Continuation of Home Office witness testimony examining departmental failures in fire safety policy. Miss Upton reveals lack of communication about GR 3.2 guidance concerns, admits the department didn't understand fire safety risks, and describes how austerity-driven reforms and deregulation agenda led to smaller teams and lost sight of critical safety issues.
00:00:10 Would
00:00:22 you ask something to come back in, please?
00:00:36 All right, Miss Upton, you ready to carry on?
00:00:38 carry on? I am. Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Can. Thank you, sir. Uh, Miss Upton, going back to uh the discussions between the LFB and the department regarding the draft GR 3.2. Um, we don't have any
00:00:51 draft GR 3.2. Um, we don't have any record of a meeting uh at the end of October 2013, but there is a record of a meeting that was held on the 6th of November 2013. Mr. Cowup's recollection
00:01:02 November 2013. Mr. Cowup's recollection was that the meeting was attended by him and Philip Morton of the LFB and Les Britzman, Anthony Maud, and Neil O' Connor on behalf of the department. Were you aware of that particular meeting?
00:01:14 you aware of that particular meeting? No, I don't think I was. Um, Peter Carrop said that he wasn't provided with any documents by anyone uh from the department for the purpose of this meeting. Um, it would appear,
00:01:25 this meeting. Um, it would appear, therefore, he didn't have the benefit of your comments on the draft uh GRA 3.2. too. Does it surprise you that your comments hadn't been forwarded to him,
00:01:36 comments hadn't been forwarded to him, either cut and paste from your email in a separate document or or otherwise? Yes.
00:01:43 Yes. Yes.
00:01:44 Yes. Would that have been the normal course of events? Um, I suppose the normal course of events would have been to maybe explain why not. they wouldn't necessarily have
00:01:57 why not. they wouldn't necessarily have had to forward those comments if they, you know, didn't agree or there was a difference of opinion or some lack of clarity over it. Um, but I wasn't aware of of that being the
00:02:10 but I wasn't aware of of that being the case. So therefore, I am surprised. Okay. Mr. Carrop um expressed his concerns when he gave evidence that Mr. Britzman uh in his words did not properly understand the challenge he was
00:02:21 properly understand the challenge he was taking on by requesting the rectification of what the department saw as deficiencies in the document at that late stage. Uh Mr. Cow stated that he tried to point
00:02:32 Uh Mr. Cow stated that he tried to point out to Mr. Britzman quotes that you're taking on a very very significant piece of work and quotes the workload wouldn't just be making the changes it would be in agreeing the document through another
00:02:43 in agreeing the document through another consultation round and the changes that would have come from that. and he consider Mr. CowP considered and I quote you were looking at 6 or 9 months duration for that to take place. Were
00:02:55 duration for that to take place. Were those concerns about time frame and [clears throat] the potential need for a further round of consultation? Were they reported back to you? No. And I suspect they related to things that weren't covered by my changes. I
00:03:09 that weren't covered by my changes. I suppose seem quite simple and easy to do. I wasn't aware that they would be I suppose it's not knowing how the GRA
00:03:20 I suppose it's not knowing how the GRA process worked between the department. I wasn't aware of that. And so you weren't involved in any discussions about whether a further round of consultation was required or not.
00:03:33 Were you aware at the time that the department and I suppose more precisely the CFRA's unit thought that the required changes to the draft would require in due course a further round of
00:03:44 require in due course a further round of consultation?
00:03:50 No. Were they just my my changes? Sorry, I I'm I'm overstepping. Sorry. I'm just interested or whether there were more changes that might have
00:04:01 were more changes that might have required
00:04:01 required a review of the document but again prompted um by the changes that you made to the document. Right. No, I wasn't aware. No, but there were no discussions that you were involved in about the need for
00:04:13 you were involved in about the need for a further round of consultation regarding the draft text of GR 3.2. No, not that I can remember. Okay.
00:04:22 Okay. Now, in your second statement, you said you didn't have any involvement in matters after the meeting on the 6th of November 2013 in making or reviewing any further amendments to the draft uh
00:04:34 further amendments to the draft uh before it was eventually sent out for publication later that month. Is that a fair summary of the position? Yes, I think there I've looked subsequently back you going through the preparing for this evidence and I I
00:04:46 preparing for this evidence and I I think there was a later version dated one number 1.8 eight, which I think I probably did see. Um, so I'm just not sure about the dates and the sequencing
00:04:58 sure about the dates and the sequencing about the entirely the entire accuracy that the the draft I saw on the 15th was the last one I saw. Well, can we look at an email thread uh
00:05:09 Well, can we look at an email thread uh that uh took place between the 22nd and 25th of November 2013? We can find that at hom4391.
00:05:21 And if we could start with an email on page three and in particular the bottom email on that page which was sent by less Britzman on the 22nd of November at 3:47 to Peter Holland, you Anthony Maud,
00:05:34 3:47 to Peter Holland, you Anthony Maud, Brian Martin and others. Now in the first substantive line, Mr. Britzman said this. Following discussions between Peter and Ron Dobson who has decided to send the GR out
00:05:46 who has decided to send the GR out largely in its current form. Now Peter there will be Peter Holland I assume. Is that a yes? I assume so. Did you have any involvement in or
00:05:58 Did you have any involvement in or knowledge? It might have been Peter. Actually I'm not sure I am assuming it could have been Peter Cowup. Too many Peters. Sorry I don't know if that was Peter.
00:06:09 that was Peter. Okay. Well, I think the assumption is it's Peter Holland and Ron Dobson in order to sort out right
00:06:15 right uh the the final version of the GR, but you're not certain. No, but but it follows. Yes. Because it says at the bottom, I'm happy to meet Peter Car. Yeah.
00:06:27 Peter Car. Yeah. Did you have any involvement in discussions between the department on one side and Ron Dobson on the other? No.
00:06:35 No. Now, if we look up further up in this email thread, and if we go to the bottom of page two,
00:06:44 there is an email here from you to Dawn Eastme and Brian Martin later the same day in which you stated this. Oh dear, wasted opportunity, Paul Les. Now, you
00:06:55 wasted opportunity, Paul Les. Now, you commented in your second witness statement that you cannot recall what you meant by this comment. Do you think it was likely that you were referring to GR 3.2 as being a wasted opportunity in
00:07:08 GR 3.2 as being a wasted opportunity in the sense that the review had presented an opportunity to provide a helpful guidance to the sector, but this opportunity had been missed?
00:07:18 Yes, probably. I I I genuinely can't remember, but that sounds reasonable. Was
00:07:27 Was there a thought at the time to the extent you can remember that in particular the revised draft J 3.2 was a an opportunity missed to learn the
00:07:38 an opportunity missed to learn the lessons of lacknot particularly in so far as they concerned operational firefighting techniques. Yes, I certainly expected it to have been better.
00:07:49 been better. And if we go further up in this chain, we can see an email from Dawn Eastme to Neil O' Connor on page two sent on the 25th of November at 8:41
00:08:00 sent on the 25th of November at 8:41 a.m. in which she states this and looking at the final sentence of the first paragraph. The view was that this the revised version of G 3.2 2 was not fit for
00:08:11 version of G 3.2 2 was not fit for purpose and that it had largely been driven by London's particular concerns, including areas largely driven by the FBU.
00:08:21 FBU. Did you agree with Dawn Eastman's sentiment that the final revised version of GR 3.2 was not fit for purpose?
00:08:32 That would have been the version 1.1 that 1.3 that we're referring to. the version that was well it's the it's version 1.3 here referred to at the top in the heading
00:08:45 referred to at the top in the heading okay um yes I imagine I did was that a widely held view in the department
00:08:58 I'm not sure how widely it was held whether it was just me and Dise meet and and dawn
00:09:10 and and dawn did you know that whether what Neil Okconor's views on it were because wasn't he in charge of the resilience element of fire at the department?
00:09:21 Yeah, he was the director of fire fire emer uh and resilience the and emergencies. Yes. the whole of the all responsibilities in relation to fire
00:09:34 responsibilities in relation to fire were under Neil's um directorship. Um and no, I'm not so no I'm not sure what his views were
00:09:45 so no I'm not sure what his views were on the um
00:09:49 that version of the guidance. Thank you. Um sir, I've come to the end of my prepared questions. Um, might I ask for quarter of an hour to see if
00:10:01 ask for quarter of an hour to see if there's anything I've missed off or indeed to give the opportunity of others to suggest relevant questions arising? Yes, of course. Well, [clears throat] Miss Upton, you may know that when council gets to the end of his prepared
00:10:12 council gets to the end of his prepared questions, we always have a short break to let him check that he hasn't left anything out and also to allow other people who are following the proceedings from elsewhere to suggest further
00:10:23 from elsewhere to suggest further questions that perhaps we ought to put to you.
00:10:25 to you. Yeah.
00:10:25 Yeah. So, we'll stop there. We'll resume please at uh 25 2 and at that point we'll see whether there are any more questions for you. Okay.
00:10:35 Okay. Would you go to the usher then please? Thank you.
00:10:44 Right Mr. Caner. Well 25 2. Thank you. Thank you.
00:26:12 Would
00:26:24 you ask Rupton to come back in, please? [clears throat]
00:26:35 All right, Miss Upton. Well, we'll see if there any more questions for you, shall we?
00:26:39 shall we? Yes, Mr. Conair. Um just a few. Um could we go to CLG104908?
00:26:58 Now you remember earlier on this morning we were talking about whether and if so to what extent uh you considered retaining the advice of a disability specialist.
00:27:10 specialist. Miss Upton. Yes. Yes. Sorry. Yes. Now, in the email at the top of this page dated the 12th of September, 2011, uh you wrote to Caroline Bosd, who's the
00:27:22 uh you wrote to Caroline Bosd, who's the project manager, and you said in the first email, uh first paragraph of the email, it would appear that disability discrimination law is formulated quite generally and
00:27:33 law is formulated quite generally and doesn't have specific provisions for specific situations. eg it doesn't tell us what needs to be done in a block of flats as a result therefore I think the point is arguable either way though of
00:27:44 point is arguable either way though of course we'd be very interested in the views of Elgid's lawyers including any DDA specialists so that's the disability discrimination act specialists on this when you have them now first of all do
00:27:57 when you have them now first of all do you have any memory of this particular email
00:28:01 email no I I would have mentioned it no I'm I'm kind of reassured to see it. Well, it wasn't raised in your evidence. No.
00:28:09 No. And I keen for the sake of fairness to you
00:28:13 you to remind you of it. Um, do you recall asking Caroline Bosd for her views on retaining disability discrimination specialists?
00:28:26 Um,
00:28:30 no. But no. Do you recall receiving a response?
00:28:38 No. No. Sorry. Can you remember chasing or at a meeting um the issue rearing its head again?
00:28:46 No. I I I can't
00:28:51 I'm sorry. I can't remember. Don't worry. Don't worry. There's one sort of final question I'd like to ask you, which is looking back, do you think things could have been differently or
00:29:03 things could have been differently or better
00:29:05 better during your time in the fire safety policy department?
00:29:11 I do. I think we [laughter] could have had more resource. I think we genuinely
00:29:22 more resource. I think we genuinely didn't understand the risk and my team got smaller and smaller and the emphasis was really on restructuring
00:29:35 was really on restructuring um workforce relationships and governance um of fire and rescue authorities and a kind of reform agenda which was obviously based on austerity
00:29:47 which was obviously based on austerity and um
00:29:50 and um regulation, cutting regulation wherever.
00:29:57 Um we could and not and you know if we wanted to introduce legislation having a regulatory budget which we had to balance out the cost of that by removing
00:30:09 balance out the cost of that by removing legislation there
00:30:13 there wasn't always a sense of I suppose proportionality around the regulations that could go. It was a very um
00:30:27 business-led agenda which um
00:30:35 obviously lost sight of you know you could easily lose sight of a lot of um very important issues. Miss Upton, thank you for attending to
00:30:47 Miss Upton, thank you for attending to give evidence. It's much appreciated.
00:30:52 Dan, [snorts] it's right that I should thank you on behalf of all three members of the panel for coming here to give us your evidence. I know it's been a difficult experience for you and I'm
00:31:03 difficult experience for you and I'm sorry about that. It's probably gone on a lot longer than you would wish, but I would like you to know that it's been very valuable to hear from you and we're very grateful to you for coming along. All right. Thank you.
00:31:14 Thank you. Thank you very much. And now, of course, you're free to go. Thank you. Thank you.
00:31:30 Yes, Mr. Caner. Now, um we have other witnesses coming, but not I think today. Is that right? That's right, sir. And it's Dame Melanie Doors tomorrow. Right. Thank you very much. Well, we'll
00:31:41 Right. Thank you very much. Well, we'll uh break at that point, therefore, and resume
00:31:45 resume tomorrow morning at 10:00. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much.