fire resilience and emergency directorate and that's in the department isn't it yes that was neil o'connor's directorate that looked

02:15:15 neil o'connor's directorate that looked at

02:15:15 at everything to do with fire and resilience to develop in-house or purchase expertise and technical fire safety issues so that we can provide and or quality assure independent and high

02:15:26 or quality assure independent and high quality advice to businesses and the enforcing authorities on how to deliver their statutory duties under the fso now just pausing there for the moment was it your view that the department did

02:15:38 was it your view that the department did not have at that time at least any expertise and technical fire safety issues

02:15:45 well or any sufficient yeah we definitely had insufficient i mean there was me in the fire directorate who was not a fire safety sheriff's disease

02:15:56 was not a fire safety sheriff's disease and there was the building brian martin with his technical fire safety from a building regulations perspective and

02:16:08 perspective and we were a very small team with lots of things to do i was definitely did not have the resource um or

02:16:17 um or you know technical ability to do this within my team and it was increasingly difficult you know

02:16:28 difficult you know to get others in

02:16:31 in to do it on anything other than an ad hoc basis

02:16:34 hoc basis now if we can turn over to page five

02:16:40 it says there the bullet point at the top re-brigading regulatory and technical fire safety policy within the sustainable buildings directorate promoting a more efficient use of dclg resources and expertise and developing a

02:16:53 resources and expertise and developing a more coherent and holistic fire safety approach to the national building stock um

02:17:00 um what was the sorry i don't mean this in polite way but what did that mean in practice

02:17:07 practice in practice it meant that regulatory policy for building sat really uncomfortably

02:17:18 building sat really uncomfortably in a policy department looking at funding

02:17:23 funding governance structure

02:17:27 of fire and rescue authorities where should it have sat i well it could have sat there but with a much more resource behind it but i

02:17:38 a much more resource behind it but i think there were a range of options for where it could have sat it could have sat

02:17:43 sat in dclg

02:17:45 in dclg um in the building regulations department because really the strategy around managing building you know there's that clear link and understanding of building

02:17:56 link and understanding of building issues although it has to be said building regulations colleagues i don't think appreciated that

02:18:02 that suggestion or it could have sat within the hse fire and rescue authorities were enforcing

02:18:08 enforcing authorities for other bits of legislation um

02:18:12 um i'm just flowing from that because i was going to ask you about that next why did you i think that uh transferring responsibility for policy and enforcement to the hse

02:18:24 enforcement to the hse was a reasonable or viable option

02:18:27 option well because the regime was essentially the same as businesses were used to working with the risk assessment process where

02:18:39 process where they manage risks down to the lowest as low as reasonably practicable hse inspectors were in high risk buildings

02:18:50 buildings they had much more well i'm not sure they did it wasn't evidence-based to be honest either but they had more resources than fire and rescue authorities that were losing

02:19:02 losing technical fire safety expertise and focusing on operational and community fire safety much more

02:19:12 during this period it was

02:19:17 it seemed a good fit with the principles of health and safety legislation in workplaces which is where the order was in primarily intended to apply

02:19:30 primarily intended to apply we see

02:19:31 we see low down the page as the third bullet point the suggestion that there'd be an arms-length independent national regulator for fire safety with a leading role in number of areas including developing and maintaining

02:19:43 including developing and maintaining professional competency standards for those providing or auditing fire risk assessments looking at the latter element of that developing and maintaining professional competency standards wasn't that

02:19:55 wasn't that in broad terms what the fsf was seeking to achieve by its passport scheme

02:20:03 i was never very clear what what they were necessarily intending but certainly

02:20:09 certainly i wasn't i think convinced that the sf s

02:20:14 s would be able to deliver

02:20:18 to to deliver it in the way possibly businesses wanted this proposal the national regulator went no further do you know why i think it was very

02:20:30 i think it was very um

02:20:34 i i think it had gone in a paper to ministers

02:20:39 ministers and they'd said no we're not interested in that but maybe do a bit more work this was

02:20:45 this was this was a bit more work i think that i did

02:20:50 did around it um

02:20:54 and i suspect it was just there was too much going on but i don't know why you'd have to ask but it just didn't go any further no now you say in your first witness

02:21:05 now you say in your first witness statement we don't need to go to it that the development of the proposal arose uh following concerns raised by business and the focus on enforcement review that was conducted in 2013 by the better

02:21:17 that was conducted in 2013 by the better regulation executive we can go to that review which is hom trouble zero two six double five forward slash 1 9.

02:21:36 we see there in the first substantive paragraph that commercial fire risk assessors yet again are addressed by a report and it said this many small businesses are using

02:21:47 this many small businesses are using commercial providers to carry out their risk assessments with little assurance available on the quality of their service they'll go slightly further halfway down the page sentence which starts with the word

02:21:58 sentence which starts with the word however

02:22:00 however have you got it

02:22:04 yes sorry i have yeah thank you don't worry it's quite way down the paragraph however it is clear that many businesses use commercial third parties to carry out the risk assessment until recently

02:22:15 out the risk assessment until recently no certification or accreditation existed in relation to these services and none are currently required in the market meaning that in effect anyone can offer their services some businesses reported overselling by

02:22:27 some businesses reported overselling by assessors there are also equipment suppliers and a number of fire professionals question the quality of some commercial providers in practice a third party assessment offers no guarantees to a business

02:22:39 offers no guarantees to a business and sometimes they will find that a fire protection officer will ask for additional measures beyond those identified in the bought in fire risk assessment if we go to the next paragraph and

02:22:50 if we go to the next paragraph and roughly down that next paragraph a sentence which starts with the word it should be noted it should be noted that some business bodies are not in favor of accreditation

02:23:03 bodies are not in favor of accreditation for third parties seeing this as another regulatory step identifying the risk that it may squeeze some smaller operators out of the market and also because they think it may in time lead

02:23:14 because they think it may in time lead to businesses having to use a third party assessor and thereby lead to increased costs for small businesses a number of fire industry professionals nevertheless thought there was a good

02:23:25 nevertheless thought there was a good case for certification and accreditation would you agree that this is yet another example of concerns raised about the competence of third party fire

02:23:36 about the competence of third party fire risk assessors yes

02:23:41 yes at this stage did this report or comment prompt any further consideration of what to do by the about the parentally vexed issue of the competency of fire risk assessors

02:23:53 of the competency of fire risk assessors well

02:23:56 i mean

02:24:01 no i think it was a mo you know you get

02:24:10 no there's as much positive probably in this and as much how business viewed it um

02:24:18 um i don't

02:24:20 i don't i think the if the question which i know it probably isn't is did we act on any of this

02:24:26 of this it did prompt the thought around probably a national regulator to help everybody out in this space you know to raise standards across the piece but um there was no

02:24:39 but um there was no um

02:24:42 appetite for more regulation um could i deal with just one final topic before we rise uh today sir yeah um it's the building research establishment report from 2015

02:24:55 research establishment report from 2015 miss upton um it was a review commissioned by uh elfipa oh yes um in 2015 and i think in or about january 2015 you became aware uh that the alfiba

02:25:07 2015 you became aware uh that the alfiba had commissioned the report and it was about the effectiveness of the fsa in broad terms have i summarized matters right um

02:25:16 um dade elfira had established a working group after the lachnal inquests and following the letter that they had received from the coroner is that right

02:25:26 yes i think so now if we can go to clg trouble zero three double five two five uh this is a chain of email correspondence in january 2015

02:25:38 correspondence in january 2015 concerning the project could we look at your email which was sent on the 20th of january 2015 which is at the head of this email change and page one and could we look at the fifth line of

02:25:50 and could we look at the fifth line of the third paragraph and there you explain that the department corresponded with elfipa and officials on this work late in 2013 and addressed

02:26:03 on this work late in 2013 and addressed as far as we are as were able the issues that were raised with us for clarification the lachnal house working group completed its work in july 2014 and passed four issues on to the elfipa

02:26:16 passed four issues on to the elfipa strategy committee to take forward these were as follows and i'd like to look at the first two the regulation of leasehold properties within high-rise buildings how landlords are dealing with leaseholders making

02:26:28 are dealing with leaseholders making modifications to door interior walls etc which potentially compromise the fire safety of buildings second point the need for a recognized government standard for competent

02:26:39 government standard for competent persons carrying out fire safety preventative measures now in terms of the substance of the report if we turn to volume one we can find that at lfb quadruple zero one five

02:26:50 find that at lfb quadruple zero one five six five

02:26:59 and if we turn to page four

02:27:03 this is part of the executive summary miss upton and you can see roughly a third of the way down the heading next steps and the fourth bullet point contains the following recommendation

02:27:16 contains the following recommendation namely

02:27:17 namely a register for competent persons to assist those responsible for the far risk assessment and the prevention and protection measures that fall out of this need to become more accessible

02:27:28 this need to become more accessible similar to the gas safe register now am i right in understanding that the gas safe register is mandatory

02:27:41 yes i i believe it is now

02:27:44 now in your second witness statement which we find at hom treble zero five double zero eight two forward slash one four

02:27:58 and at paragraph 51 at the bottom of that page

02:28:02 you were asked whether you'd formed a view about the merits of that proposal and you said this i imagine i would have thought that the suggestion to establish a similar profile for risk far risk

02:28:13 a similar profile for risk far risk assessors as that enjoyed by gas engineers through the well-established gas safety register would in principle have been a helpful means to provide businesses and other responsible persons

02:28:24 businesses and other responsible persons with an easily recognizable degree of assurance about the competency and experience of those they may consider employing to carry out their fire risk assessment

02:28:35 assessment in binary terms did you support or not support this proposal i suppose i supported the the principle that it should be as easily recognizable

02:28:47 that it should be as easily recognizable that if you were a business looking for a

02:28:51 a competent fire risk assessor there was somewhere where you could go that had the kind of profile of the gas safety register i think it i was

02:29:02 not necessarily based on business views as supportive of that making that mandatory and i think you could have had and i think

02:29:13 and i think my expectation was of the fire sector federation was that it would have developed and publicized a scheme for business around these are competent virus successors and they've been

02:29:26 virus successors and they've been assessed to a common standard and with these bodies standards have ucas accreditation and these have professional standards and they would have publicized that in the same way but

02:29:38 have publicized that in the same way but i think what i wouldn't necessarily have

02:29:43 have agreed with is that all businesses should have had a requirement to use a

02:29:53 fire risk assessor on a register because of because of the added regulatory burden that would have imposed upon them and it was quite clear

02:30:05 imposed upon them and it was quite clear that lots of businesses were doing

02:30:09 doing [Music]

02:30:11 [Music] risk assessments without the need you know quality high quality risk assessments or had arrangements in place that they were comfortable with to deliver their risk

02:30:22 comfortable with to deliver their risk assessments it just wasn't necessary to be

02:30:25 be mandatory but i would have liked something like a corgi fire safety risk assessor to be if you're a business looking for help you could go

02:30:36 looking for help you could go to a single point of contact there's a lot in that answer first of all

02:30:42 all you didn't do anything to discover the views of business in relation to the merits of a corgi style scheme for determining the assessment uh the competence of fire risk assessors is that right

02:30:54 that right no but we have the evidence from the focus on enforcement review and from the initial evaluation where it wasn't universal businesses weren't

02:31:06 universal businesses weren't screaming out for um you know writing all the time or it was an issue around the quality not knowing the quality of a risk assessment

02:31:18 knowing the quality of a risk assessment you mentioned that there were high quality fire risk assessments out there on what basis did you reach that view

02:31:29 i suppose because of

02:31:36 yes i i don't know i suppose because because fight because fires not spreading very far being very few fires you know i

02:31:47 very far being very few fires you know i suppose the fire safety measures no we didn't you're right i'm sorry there is an element that not i don't know what number report this is which

02:31:58 know what number report this is which makes

02:31:59 makes recommendations regarding the competency of fire risk assessors there's a there's an impression miss upton

02:32:06 upton that you pick and choose what you want from certain reports you picked upon reports of business lack of enthusiasm for a competency scheme and treat that as compelling evidence not to do

02:32:17 as compelling evidence not to do anything and yet the consistent theme of encouragement for there to be a proper scheme for determining the constancy of fire risk successors you ignore why

02:32:30 well i think

02:32:33 i think largely the

02:32:39 we did want a scheme for competent fire risk assessors and worked you know and that had there was a guide to choosing one there was an agreed competency standard there was information available on where to go to

02:32:52 information available on where to go to get

02:32:53 get somebody with third-party assurance around their competency it wasn't a mandatory scheme but but you could find that information

02:33:05 find that information it was such a deregulatory environment that we were in businesses were absolutely adamant that they didn't want more regulation that they wanted

02:33:18 want more regulation that they wanted i think we've established you did nothing to establish the view of businesses no but through the focus on enforcement what review work but this bayes did

02:33:29 bayes did this at the time i think department of business is an industrial strategy i think was one of its titles at one stage yeah okay um so that um the good point is i think so

02:33:42 is i think so right well something we've done enough work for the day we're going to stop there but i'm going to have to ask you to come back with some more questions tomorrow i think you were expecting to do that i will sure yes right well

02:33:53 do that i will sure yes right well as i say we'll stop there we'll resume please at 10 o'clock tomorrow and again i have to ask you not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it when you're out of the room right yes thank you very

02:34:04 of the room right yes thank you very much you'd like to go to the ocean please yes

02:34:17 thank you mr kinnear 10 o'clock tomorrow thank you