London Fire Brigade Evidence - Tuesday 21st September 2021 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:18:14 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing

00:18:17 hearing today we're going to start hearing evidence from the london fire brigade uh in relation to training yes mr clear so may i call peter gross thank you very much

00:18:39 good morning mr groves more men yes you can take off the mask

00:18:44 mask i understand you're going to affirm is that right yeah could you then please read the words on the screen i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i

00:18:55 declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much now do sit down okay go to get comfortable

00:19:08 all right yes when you're ready this is clear thank you um would you please confirm your name for the record peter groves uh good morning mr groves um before we start today i should uh make three points first of all if at

00:19:21 uh make three points first of all if at any stage you require a break please say so that's not a problem secondly if any stage my questions are unclear on duly long please say so and i'll try and ask you a proper short question and thirdly if you wouldn't

00:19:34 question and thirdly if you wouldn't mind keeping your voice up whilst giving evidence that's so the transcriber can capture everything you say and capture it accurately okay now um you have made three statements um

00:19:45 now um you have made three statements um as a result of the grenfell tower of fire

00:19:48 fire first a rule nine witness statement dated the 18th of april which can be 2019 which can be found at lfb 005 126.

00:19:59 005 126. and if we turn over the page to page 2 we see your signature [Music]

00:20:16 can you confirm that's your witness statement whilst we're waiting for that yes that is my witness statement thank you

00:20:23 you um

00:20:24 um exhibited to that witness statement let's just um we've now got page two up is that your signature it is yes thank you thank you very much now exhibited to that witness statement at pg

00:20:35 that witness statement at pg 1

00:20:36 1 is a report entitled how training works dated the 16th of april 2019 and that can be found at lfb 005

00:20:46 005 127.

00:20:48 127. is that that report it is yes and were you the author i was and was that report written for the purposes of this inquiry it was yes secondly you provided a second

00:21:01 secondly you provided a second statement to this inquiry date of the fifth of march 2020 that can be found at lfb

00:21:07 lfb 00102138

00:21:11 is that your second statement it is and if we could go to page 71 in that document is that your signature it is thank you

00:21:21 thank you thirdly you prepared a statement for the metropolitan police date of the fifth of february 2020 and that can be found at met trouble zero seven double one zero

00:21:32 met trouble zero seven double one zero three

00:21:37 and can you confirm that's that particular statement yes

00:21:40 yes and it's your electronic signature i think in the bottom left-hand corner of each page yes that's correct now have you read each of those statements recently

00:21:51 recently and can you confirm the contents of the statements are true they are true and can you confirm that the contents of the report at pg-1 is true to the best of your knowledge and belief yes i can confirm that and you're happy

00:22:03 yes i can confirm that and you're happy for those three statements and that report to be taken as your evidence this inquiry yes thank you now mr groves i'd like to start by asking you about your roles and responsibilities whilst employed by the

00:22:14 responsibilities whilst employed by the london fire brigade is it right that you're employed by the lfb from november 1987 onwards that's right and that you're now retired that's right and when did you retire retired 31st of may this

00:22:26 did you retire retired 31st of may this year thank you

00:22:29 and your career in the lfb's training department started in 2009 is that right that's right now if we can go to your second witness statement lfb double zero one zero two

00:22:40 statement lfb double zero one zero two one three eight forward slash twelve

00:22:46 and we look at paragraph seven you say there in the opening lines this from 2009 to 2012 i was the project manager for future options for training

00:22:57 manager for future options for training project and reported to the director of operational resilience and training now were you employed as a project manager at this time was this a responsibility you took on in addition

00:23:08 responsibility you took on in addition to a pre-existing role no this was my sole role during that time period the future options for training project ultimately resulted in operational

00:23:19 ultimately resulted in operational training apart from control room training being outsourced to babcock training limited is that a fair summary uh

00:23:26 uh yes but in addition to operational training there was also training for non-operational member of staff uh other than control staffs that be office based staff

00:23:38 office based staff thank you

00:23:39 thank you now if we stay in paragraph statement a seven of this statement which goes on to say from the fifth line downwards this from 2012 to 2014 i was the head of

00:23:50 from 2012 to 2014 i was the head of training assurance and business relationships and reported to the head of human resources between 2012 and 2016 the head of human resources had corporate responsibility for training

00:24:02 corporate responsibility for training now first of all was james dalgliesh the head of human resources until 2015 he was

00:24:10 was did the human resources department later come to be called the training and development department it was part that the actual human resources

00:24:20 resources department split into two so you had a training and professional development department and then you had a people services department now apart from the name chain uh with

00:24:31 now apart from the name chain uh with the training elements of the functions responsibilities altered not at that time now did they come later to be altered yes following a people services review they were changed yes and when was that

00:24:45 were changed yes and when was that around towards the end of 2018 beginning of 2019. and what were the elements of the defining changes that were made in 2018 um so the changes were

00:24:56 were made in 2018 um so the changes were that i was responsible for organizational development that was moved into people's services function and

00:25:03 and the station based maintenance of operational skills was previously under fire stations remits that was moved into my remit from 2019.

00:25:15 from 2019. thank you

00:25:16 thank you between 2012 and 2016 uh did the human resources and later training department fall within the directorate of operations resilience and training it did thank you

00:25:28 training it did thank you and am i also right to assume that mr dull gliesh and your department reported to gary reason the director of operations resilience and training he did thank you now can we turn to your met statement

00:25:40 now can we turn to your met statement and

00:25:41 and on page 20 of that which is at met trouble zero seven double one zero three forward slash twenty and in particular the bottom paragraph on that page

00:25:53 on that page now there you say this at the time of the latter house recommendations so that's 2013 there were three people responsible for training

00:26:02 training training was split into two the training assurance and business relationship arm which i headed the other half of this was the learning and development strategy headed by dac

00:26:13 and development strategy headed by dac kevin hughes if we go over the page there was a head of hr james gal glee dal gliesh there were around five deputies

00:26:21 deputies my responsibility was around the contract and assurance kevin was responsible for the commissioning arm of it

00:26:29 it now rising out of that in 2013 so the time of the lachnal house recommendations what was the role and function of the training assurance and business relationship team

00:26:41 so in 2013 if there had been any packages that were produced related to lachenal which wasn't the case but if they had been then it would

00:26:52 case but if they had been then it would have been the responsibility of my department to assure the training to go and witness the training to ensure that the trainers were

00:27:03 to ensure that the trainers were delivering the packages according to what had been agreed between the lfb and babcock

00:27:10 babcock now mindful of your apologies mindful of your answer there that you assured the training yes can you help us what was the role of the learning and development strategy team so learning development strategy team

00:27:22 so learning development strategy team were responsible for uh project managing the training so there was a tcap documents which uh training commission alteration process

00:27:33 training commission alteration process and they project managed from the start to end liaising with the commissioning department and babcock then once that training had got to a point where the lfb was ready to sign

00:27:45 point where the lfb was ready to sign that off

00:27:46 that off then at that time i had some auditors assurers within my department who would go and sit in a classroom if it was classroom based or practical and they

00:27:57 classroom based or practical and they would sit and watch the training to see whether the learning objectives have been met and the training objectives thank you would that strategy team have been responsible for recommending new

00:28:09 been responsible for recommending new training or requesting changes to existing training no

00:28:14 no predominantly changes to training would come from commissioning departments and primarily that would have been ops policy and assurance to the main commissioning department thank you so

00:28:27 commissioning department thank you so that uh everyone is clear um was the learning and development strategy team sometimes also known as the lfb's training commissioning department correct

00:28:38 correct now if we can go back and apologize for jumping around your evidence if we go back to your second witness statement to the inquiry and page 12 which can be found at lfb double zero one zero two one three eight

00:28:50 double zero one zero two one three eight four twelve and we see back at paragraph seven if we can look at the final two lines of that paragraph you say this between 2015 and 2016

00:29:02 between 2015 and 2016 i was ahead of learning and development and hr strategy and reported to the head of human resources does that mean that you by this stage had assumed d.a.c hughes's previous role

00:29:13 had assumed d.a.c hughes's previous role correct

00:29:15 correct and if so were you then responsible for commissioning new training or did that lie with the commissioning heads of department i was responsible for project managing the the training

00:29:26 managing the the training but the specification and commissioning of training was led by the commissioning departments thank you

00:29:33 thank you now if we can stay in the statement but move on to paragraph eight uh you say this that from january 2016 to april 2018 my role was head of development and

00:29:44 2018 my role was head of development and training

00:29:45 training i reported to the director of safety and assurance

00:29:49 assurance now it seems here that the department's name had changed from human resources to development and training is that right correct and that the directorate's name had changed from operations resilience

00:30:00 had changed from operations resilience and training to safety and assurance is that also correct that's right yes um who was the director of safety and assurance during your tenure as head of development and training

00:30:11 development and training um

00:30:12 um i believe it was initially james dale gleesh in a interim role then it became danny cotton

00:30:23 danny cotton then steve actor and is it right to assume for these purposes that danny cotton was the head of safety insurance for the bulk of 2016 and that she was

00:30:34 for the bulk of 2016 and that she was succeeded by mr after in december 2016. correct

00:30:39 and so it flows from that that you held the role of head of development and training at the time of the grandfather fire in june 2017. yes did you remain in that position until your retirement in may of this year yes

00:30:52 your retirement in may of this year yes thank you now having set out uh your background in the various name changes relevant departments can we now turn to training processes and first of all the methodology that was adopted by

00:31:04 all the methodology that was adopted by the lfb

00:31:05 the lfb and for this purpose i'd like you to turn to your how training works report which can be found at lfb triple zero double five one two seven and if we go to page three

00:31:22 now you see on the screen there paragraph 1.1 which opens with these words this document provides an overview of how the brigade assesses and specifies its training needs and how in

00:31:34 its training needs and how in conjunction with bad pot training limited hereafter vtl training is designed delivered and evaluated

00:31:43 evaluated now this report is dated april 2019 but my questions are going to be directed as to what this state of affairs was at the time of the fire in june 2017. now do you accept that the lfb had

00:31:56 now do you accept that the lfb had ultimate responsibility for provision of training to its staff i do do you also accept that no training package could be provided to its employees without it being approved and

00:32:07 employees without it being approved and signed off by the lfb i agree thank you now if we can stay on this page but go down to paragraph 1.2

00:32:18 you say there this that the document has been structured and the second line has been structured around the training cycle using the addy model that's

00:32:29 model that's capital a capital d d i e model

00:32:33 model and then you set out and explain what that model consists of first of all to assess and analyze needs secondly to develop learning objectives thirdly design and develop the training

00:32:44 thirdly design and develop the training solutions

00:32:46 solutions fourthly implement the design and finally evaluate effectiveness now when was that adi model first adopted by the lfb um the adi model has always been in

00:32:59 the adi model has always been in existence for all the time that i was in a learning and development post so since 2009 at least yes and did the lfb use this model just to

00:33:10 and did the lfb use this model just to clarify the point at the time of the grenfell fire it did would the lfb be involved in all of these five stages of the training cycle though perhaps to varying degrees yes

00:33:23 though perhaps to varying degrees yes now if we can flesh out matters and turn to the first stage of the adi model which is to assess and analyze needs

00:33:32 and if we can go further into this document on page 9 and paragraph 3.6

00:33:40 you say there this training needs are identified by heads of department who are best placed to identify whether training is required to enable their staff to discharge their areas of responsibility and meet the

00:33:52 areas of responsibility and meet the organization's need these requirements are subsequently collated to form a corporate statement of training requirements sotr

00:34:02 sotr now is it right to say that while your department was primarily responsible for the provision of training the lfb training needs were identified elsewhere in the organization

00:34:14 in the organization i.e by the commissioning heads of department

00:34:18 yes uh predominantly yeah um they would have responded to some changes in either legislation policy or procedures yes did your department so the training department itself have any role in

00:34:30 department itself have any role in identifying areas of weakness or gaps in the provision of existing training

00:34:37 at the time of the fire or subsequently all of all my questions are directed to the state of affairs before the fire right um at that point no

00:34:50 and so you're reliant upon prompts from elsewhere within the lfb yes what's the training department's main role therefore to collate training needs and requirements and to organize the process by which those needs were met

00:35:02 process by which those needs were met yes

00:35:04 yes if we can stay on this page but go down to paragraph 3.9 um you say that that the sotr is there another way of pronouncing that or would you call it the sotr

00:35:15 you call it the sotr i call it the sotr so the statement of training requirements production commences in april

00:35:21 april of each year historical sotr data where possible covering the past five years is sent to all heads of department and they are invited to provide their training requirements for the

00:35:33 training requirements for the forthcoming year where required this is followed up with a meeting once all training requirements have been submitted the data is collected by t and pd which i think stands for training professional

00:35:44 stands for training professional development department yes the collated data comprises requirements for training courses that are on the course guide and new courses that are currently in the process have been created

00:35:55 created now does that process amount to the lfb's heads of departments indicating how many places they require on the lfb's various training programs that's part of it yes

00:36:06 that's part of it yes but also they will identify

00:36:09 identify new pieces of training that they think need to be commissioned in the forthcoming year as a result of either corporate policies plans mayoral plans

00:36:20 plans mayoral plans so horizon scanning what what training needs they predict will be coming forward in the next 12 to 18 months thank you can we um just put this document down for a moment and go to

00:36:32 document down for a moment and go to another one which is at lfb trouble zero six double seven eight six which is a report by ribbon star uh entitled independent review of

00:36:44 uh entitled independent review of training final report it's dated the 11th of september 2019. um first of all are you familiar with this report i am why did the lfb commission this report

00:36:55 why did the lfb commission this report uh the commissioner at the time commissioned the report i believe it was for an independent review into how training was being delivered specifically around

00:37:06 being delivered specifically around operational training and to get independent view to see whether there could be some improvements in the way that training was structured and delivered within the organization now we're going to explore the contents

00:37:18 now we're going to explore the contents of this report as we go through your evidence but for present purposes could we turn to page 31 and the first paragraph on that page

00:37:29 and the following is said in relation to the statement of training process of training requirement process that we've just touched on it is the belief of many of the stakeholders interviewed that the

00:37:40 stakeholders interviewed that the default position is to simply request the same number of courses as requested in previous years without a proper analysis of actual training need within each department

00:37:51 each department would you agree with that conclusion i would definitely agree with that conclusion uh for the majority of the years towards the end of the time that i worked with the lfb that did change but yeah there

00:38:04 the lfb that did change but yeah there was a tendency to carry forward without too much analysis um the position changed were you the driver for that change and what did that change involve

00:38:17 change involve i would say it was a mixture of my self-driving and also this report um

00:38:23 um so what we did is far more challenging we would sit down with heads of service and ask them to look at you know to challenge them and say in effect what you're doing is just calling

00:38:34 effect what you're doing is just calling forward what you've done in previous years

00:38:37 years and we would have the data available to say you've requested so many places on a course previously and you haven't utilized those we know that there's some you've got some

00:38:48 some new things coming in your business plan why aren't they included in your request for training in the forthcoming years were there any particular departments within the lfb that required greater

00:39:00 within the lfb that required greater initiative to think about their needs compared to other departments yes

00:39:05 yes which ones were they they were predominantly those departments that served

00:39:11 served non-uniformed staff so office based staff

00:39:17 now if we can go back to your how training works report and that can be found at lfb 005 127

00:39:26 127 forward slash nine and if we can look at paragraph 3.7 there you explain this the operational policy and assurance department may also commission training

00:39:38 department may also commission training interventions as an outcome of a new or revised policy or procedure my question writing from that is this could other departments also commission new training or make alterations to

00:39:50 new training or make alterations to existing training packages yes they could

00:39:53 could and there's no limit on that no would training interventions be commissioned via the tcap process yes now first of all you touched on this in an earlier answer um tcap stands for

00:40:04 an earlier answer um tcap stands for training commissioning and alterations process is that right it is yes now we can flesh out for everyone what that process involves and if for that purpose can we look at your second

00:40:15 purpose can we look at your second witness statement which is a lfb double zero one zero two one three eight forward slash 2-2

00:40:27 and if we can look at paragraph 32 in particular you describe the tcap process thus a training requirement could be identified by a commissioning department

00:40:38 identified by a commissioning department within the brigade or by babcock regardless of who identifies the training requirement the tcap is followed

00:40:45 followed up to and including june 2017 once a training requirement had been identified a tcap form was completed this would then have been approved to be taken forward by the tcap working group

00:40:58 taken forward by the tcap working group which included members of the training and development department contract management group and babcock the request was then submitted to the contract performance monitoring board cpmb

00:41:10 cpmb for approval now bearing that description in mind can we now look at some of the elements that are set out in that particular passage i've just quoted now you say that and i quote once a training

00:41:23 you say that and i quote once a training requirement had been identified a tcap form was completed now can we look at an example of such a form which is a pg-10 and can be found at lfb00102235

00:41:43 now as can be seen there on the front page this is the tcap form for the training package entitled enhanced incident command training based on latino inquest rule 43 recommendations

00:41:55 latino inquest rule 43 recommendations is that right yes now was that form or sorry was that the form that was completed once a training requirement had been identified following the coroner's recommendations after the

00:42:06 coroner's recommendations after the latin quest so that there was a form prior to this which is a training request form which

00:42:14 which really sort of just laid out the sort of bones in sense of what training felt needed to be commissioned and why um

00:42:24 um and then that led into the the the tcat form thank you and just so that um we can fix people in the evidence can we go to lfb

00:42:34 to lfb quadruple zero three seven five nine

00:42:39 five nine it's a post gti example i think but that's the form you're referring to there correct and just for the voice of doubt uh that form

00:42:49 form uh was the format and structure that existed before the fire

00:42:56 yes i can't say a hundred percent but yes i mean there might be some minor but in its essence yes yeah

00:43:05 yeah now

00:43:06 now looking back at it who was responsible first of all for um initiating or completing the training request form so that will be the commissioning department and who would be responsible for

00:43:17 and who would be responsible for completing the tcap form that we looked at before this document so the tcap form would be led by project managers within the training professional development department in close consultation with the

00:43:29 in close consultation with the commissioning departments and would it be fair to say that the individuals in your department would have put flesh on the bones that were provided by the training request form that would be fair and thinking through

00:43:40 that would be fair and thinking through the complexities and the practicalities of substance and implementation correct thank you

00:43:46 thank you now if we can go back to your witness statement um lfb double zero one zero two one three eight four slash twenty two

00:43:56 two and if we look at line four of paragraph thirty two you say this in relation to the tcap form this would then have been approved to be taken forward by the tcap working group

00:44:08 taken forward by the tcap working group my question is this whose responsibility was it to approve a tcap form um

00:44:15 um so d sorry just to clarify do you mean the actual content of the form before it went forward to the meeting or

00:44:23 or whether it was that training was agreed and would become part to be developed both actually for the sake of completely yes sure so in terms of making sure that the form

00:44:35 so in terms of making sure that the form was fit for purpose and it had been completed fully and accurately that would be

00:44:40 would be a project manager within the training professional development department in terms of once the tcap had been completed and

00:44:51 the tcap had been completed and there it would have gone to this culture the cpmb

00:44:56 the cpmb meeting it would have been introduced by a member from the training professional development department and in essence recommending that this training be commissioned and

00:45:07 commissioned and you know budget etc was made available so that training could be completed thank you now you say in your witness statement that the tcap form would be quotes taken forward by the tcap working

00:45:18 quotes taken forward by the tcap working group which included members of the training and development department contract management group and babcock what was the role of that working group so the working group was to

00:45:30 so the working group was to collate all of the new tcaps to um to have checked with the stakeholders which predominantly would have been the commissioning department and

00:45:41 and ordinarily the head of fire stations or their deputy because um predominantly the training that was being commissioned was being prepared

00:45:52 being commissioned was being prepared for frontline fire operational offices so whatever solutions that were being recommended we had to make sure that it didn't have a detrimental impact on the

00:46:03 didn't have a detrimental impact on the front line and so the head of fire stations or their nominated deputy were happy with that solution before it went forward when you say detrimental effect on the

00:46:15 when you say detrimental effect on the front line what are you seeking to encapsulate by that phrase um so if we were i don't like to use the word training burden but it is one that is is used

00:46:27 burden but it is one that is is used time and time again to me it has a negative connotation but if you think about the amount of training that is available throughout the year that already exists and then you look at the new pieces of training that are

00:46:39 the new pieces of training that are being added what impact would that have on the front line in terms of you couldn't release everybody to do all of that training at that time

00:46:48 that time so that could lead to prioritization thank you and in an answer just before that last question you referred to the commissioning department was that department represented on the

00:47:00 was that department represented on the tcap working group yes who were the other members of the tcap working group uh so predominantly it would have been a representative for training professional department

00:47:11 training professional department it would have been someone from babcock someone from the contract management group

00:47:17 group the commissioning department and fire stations thank you so when you say fire stations clearly not all of them how would their representation be determined it was invariably was the uh deputy assistant

00:47:30 invariably was the uh deputy assistant commissioner for fire stations now moving on to what else you said in paragraph 32 you referred to the cpmb so that's the contract performance and monitoring board at what stage was the cpmb approval sort

00:47:45 at what stage was the cpmb approval sort so once the teacup had been projected at this time once the con the teacup had been produced and that um the commissioning department was

00:47:56 that um the commissioning department was happy with it the training was department was happy that all the former being completed appropriately and the head of fire stations is also happy with it would then be at that

00:48:07 happy with it would then be at that point it would be presented to the cpmb meeting

00:48:12 thank you i'm just going back slightly would dave looking at the fire station's representative would dave brown as head of fire stations have signed off on all tea caps or at least his deputy

00:48:29 i couldn't say that 100 because some tea caps were signed off by dave brown's deputy deputy if you see what i mean so there would have been signed off by someone within the fire

00:48:41 signed off by someone within the fire stations department predominantly they were signed off by the deputy assistant commissioner so mr people like mr brown mr fenton mr phantom thank you

00:48:52 mr fenton mr phantom thank you now um

00:48:56 would the role of the cpm be to scrutinize the substance of the proposed training package or if that's not the case what would their role be their role was

00:49:07 their role was they wouldn't have scrutinized the content of the the training package their role was to look at

00:49:15 look at the training commitment for the year whether um we had sufficient funds available to add these additional pieces of training to the training plan

00:49:27 and whether if there was a need to look for additional funds they would direct the route in which that could be progressed or would prioritize

00:49:39 or would prioritize training in the sense that they might determine that some courses were reduced delegate numbers so it's really about managing the i suppose that the size of the training

00:49:52 i suppose that the size of the training uh load

00:49:55 uh load thank you and come on to the financial aspects in later questions can you help a broad idea who sat on the board

00:50:04 i'm going to struggle a bit with this to be honest with you because it did change its

00:50:08 its its name in many many times but that time i believe uh it was um the chair was um james dalglish

00:50:19 the chair was um james dalglish then there would have been representatives from uh babcock um do you want sorry do you want names all right

00:50:27 all right just an idea of the seniority of attendees primarily so it would have been um

00:50:33 been um babcock's contract director would have been their head of design and development on the lfb side it would have been myself

00:50:43 myself would have been my training commissioning delivery manager

00:50:48 manager would have been the um assist the deputy assistant commissioner for fire sorry fire stations and sometimes you would have representation from

00:50:59 representation from the lfb's health and safety lead thank you now um

00:51:06 can you remember any instances where a training need had been identified by a commissioning department but the board had not approved that at all

00:51:16 yes those occasions did occur predominantly they were not in the arena of

00:51:23 of operational training they would have been training for support function roles um

00:51:30 um the tendency uh with requests coming from non-operational colleagues

00:51:40 tended to want what you would call the the gold standard in the sense that they would have looked at they'd have gone out done some scanning themselves they would

00:51:51 scanning themselves they would invariably come forward and would recommend a provider um so you know we would say no focus on the learning outcomes and the objectives

00:52:02 the learning outcomes and the objectives it's not your role to come here with a training solution thank you now just going back to paragraph 32 which is on the screen i think it's broadly eight lines down from the top you there refer to stakeholder group

00:52:14 you there refer to stakeholder group meetings

00:52:17 meetings were stakeholder groups different to the tcap working group yes who were they so the stakehold group meetings fed into the tcap and you would have had the project manager from

00:52:29 would have had the project manager from the training professional development department and you would have had a representative from babcock usually designer who had been nominated to

00:52:40 designer who had been nominated to design that piece of training and then you would have had a representative from mr fenton's department okay now if we can go back to the how training works report which can

00:52:53 the how training works report which can be found at lfb trouble zero double five one two seven forward slash nine and if you look at paragraph 3.5 which is the top of that page

00:53:06 is the top of that page you explain at the top that there are quotes internal factors which may lead to the generation of a training requirement or direct the head of department when specifying a training need

00:53:17 need and you've set out below that four bullet points which are operational improvement process information quality assurance audits of training courses training course evaluations and

00:53:29 courses training course evaluations and corporate strategies and plans now just looking at the first bullet point operational improvement process information is it correct that this would have been

00:53:40 is it correct that this would have been referred to as a diot or a diet the dynamic intelligent operational training process at the time of the fire yes diet diet yeah yeah

00:53:51 yes diet diet yeah yeah thank you

00:53:52 thank you and the information gathered via the diet process would be considered then by the operational directorate's coordination board or odcb yes thank you we'll let's be exploring

00:54:04 we'll let's be exploring odcb and the diop processes with another witness

00:54:08 witness but for the time being is it right to say this that odcb could request new training as well as changes to existing training

00:54:19 um odcb would direct into predominantly around operational news training

00:54:30 so to that extent the answer is yes yes and then your department would work with babcock to implement that that's right now if we can now go to your mps witness statement which is at met trouble zero

00:54:42 statement which is at met trouble zero seven double one zero three forward slash five and really the final paragraph on that page

00:54:49 page uh you say this my team's responsibility is to sit down with all heads of service to reflect on what they have had over the last five years look at the london safety plan

00:55:00 years look at the london safety plan look at the strategies the aims for the next three to five years what is required by staff in terms of training but also what is the corporate responsibility

00:55:11 responsibility now looking at that paragraph are you referring here to the training department's work as part of the statement of training requirements process or some other separate and distinct process

00:55:22 distinct process that's the statement of training requirement process would you be able to give the panel an idea of how often you would discuss with the commissioning heads of departments their training needs yes

00:55:36 so we would meet you usually around june time every year with all heads of service and we would talk them through the process and explain

00:55:46 explain how we were going to gather the training requirement for that year what their role was in determining that requirements then invariably the head of service

00:55:57 then invariably the head of service would then nominate someone within their departments that we would liaise with so you had more day-to-day dealings with the training requirements so they could spec

00:56:08 requirements so they could spec quantify that more clearly then we would collate that training requirement if it was um very clear in terms of what they had

00:56:19 very clear in terms of what they had requested um then we would go back and confirm that it'd be a confirmatory meeting with them others you would go back

00:56:28 back repeatedly to just say you know these numbers are substantially higher or lower than previous years going back to my point earlier around

00:56:39 going back to my point earlier around looking at corporate plans and strategies have you considered that this new piece of equipment's coming in legislation i would imagine that the numbers would

00:56:50 i would imagine that the numbers would increase in these areas when you're looking for new equipment or legislation coming so it's a challenge process um it could for some be backwards and forwards three or

00:57:02 some be backwards and forwards three or four times but in essence the principal meeting was annual yes in june yes and then the subsidiary meetings followed from that yes thank you now

00:57:13 yes thank you now in the particular paragraph we've looked at in your met statement use the verb reflect

00:57:18 reflect how would the training department reflect on what a particular department had had over the last five years by way of training

00:57:26 training so we collated um performance data for the previous training year and you know back to 2012 and we could even precede that to when

00:57:37 and we could even precede that to when the lfb delivered the training themselves we would look at all of the courses that were on the course guide and we could show them the number of delegates that they had requested for

00:57:50 delegates that they had requested for each of those courses and in turn how many people had attended those courses um and how many that um throughout the year you could do something called a delegate place change

00:58:03 something called a delegate place change um so if the department decided that they wanted to up or decrease the training requirement we would also have that detail and we'd include all that data when we sat down with them thank

00:58:14 data when we sat down with them thank you just flowing from that how often would heads of departments and the training department identify the need for a new training course as part of the uh sotr process

00:58:25 uh sotr process if you're able to give a meaningful answer to that question um i would say in terms of the collation process for sotr that was very uh rare

00:58:34 rare uh most of the requests for new training was done throughout the year it wasn't necessarily done as part of the collation process was there a qualitative element to the

00:58:46 was there a qualitative element to the reflection process i.e you're looking at the quality of the standard of training that was provided as opposed to how much to how many people and how frequently

00:58:59 predominantly quantitative there were occasions where there i can think of one course in particular where there were discussions around why are you requesting this course again

00:59:11 why are you requesting this course again when we know that there has been feedback that this course needs to change

00:59:16 change and it should go through the course review process would any qualitative uh points be made in the annual meeting with the commissioning heads of department or would there be less formal

00:59:27 department or would there be less formal ways of communicating problems with that particular the quality of a particular course yeah there's there will be project boards for each of the training curricula throughout the year and so the

00:59:38 curricula throughout the year and so the information that came from evaluations from either delegates managers or babcock trainers themselves those were fed into the monthly project board meetings

00:59:52 monthly project board meetings can we now turn to a separate document lfb trouble zero four two one seven nine and it's a document entitled lds which i think is learning and development strategy team one to ones august 2013

01:00:06 strategy team one to ones august 2013 and we have it up there on the screen and you'll see in the box at the top and center of that page that it concerned operational procedures department yes and the attendees from operational

01:00:17 yes and the attendees from operational procedures were peter power i think jim a court

01:00:20 a court and rachel weatherage was the representative from the learning development strategy team is that right yes

01:00:26 yes how regularly did the training department have these one-to-one meetings with other departments um this was before my time but i would i know that they were predominantly with

01:00:38 know that they were predominantly with the operational procedures department they were the major commissioning department and it was felt that um there was a need to sit down with that

01:00:49 there was a need to sit down with that department because they were commissioning the vast you know the the the majority of the training and so you said before your time did you discontinue this type of meeting when you became head of the department

01:01:01 you became head of the department um

01:01:03 um i did and then i reinstated it at a later stage uh why did you reinstate um

01:01:12 i reinstated because i felt that there were

01:01:16 were there was a breakdown in communication between

01:01:19 between the commissioning department and the training department and at times the commissioning department going direct to babcock rather than through my department we'll come on to

01:01:30 department we'll come on to communications later on in in your examination

01:01:35 one point which arises going through these documents is why did individual departments not simply pass their training requirements directly to babcock without their training department acting as a go-between

01:01:49 that would be a contractual issue and a budgetary issue

01:01:56 if if departments had gone straight to to babcock then there would have been no sense of how large the training requirement was and whether the organization could afford it

01:02:07 organization could afford it and also in terms of i think i mentioned earlier some departments were going with their solutions and had come forward with

01:02:18 forward with ideas for

01:02:20 ideas for training to be super subcontracted to other

01:02:23 other organizations and you know that didn't fit contractually and also there was issue around the size of of the training budget

01:02:34 of of the training budget and so

01:02:35 and so put differently you were a necessary link in the chain uh to ensure overview both of provision and to ensure some financial management is that a fair summary that's fair thank you now could we go back to your met witness statement

01:02:47 we go back to your met witness statement which is that met trouble zero seven double one zero three forward slash eleven

01:02:57 and if we set look at the third paragraph down from the top you said there are some babcock initiated tea caps but they are rare first question is

01:03:09 first question is how rare

01:03:10 how rare are you able to give the panel a steer you know would be once a year once every three years once every five years what order my my memory is that it was rare to the point of it was once

01:03:21 to the point of it was once and once during your times head of department or once in your time in the training department from 2012 and remember what was the substance of the

01:03:32 the babcock initiated tcap it was related to mass

01:03:37 mass decontamination training okay thank you can you help us to why babcock initiated tea caps were such a rarity

01:03:48 um i'm

01:03:51 i'm i'm surmising here so i don't know for definite but i would imagine babcock

01:04:01 weren't always as creative or proactive as we would like them to be and i've had numerous conversations with their

01:04:13 numerous conversations with their contract director and not long before i left had similar conversations again that we want them to they are our training provider you know we want you to come forward with new ideas you know

01:04:26 to come forward with new ideas you know use use new technology they had

01:04:32 they had experienced cases in the past where they had put up new

01:04:37 new creative and innovative ideas and the lfb had either rejected them in full or partially rejected them and i think as babacot became slightly

01:04:50 as babacot became slightly passive

01:04:51 passive and you know i was encouraging them to come forward you know you can submit a hundred things and if you get two out of them then it's important to do that it's

01:05:02 them then it's important to do that it's like the

01:05:03 like the um it's like the um

01:05:06 um person who is creating something for the first time you know that you will always have knockbacks but it's important your role is to come up with new uh ideas and new training solutions i

01:05:19 uh ideas and new training solutions i don't mean this critically at all mr groves but it seems if your endeavors uh to encourage babcock here more initiative were fruitless is that is that a fair uh summary of the position

01:05:30 summary of the position i would say that that is fair we'll come on to this in more detail and a bit of a diversion at this stage but the impression arising from the documents

01:05:39 documents is that the lfb tended to prescribe the subject matter and the content of training

01:05:46 training without much contribution from babcock on those matters from the general level is that a fair impression to take i think there's yes that is a fair impression i i want

01:05:58 yes that is a fair impression i i want to add to that though please do

01:06:01 please do um

01:06:02 um the lfb um would tend some departments would tend to come with those solutions as i mentioned earlier and they would say this is what i want

01:06:13 this is what i want and the discussions we would have with them is you're not a learning and development professional your job is to tell us what you want someone to learn what behavior you want to change what

01:06:25 what behavior you want to change what skill you want them to acquire it's the training provider to come forward and take what you what your outcome is and they will produce a range of solutions to which

01:06:37 produce a range of solutions to which you will be involved with and you ultimately will sign off so it's not for you to come as a operational member of staff to tell a learning development professional how to

01:06:48 learning development professional how to do something a learning development professional wouldn't tell you how to fight a fire so

01:06:53 so that's very thank you very much for that mr groves well as i say we'll come on to this of the minutia of that later on now i've come to the end of my questions respect to stage one of the adi process i'm now going to move on to stage two

01:07:05 i'm now going to move on to stage two which was development of learning objectives and if we can go back to the how training works report which is lfb trouble zero double five one two seven forward slash four

01:07:19 and if i could ask you to look at paragraph one point four you summarize the second stage of development of learning objectives thus after it has been determined that there is a legitimate training need learning

01:07:31 is a legitimate training need learning objectives are developed there are two kinds of objectives from two perspectives using training namely

01:07:38 namely learning performance objective this is a statement of the performance knowledge skill and or behavior that is desired after the training has been conducted

01:07:47 conducted learners are told what these are at the beginning of a training session and are reinforced throughout the delivery training objective this is a statement of what the trainer needs to accomplish during the training session

01:07:59 during the training session who would be responsible for identifying and developing these learning objectives would it lie with the commissioning heads of department or elsewhere so so the learning and performance objective would definitely be the commissioning

01:08:11 would definitely be the commissioning department in terms of the training objective then that's babcock because they it's their trainer paul thank you and if we could return for these purposes to the exemplar tcap form

01:08:23 these purposes to the exemplar tcap form we looked at earlier which is a lfb double zero one zero double two three five forward slash four

01:08:35 we see the gray box at the top of the page says stage one tcap development and underneath in the top left hand corner in bold it says basic information and then the boxes thereafter set out

01:08:48 and then the boxes thereafter set out the tcap title the commissioning officer declined the course details and the tcap stakeholder group members now as part of this process can you help us who what was the what were the respective roles of the commissioning

01:09:00 respective roles of the commissioning officer and the client

01:09:05 so the commissioning officer would have been that department who would who were either responsible for the policy

01:09:13 policy the procedure or um had within their business plan a change to

01:09:19 change to a piece of equipment or we're aware of a change in legislation so that's that's the uh commissioning department you'll have to refresh me what the second one is sorry apologies the client yes oh so um

01:09:34 apologies the client yes oh so um so

01:09:35 so so the client um in effect would be could still be the commissioning department or the person who is going to use um the training so predominantly yet again

01:09:48 training so predominantly yet again would be fire stations staying with the form but turning over the page to page

01:10:00 five um we see in the first box on that page we are told who is providing the subject matter expertise or sme and in this case it was the group

01:10:11 and in this case it was the group manager lfb instant command is that right that's right and if we go to the next box under the heading background and context

01:10:22 it says the training that is sought is set out there now was that text designed to set out the training learning objectives yes

01:10:34 now thank you for that and if bearing in mind that answer can we now go back to your how training works report at lfb five one two seven forward slash eleven

01:10:46 five one two seven forward slash eleven and paragraph five point one

01:10:52 there you explain that training packages fell into a number of categories initial acquisition refresher and then turning over the page

01:11:03 refresher and then turning over the page to page 12

01:11:06 confirmation of skills initial slash refresher assessment or multi-agency training now looking at those who decided what

01:11:18 now looking at those who decided what category or what type of learning should be developed in response to a particular training request

01:11:26 just to clarify you're talking about the training solution so ultimately whether it was a computer-based training or practical thinking about the objective so the second stage of the addy model

01:11:37 so the second stage of the addy model so in terms of so yet again it would be the commissioning department who would come forward and would say what type of skill knowledge or behaviour they would like the individual to acquire by the end of that training

01:11:49 to acquire by the end of that training so again the commissioning department who decided whether refresher training was needed and what it would cover they wouldn't specifically categorize it of that as that what they would do is

01:12:00 of that as that what they would do is they would they would come back as i said and talk about the types of training not the skill and the behavior part of the subsequent tcap process would then be is this the type of course that needed to have

01:12:11 to have an annual refresh did it need to have an assessment so that wouldn't always have been at the first stage but ultimately yes it was their responsibility looking at the penultimate bullet point here assessment

01:12:24 penultimate bullet point here assessment how would the lfb decide which course is required assessment as opposed to others so in this case it's predominantly talking about promotion rounds so this would be for operational staff

01:12:36 so this would be for operational staff who have proceeded progressing through the various ranks roles within the organization and then there would be a determination whether there be a formal assessment or not

01:12:50 that did apply to some of the courses where we talk about annual refresh so taking for example breathing apparatus incident command and driving and

01:13:02 incident command and driving and immediate emergency care there were refreshers there that were assessed and that was without qualification that was always so yes if there's something that's set

01:13:13 yes if there's something that's set either statutory or if something that in the case of the immediate emergency care that was part of the clinical governance with the london ambulance service thank you

01:13:24 london ambulance service thank you now i'm now going to move on to stage three of the adi model which is the design and development of the training solutions and if we go back to your second statement to this inquiry which is a lfb double zero one zero two one

01:13:37 is a lfb double zero one zero two one three eight forward slash two nine and a particular paragraph forty nine you described this stage of the process thus

01:13:48 thus the commissioning department specified the training content by setting the learning objectives and names babcock proposes and designs the content and training solution to meet these learning objectives the training content

01:14:00 learning objectives the training content and training solution is approved by the commissioning department what is the role of your department or what was the role of your department at that stage of the process

01:14:13 so once um the training had been approved and signed off and then it it would be my

01:14:24 it would be my department's role to sit with babcock and project manage that to make sure that um

01:14:31 that um there was an end-to-end process that the timelines were being met if there were any um

01:14:37 any um sort of slippages along the way then they would be raised by my department at various governance meetings

01:14:45 ultimately once the training had been signed off and became part of the training guide another

01:14:53 another arm of my department was responsible for liaison with babcock to make sure that the right people were being trained at the right time at the right frequency and performance manage that so once

01:15:05 and performance manage that so once developed your role was ensuring it was delivered to use that in elegant phrase yeah i mean ultimately the the department the training department was really around delivery

01:15:17 was really around delivery yeah

01:15:18 yeah thank you that on that note if we now go to your mps statement which is at met trouble zero seven double one zero three forward slash eight and really the final paragraph on that

01:15:30 and really the final paragraph on that page

01:15:31 page uh here you summarize the design and development stage and the role of various parties and you say this all new training or changes to training is done by the

01:15:42 is done by the training commissioning alteration process

01:15:45 process a training need will be identified then the responsibility for that comes to my department my department will sit down with the commissioning department and establish

01:15:56 commissioning department and establish what they require and what do they need at that time we are not looking for a training solution that is not their focus what they need to say to my department is that at the end of a chosen intervention they want a certain

01:16:07 chosen intervention they want a certain amount of people trained in a certain training area it is not for them to choose the length or venue of the training it's purely the knowledge requirement skill requirement or behavioural change my project

01:16:18 or behavioural change my project managers will work with them alongside the designers of babcock to come up with a training solution discussions around practical training computer-based training cbt course duration are then

01:16:29 training cbt course duration are then had at this stage the commissioning department then received the suggestion and they will sign it off back cog babcock advise and find a solution lfb has responsibility and signed it off

01:16:44 now that passage there suggests a more substantive role in in collaboration um with babcock is that a fair observation to make

01:16:53 to make a concentration on delivery that you'd wish to emphasize yeah i mean what this process is trying to what i'm trying to describe here is that it's a project management process

01:17:04 it's a project management process so that the pro so the department the individuals within the commissioning team within my department were there to project manage that the various stages of the tcat process

01:17:16 of the tcat process were met

01:17:17 were met and and they were brokering for one of a better word between the commissioning departments and babcock now

01:17:24 now you say that you refer to computer-based training and other practical matters who decided the format of a particular training package and when

01:17:34 and when yes so ultimately the training solution that that's babcock's responsibility to come forward as the training provider to say this is how we think the best way that we can meet that learning objective

01:17:46 that we can meet that learning objective as i mentioned earlier sometimes you will get commissioning departments coming forward saying this is the solution that we want but it's the training providers right now

01:17:57 now just looking at babcock's role here could we go to the witness statement of assistant commissioner graham ellis and that can be found at lfb 001

01:18:07 001 8230

01:18:08 8230 and if we go to page 15 within that statement

01:18:16 and you'll see there paragraph 69 and he makes or gives the following evidence regarding babcock's ability to design and develop training packages

01:18:27 design and develop training packages he says this from 2012 onwards many lfb hq based operations departments were experiencing additional demands related to the babcock training contract these additional demands on officer time

01:18:39 these additional demands on officer time arose from the training contractor needing support from lfb subject matter experts to provide expert knowledge and advice

01:18:48 advice whilst it would have been reasonable to expect that babcock training designers may have infrequent requests for detailed information on a specific aspect of policy or procedure there appeared to be a significant and

01:18:59 there appeared to be a significant and constant reliance upon lfb sme officers the demands on lfb resources associated with this were regularly reported to line managers up to director level

01:19:11 line managers up to director level and could we then just move down further the page to paragraph 71 where mr ellis said this

01:19:18 said this it was not uncommon for both the lfb training and development representative frequently a non-operational frs staff member

01:19:27 member as well as the babcock training representative at tcat meetings to have a limited understanding of the issue at hand

01:19:34 hand and therefore difficulty in understanding what an effective training product might look like the reliance on lfb smes presented unplanned resource challenges for lfb

01:19:45 unplanned resource challenges for lfb and often resulted in training commissioning or training alterations becoming a lengthy drawn out process this meant that it was not always possible to fast-track urgently needed

01:19:56 possible to fast-track urgently needed changes into ics that's instant command training

01:20:01 training well my question arising out of that is a direct one do you agree with mr ellis can i go back to the first uh paragraph of course you've got the selection of 69 yeah so i think that's a

01:20:13 selection of 69 yeah so i think that's a fair statement in at the start of the contract there was definitely

01:20:20 a significant draw on the subject matter experts within the lfb those subject matter experts would have been the program managers and curriculum managers who delivered the training

01:20:33 managers who delivered the training prior to the outsource so they were so they in effect there was a transition and they had a significant amount of experience in in that area i think as time went on

01:20:45 i think as time went on that that

01:20:46 that that draw on the resource reduced but that's a fair uh statement to make at the start of of the contract it's also a fair statement to say in

01:20:59 it's also a fair statement to say in relation to incident command training for longer so that would have been a longer draw when it comes to the area of incident command because

01:21:10 because the uh

01:21:11 the uh the

01:21:13 the the subject matter experts for incident command are limited throughout the uk fire and rescue service

01:21:22 service um you can call on um sort of experts in other arenas but predominantly those would have been offices within lfb who did work with as i say in the

01:21:33 who did work with as i say in the previous training environment the thing that i challenge here is i think it was in seventy one would you like the document to scroll down yes

01:21:50 yes so where mr ellis is saying that it was not uncommon for the training representative to have limited understanding of the issue at hand they wouldn't they're not

01:22:02 issue at hand they wouldn't they're not an operational member of staff that wasn't their role their role was to collate the information and to project manage

01:22:11 manage the the tcat from end to end they were not there as a subject matter expert looking at the final sentence of paragraph 71 mr groves am i right to assume that is

01:22:24 am i right to assume that is evidence that you wouldn't dispute or put more highly you'd agree with that it wasn't always possible to fast track urgently needed change changes into ic training i agree with that

01:22:35 training i agree with that and the essential reason for that on what you've said thus far is limited resources with a specialism and instant command within the lfb is that fair yeah there's a limited pool to go to

01:22:46 to what attempts were made to contact external

01:22:51 external in instant command to get their assistance on training programs related to instant command right so this is where um

01:23:02 this is where um so i'll answer that first so in terms of um the lfb offered to second individuals from

01:23:10 from lfb into babcock in a purely design and consultancy capacity

01:23:18 that's that did happen for a short period of time um um

01:23:27 group manager butler seconded from lfb into babcock to assist with design it wasn't the lfb's responsibility to go and find out who the subject

01:23:39 to go and find out who the subject matter expert was they said we had a period of time where we were trying to make it clear to babcock it's their responsibility

01:23:51 responsibility to find the training provider the the expert experts we can sign post people but it wasn't our job to make that contact uh the reason we did that is

01:24:03 uh the reason we did that is we were

01:24:04 we were under um scrutiny in the sense of you're outsourcing training but in effect you're doing a lot of work for the contractor and

01:24:14 and in some ways you are paying twice so you're paying the contractor and then you're still doing you're still providing some of that service yourself so

01:24:25 so is it right therefore to say that the lfb beyond succumbed of group manager butler did not identify anyone from outside the lfb who might assist in the

01:24:36 outside the lfb who might assist in the preparation of quotes urgently needed changes to ic training i i do recall

01:24:47 i do recall there being some um individuals names from um the commissioning department which were handed across to babcock but no one from outside the lfb yes

01:24:58 but no one from outside the lfb yes outside

01:25:03 given what mr ellis says here about urgently needed changes into ic training um did you raise problems about babcock not doing what the lfp wanted with

01:25:15 not doing what the lfp wanted with senior people at babcock and urged them to remedy matters yes so first of all who did you contact and when first about this issue um i can't recall the exact timeline

01:25:28 um i can't recall the exact timeline um but

01:25:30 um but i would imagine this was quite early into the contract i would say about 2014

01:25:38 i think um

01:25:41 um so i brought this to the attention of my line manager um i also presented information to various committees to say that some

01:25:52 various committees to say that some training is not progressing as rapidly as perhaps we'd like it to be and one of those reasons would have been around the subject matter expertise of

01:26:03 subject matter expertise of the individuals that babcock were using we i can remember a separate discussion with

01:26:10 with um

01:26:11 um the director and also the um commissioner at the time to look at ways that we could get into a charging arrangement with

01:26:23 get into a charging arrangement with babcock for our subject matter expertise time

01:26:27 time and whilst that was all well and good that charge didn't necessarily mean that you were going to get your the training delivered any quicker because you were

01:26:38 delivered any quicker because you were taking people away from other work which was their day-to-day uh workload

01:26:46 workload isn't the reality though because of the limitations on babcock's own in-house expertise that they were always going to be reliant upon you for expert advice particularly in respect of instant command and so

01:26:59 respect of instant command and so in reality wasn't the burden on you to get someone to assist the execution of urgently needed ic training rather than babcock looking at the reality of the situation

01:27:11 the situation i would say that there are there were avenues available to babcock you know the uk fire and rescue services is large you know they they could make links with other fire and rescue services within

01:27:23 other fire and rescue services within the country and ultimately they did that i think they formed quite a relationship with hampshire fire and rescue service as i said earlier there was

01:27:36 i suppose pressure on

01:27:40 lfb to it outsourced a contract and babcock were there to provide we wanted them to respond to it but there

01:27:51 wanted them to respond to it but there came a time when we had to step in and we had to um sick on someone across and we had to start giving them names of individuals positive cutting but ultimately the

01:28:02 positive cutting but ultimately the responsibility is on lfb to train

01:28:05 to train its officers appropriately particularly those who are likely to be in charge of instant and holding instant command responsibility yeah

01:28:12 yeah the risk remains with the lfb yes how long did it take for babcock to institute its relationship with hampshire

01:28:21 hampshire and to get it working so they were getting the knowledge and expertise they required

01:28:27 i i can't answer that i'm sorry i don't know

01:28:30 know i can't give you a was it some time into the contract so post 2014 or was it just mindful that you thought these issues started to arise in 2014 yeah

01:28:43 issues started to arise in 2014 yeah i think

01:28:46 i think it was around 2015 there was an there was an individual who joined babcock who had previously worked in hampshire fire and rescue service there

01:28:57 hampshire fire and rescue service there was a subject mattress but i can't recall the exact timeline sorry miss grove just help me if you can with this were you involved

01:29:06 involved in any of the discussions with babcock that led to the contract for training for them to provide training i was the project manager so back from 2009 to 2012

01:29:20 so back from 2009 to 2012 i

01:29:22 i managed the process from end to end i didn't uh sit down and specify what needed to be in in that contract well it it may be that um

01:29:33 well it it may be that um mr can is going to come on to this later on but just your answers about babcock's um

01:29:40 um experience and if you like knowledge base in relation to training for instant command is something that might have been investigated in the course of negotiating the

01:29:51 in the course of negotiating the contract

01:29:53 contract but would you you recall whether that was the case or not um there were subject matter experts so as part of that um

01:30:01 the procurement process there were experts from um various departments and there was an expert from the com the commissioning

01:30:12 expert from the com the commissioning arm who sat through that process and there were certain areas that were i suppose you would say were more scrutinized than others and

01:30:24 scrutinized than others and incident command and ba were predominantly scrutinized as part of their outline solutions and their their final solutions well i asked because i

01:30:38 would ordinarily would assume that babcock would have assured you that they had the resources to provide the training that you wanted yes did you

01:30:50 you wanted yes did you do anything about that so in terms of that their submission would have included a training resource model with um which would have outlined the number of trainers that they need to

01:31:01 number of trainers that they need to provide with the relevant experience expertise and qualifications so that would be part of their solution all right thank you very much just playing on from what the chairman asked um do you think that the training model

01:31:14 um do you think that the training model and babcock's over reliance at the start at least on lfb subject matter experts hindered or delayed the swift development of training programs um

01:31:25 um i would say at the the start of the contract i mean it was signed on the 28th of february and then babcock were expected to deliver from the 1st of april i mean

01:31:37 deliver from the 1st of april i mean that in my world is just ridiculous that was never going to be the case no one could do that you know we we expected a 12 to 18 month

01:31:48 you know we we expected a 12 to 18 month mobilization period so you would expect that they would have time you know have difficulty mobilizing a workforce in a matter of four weeks

01:31:59 in a matter of four weeks so what's the answer to my sorry to interrupt is the answer to my question yes

01:32:03 yes the over reliance did your question again of course did over alliance on uh or by babcock on lfb subject matter experts hinder

01:32:14 experts hinder the delay yes implementation of the training program yes and certainly didn't until would you say 18 months into the contract to life the contract i would say in certain areas it was longer

01:32:25 would say in certain areas it was longer than that so and what would those areas be

01:32:27 be so incident command was one of those areas

01:32:31 areas any other matters where delay was as noticeable as instant command

01:32:36 command [Music]

01:32:42 there were um some delays in breathing apparatus and real fire training but it was predominantly in the area of instant command we'll come on to instant command later because obviously

01:32:53 instant command later because obviously it is a particular uh topic of interest could i go back to the ribbon star independent review which is a lfb treble zero six double seven eight six forward

01:33:04 zero six double seven eight six forward slash

01:33:05 slash three three

01:33:11 and it's really observation nine which you see sits in that blue box in the top third of the page and it says this whilst the tcap process had been necessary to ensure that lfb as the

01:33:22 necessary to ensure that lfb as the client are confident the provider is delivering training that is appropriate and delivered in a consistent matter it is viewed by many as a cumbersome process that can lead to significant

01:33:33 process that can lead to significant delays in the design and delivery of new courses

01:33:37 courses it seems that part of the difficulty is the driver for such training be it the creation of a new policy the alteration of existing policy or the introduction of new equipment or techniques is generally developed by subject matter

01:33:48 generally developed by subject matter expert employed by lfb following the tcap process however means the associated training package will be designed by the training provider btl babcock who may not have access to

01:34:01 btl babcock who may not have access to this level of expertise now first of all do you agree with the criticism

01:34:07 criticism that the tcap process at the time of grenfell fire was a cumbersome process that could lead to significant delays in design and delivery of new courses

01:34:18 design and delivery of new courses yes

01:34:19 yes but i would also add that

01:34:22 that there's the way that the lfb operates there is um every 18 months there are promotion rounds and what you find is that the

01:34:33 rounds and what you find is that the subject matter experts change and as a result that can lead to delays in the process because you've got someone new in a commissioning department in a certain area who then has to get up to speed so sometimes

01:34:46 has to get up to speed so sometimes those

01:34:47 those promotions did delay the process but it was

01:34:50 was it was it was definitely seen as a cumbersome process and that was something that was

01:34:57 was fed back to me on a regular basis when i took over from mr hughes one of the things that was made clear to me about all of my peers heads of service was you need to

01:35:09 peers heads of service was you need to do something about the teacup process now what's following on from that was consideration ever given to bringing content design in-house so that effectively the smes

01:35:20 in-house so that effectively the smes would be responsible for the design of the training courses in their subject matter area not until the ribbon star report

01:35:29 report i would say not seriously until the ribbon style report there had been sort of talk about it previously but nothing was really pursued before the ribbon style report

01:35:41 ribbon style report was commissioned did you give any thought to getting an independent consultant in to advise you on what reforms could be made to make the process less cumbersome yes i did

01:35:52 the process less cumbersome yes i did suggest that we as part of a peer review we had someone from another uh a fire service to come in and review it or i did suggest that we could have someone from the nhs

01:36:04 that we could have someone from the nhs because we had built up a relationship with leadership academy within the nhs so who in particular did you raise that suggestion with and what was their response

01:36:14 response um

01:36:15 um that was raised with both um danny cotton um

01:36:21 um steve apter i mean to be honest it's something i brought back on more than one occasion i think it was important for us to have some external

01:36:32 external scrutiny

01:36:34 scrutiny and what were the reasons given by either danny cotton steve apter or any of the others for not uh having an external individual examine the lfb's internal processes

01:36:46 internal processes i think there was there was um sort of a range there was one there was like the lga peer review so they felt that there was already some review that was already

01:36:57 some review that was already ongoing

01:36:58 ongoing there was also a talk of the

01:37:04 hmi inspections coming and the belief that that would you know be addressed as part of that that process um

01:37:11 um and also there was um discussions around um whether someone would understand the

01:37:21 the the complexity and uniqueness of the london

01:37:27 london context

01:37:28 context were you satisfied that they were good responses to the concern you'd raised no why what was deficient about the lga process the hmi process for your

01:37:41 the lga process the hmi process for your perspective it was someone who had taken part in the lga process as someone who's at the end of it and as part of the inspection processes um it's a very short period of time they

01:37:52 um it's a very short period of time they come in and do inspections over you know a week a couple of weeks throughout a whole organization so they're only going to spend a very small amount of time with you in the learning

01:38:04 amount of time with you in the learning and development arena and i i felt that there was a need for us to look at the provision in depth

01:38:14 and also the way that the contract you know this is a 25-year contract and it is all it's going to change it's

01:38:25 and it is all it's going to change it's going to change you know every at least every three to five years and i thought it was important that not only did we look at the content of the contract

01:38:36 contract but also the structures within the lfb that served and delivered that and i felt that as time went on my department became more of a

01:38:47 my department became more of a transactional department and became more and more removed from the actual delivery

01:38:56 delivery could i build on what you've just said then could we turn to met trouble zero seven nine three five eight uh which is a statement from nick markweld i think worked in the uh training commissioning

01:39:07 worked in the uh training commissioning department within your department between 2012 and 2018. and if we go to page six within uh mr marquel's statement in the second paragraph um he said this uh to conclude at any

01:39:19 um he said this uh to conclude at any one time there was only three or four of us working on tcaps our workload was very heavy and i raised this issue with senior management on more than one occasion as the constant pressure and changing priorities made for a stressful

01:39:31 changing priorities made for a stressful work environment and if we go to the final sentence of this paragraph our complaints seem to fall on deaf ears i don't recall a time when more staff came to help and then if we can look at the

01:39:42 to help and then if we can look at the final paragraph on this particular page he said this most of my time was spent chasing missing deadlines from babcock and explaining to commissioning department why they would not get training on time

01:39:54 training on time did mr markwell raise those concerns with you

01:39:58 with you mr markwell did and his peers

01:40:02 peers raised on a number of occasions that they felt that their workload was a heavy one

01:40:07 heavy one and they felt that they needed more resources

01:40:11 resources it didn't fall on deaf ears i think for about three years in a row i made growth bids part of the annual budget process looking for additional program managers

01:40:23 looking for additional program managers within that team

01:40:26 team and they

01:40:27 and they were rejected were you given a reason as to why those bids were rejected no did you ask for a reason

01:40:35 reason there was no point i wouldn't have got one

01:40:39 one um can we go back to your second witness statement

01:40:42 statement i've got one eye on the clock do you think this might be a convenient point i'm

01:40:46 i'm heading to finish this page and the next page which would be a convenient spot and i'm rather hoping to get it done by 25 too

01:40:53 25 too because it would make for a neater end quite a long morning are you happy to keep going i'm happy yeah to continue all right thanks sir if we go to your second witness

01:41:04 if we go to your second witness statement which is lfb double zero one zero two one three eight forward slash 22

01:41:11 and paragraph 32 um

01:41:16 um there you explain that once the training requirement was fully specified and babcock had a good understanding of the brigade requirement babcock would usually produce three options for delivery of the training to be considered by the brigade

01:41:27 considered by the brigade occasionally fewer options were provided by babcock on agreement with the brigade this may happen if the commissioning department in agreement babcock had already decided on the best training option

01:41:38 option the stakeholder group would then consider the options where applicable and choose their preferred training solution if this had a cost implication this was submitted to cpmb for approval

01:41:49 this was submitted to cpmb for approval any cost implications would have been considered against the training requirements and the outcomes set by the commissioning department cost and quality were the key factors where cost was an issue a paper was presented to a

01:42:01 was an issue a paper was presented to a meeting of the corporate management team with a recommendation for course classes to either be reduced or deferred to the subsequent training year cost is not a factor for risk critical

01:42:12 cost is not a factor for risk critical training and such training would not be reduced or deferred when might the selection of a training option have quotes a cost implication close quotes um i can give you an example

01:42:25 um i can give you an example of two one was around the firefighter development programme there was a change in the lever rate so we had to put through a significant

01:42:37 so we had to put through a significant amount of new trainees which meant that flex the contract past that 20 percent so that had a a cost implication and also

01:42:47 also uh in later years when the incident command strategy changed and that we were looking for knowledge base revalidation assessments

01:42:59 knowledge base revalidation assessments the number of courses and the number of i suppose innovations around the incident command curricula increased meant that it had a

01:43:10 curricula increased meant that it had a higher cost impact in both cases we worked through the statement of training requirements to ensure that

01:43:21 training requirements to ensure that those

01:43:22 those pieces of critical training were embedded first and then you'd look at other pieces of training that could in effect either be reduced or deferred

01:43:33 in effect either be reduced or deferred now following on from that you say cost is not a factor for risk critical training who determined um what risk critical training was okay um

01:43:45 okay um so

01:43:46 so at the start of the contract so when we handed over all of our information to babcock we listed

01:43:55 we listed to them what we consider to be the risk critical training areas the

01:44:01 the director of operations we worked with the director of operations at the time and he highlighted that the areas that he thought was critical in the sense of keeping the front line

01:44:13 keeping the front line serviced and also that people had the relevant skills to keep themselves safe that was revisited there's course skills revisited at least on two occasions that

01:44:24 revisited at least on two occasions that i can recall thank you um so i've reached the questions i wanted to reach by this time and so now is an appropriate time for a break subject to your approval yes

01:44:35 for a break subject to your approval yes well i think that's a very good idea i think it's time we had our morning break was to grow so we'll stop there for a few minutes we'll resume of course to 12 please

01:44:44 please and

01:44:45 and while you're out of the room i have to ask you please not to talk to anyone about your evidence and that will be true on other occasions as well okay all right thank you thank you very much would you like to go to the usher please

01:45:06 [Music]

01:45:10 thank you

02:03:16 would you ask mr graves to come back in please

02:03:32 all right mr graves ready to carry on yes good thank you thank you yes mr thanks sir um mr graves can we now turn to stage four of the adi process which was implementing the design and could we

02:03:43 was implementing the design and could we go to lfb double zero one zero two one three eight four slash two three

02:03:54 and we see in paragraph 33 you describe the transition to stage four of the adi model which is as i say implementation and you say in the second line down this all training materials were signed off

02:04:06 all training materials were signed off by the subject policy advisor from the department commissioning the training and the training solution would then be piloted the relevant commissioning department would identify individuals to attend the pilot to ensure effective

02:04:17 attend the pilot to ensure effective feedback on the pilot the attendees would be personnel with knowledge of the subject matter of the pilot now with responsibility for signing off a training training package lie solely

02:04:28 a training training package lie solely with the commissioning department no there have been number of individuals who would sign off the package uh predominantly it would be the commissioning plan in terms of the content

02:04:39 content but you'd also have that signed off by babcock in terms of say that the design element had been completed you'd have it signed off by the ac fire stations again or his

02:04:50 the ac fire stations again or his representative to say that they are happy in terms of the regime so how it was going to be delivered and didn't have a detrimental impact and you'd also have it signed off by

02:05:00 by either myself or a nominated deputy thank you would every training course have a pilot no

02:05:07 no which ones would uh predominantly those with practical elements um cbts computer-based training didn't always have a pilot and who would attend the pilot to ensure effective feedback

02:05:19 the pilot to ensure effective feedback would it be operational personnel would there be a spread of seniority who would attend

02:05:24 attend so you'd have the subject matter expert which predominantly would have been an operational member of staff you go on in your witness statement to say at paragraphs 34 and 35 uh that once

02:05:37 say at paragraphs 34 and 35 uh that once the training solution was agreed as meeting the requirements of the tcap the tcap would be closed and signed off by the following people and i think they're the ones

02:05:46 the ones that you've adverted to already the head of service for the commissioning department uh personal development manager babcock head of training design babcock head of business support brigade training and then training solution

02:05:57 training and then training solution would then be added to the course guide or if it was computer-based training package loaded to big learning first of all what is big learning big learning is a learning management

02:06:08 big learning is a learning management resource

02:06:09 resource so in in effect it's a pool tool on a computer system where all our training materials are held so that could be anything from training guides

02:06:20 guides training content and online courses assessments all materials are held there who had who had access to big learning so that

02:06:32 so that there were permission levels so ultimately everyone who would could attend a course had access to big learning but obviously designers there'd be a certain area for designers which was

02:06:44 certain area for designers which was exclusively permission rights for themselves line managers could go in and see how individuals you know whether they had completed their training or what stage they were in the process so it's open

02:06:56 they were in the process so it's open virtually to whole organization but with different access permissions thank you and following completion and sign off at tcap how long would it take for the training to be actually rolled out and provided to

02:07:07 provided to relevant personnel so tcap couldn't be signed off until a pilot had been concluded

02:07:14 concluded the way that we worked is that you would have a pilot course

02:07:19 course and then you would have you would assume that it would be signed off so those subsequent courses are already scheduled in the next quarter thank you can we now go to the final stage which is stage

02:07:31 go to the final stage which is stage five and that's evaluation of effectiveness and if we could for these purposes turn to your how training works report at lfb trouble zero double five one two seven forward slash two three

02:07:43 one two seven forward slash two three and paragraph seven point one uh where you say this the brigade has robust and effective training quality assurance and evaluation processes of the training delivered via btl

02:07:55 the training delivered via btl through these processes the brigade measures btl's performance and seeks assurance that the training provided fully meets the needs of the organization all courses in the annual statement of training requirements are

02:08:07 statement of training requirements are audited separately at least once a year by the brigade and btl now um

02:08:14 now um we have no uh reports of those audits so my first question is did those audits take place at

02:08:21 at yes

02:08:23 yes it as it said each piece of training was audited at least once a year for some areas um it was audited more than once a year what areas would require more than an

02:08:36 what areas would require more than an annual audit yeah it wasn't specified it wasn't laid down that they had to but by experience it would have been breathing apparatus real fire training

02:08:49 breathing apparatus real fire training immediate emergency care driving and instant commands so those areas that were considered to be the four key

02:08:56 four key training curricula who was responsible for carrying out that audit function so you would have audits undertaken by babcock trainers and their line managers

02:09:09 babcock trainers and their line managers from on the lfb side you would have auditors originally that were based within my department um that function was then transferred to the ops policy and assurance department

02:09:21 the ops policy and assurance department and you would

02:09:24 sometimes not always have someone from the commissioning department uh doing those audits as well was it both the role of lfb and babcock to audit the content and quality of the

02:09:35 to audit the content and quality of the training material yes and how would the results of the audit be um

02:09:41 be um progressed or reviewed higher up the chain yeah so you'd have um there was a meeting that occurred on a monthly basis between representatives from

02:09:51 from babcock um audit team and the auditors within the lfb and they'd look at the feedback that information was then fed into those monthly project boards i talked about

02:10:02 monthly project boards i talked about earlier so that information was available for the project board to see whether there was there needed to be a change in either the training content or the way that training was delivered thank you

02:10:13 thank you if we can go back to your report you say

02:10:17 you say in paris 7.1 in addition the majority of btl led training delivery is subject to a formal level 1 evaluation this performance data is reviewed by the brigade and btl quality assurance teams

02:10:29 brigade and btl quality assurance teams and remedial action has taken to improve areas of identified underperformance now you say that the majority of btl led training delivery is subject to a level one evaluation

02:10:41 one evaluation why not all training i didn't have level one evaluations for computer-based training and why

02:10:49 and why um because the level one evaluation focused predominantly on the training venue the suitability of the venue

02:10:59 the venue focused on the trainer experience the trainers credibility how they reacted to the delegates etc and that wasn't you couldn't do that it

02:11:10 and that wasn't you couldn't do that it just wasn't no

02:11:11 no uh can we now look and we've touched on this earlier the lfb's dynamic and intelligent operational training so that's the diot policy that can be found at lfb quadruple zero double five

02:11:23 quadruple zero double five seven

02:11:24 seven and if we go to page 13

02:11:33 and if we look at paragraph 6.10 within the glossary and it defines levels one two three and four we see that level one questionnaire is

02:11:44 that level one questionnaire is considered the candidate's reactions to the

02:11:46 the opinions of the course then normally completed at the end of the course by the automated course evaluation management system and that's level one that's been referred to in your statement yes and the report

02:11:59 level one from the face of it is unlikely to give objective insights into the quality and efficacy of the training would that be effect

02:12:08 effect observation of its limitations um there there is an element within that form where the where the delegates asked in free text to provide feedback in terms of

02:12:21 feedback in terms of their experience of the course the trainer etc so there is the potential for them to do that there's something anyway there is if we can look at the other levels

02:12:31 levels we've got level two three and four set out there can you help us which training courses would attract a level three or a level

02:12:42 would attract a level three or a level four evaluation there were no courses that had a level three evaluation um why was that um because the organization hadn't pursued

02:12:53 because the organization hadn't pursued a level three uh strategy uh it focused predominantly on level one and level two level three

02:13:04 was being addressed in terms of at the workplace so rather than having a formal evaluation process what you would have is the line managers would look at an individual's

02:13:15 would look at an individual's performance and then you would have

02:13:20 i'll give you an example so say someone had not been on a breathing apparatus course and

02:13:28 and the line manager would get a copy of the report to see how that individual had uh performed in in the training if if everything if there was an area where i felt that there was an

02:13:39 where i felt that there was an identified need then that individual would be tagged

02:13:46 tagged then there would be issued a personal development record it would be agreed how that individual needed to

02:13:54 needed to improve what areas that there was need to be improving it could ultimately be a return to a course

02:14:02 as part of that process you would also it was the line manager's responsibility so say you had six people within your

02:14:13 six people within your watch who'd been on a course over a period of time and say you had four people who had reported back a negative component it was their responsibility to let

02:14:24 to let the commissioning department and the training department know which is then fed into the um performance uh to those project boards i think there wasn't a formal level three process

02:14:37 formal level three process looking at level four yeah um

02:14:40 um how often were level four evaluations carried out in relation to what areas of training that there was no level four um formal process so level three and four are essentially redundant

02:14:52 three and four are essentially redundant yes

02:14:54 yes can we turn back to how your how training works report and at page 23 so that's lfb quadruple zero sorry lfb treble zero double five one two seven

02:15:05 treble zero double five one two seven forward slash two three which were on there

02:15:08 there you set out other evaluation tools deployed by the brigade i don't want to go through each and every one of them but in summary you refer i think to three processes

02:15:19 three processes first

02:15:21 first uh station managers using the brigade standard

02:15:25 standard uh service standards to check the performance of staff secondly quality assurance of those checks by operational assurance officers and thirdly the use of a computer-based quiz to test individuals on their

02:15:37 quiz to test individuals on their knowledge of operational subjects is that a fair and accurate summary it is would you accept that none of those processes evaluates the content quality or efficacy of babcock's training

02:15:48 or efficacy of babcock's training packages

02:15:55 um

02:16:00 no i would say when you um if you're looking at a practical skill then if as if a watch manager or station manager

02:16:11 if a watch manager or station manager observes that there are repeated areas where someone isn't performing to the required standard then um

02:16:20 then um that is

02:16:22 that is that is a reflection on the training that's been delivered um so i would say that it does address that but i suppose putting the question slightly differently um was there a

02:16:35 slightly differently um was there a framework by which these processes evaluated the rigorous and systemic view of content policy and efficacy of the training packages

02:16:47 the training packages so this service standard audits are where the opera the auditors would observe a particular drill or exercise

02:16:59 drill or exercise and they would identify trends and then those trends would be fed into the

02:17:07 the odcb and

02:17:09 odcb and ultimately the operational professionalism board so that became as a standard report that was considered by those boards looking at what you've set out there in describing the processes

02:17:21 in describing the processes none

02:17:22 none seems to evaluate the performance of lfb staff as against specific learning outcomes

02:17:28 outcomes is that a fair criticism that is a fair criticism

02:17:32 criticism so is it also fair to say that once a training package had been developed by babcock signed off by the commissioning department it was assumed to be fit for purpose

02:17:42 purpose yes

02:17:44 yes so what type of event or decision would be required to alter that assumption that the package was fits the purpose so you had as i said you'd get feedback from delegates whether that be through

02:17:56 from delegates whether that be through the level one or level two process you get information back through the um information sorry yeah incident management database

02:18:08 sorry yeah incident management database so you could get some trends there you'd also get some trends maybe in terms of things like the safety event recording database so there's a number of areas where you

02:18:19 there's a number of areas where you could you could see what the trends were and they were fed back into that odcb or the the opb meeting and so is

02:18:29 and so is with the sole exception of computer-based training is it right to say that the main framework or the principle or valid evaluative tool was actually the odcb in looking at this of

02:18:41 actually the odcb in looking at this of quality and effectiveness of training packages

02:18:43 packages so you had um

02:18:47 the odcb was more about strategic direction and analyzing needs and saying these are the areas in which training needs to be commissioned

02:18:58 commissioned the true

02:18:59 the true analysis in terms of the training content and whether it's still fit for purpose

02:19:06 purpose was done either through those project boards as i say which are on a monthly basis

02:19:12 basis and at least every three years as part of that course review cycle now come on to that course review cycling due course and indeed it's probably the most useful

02:19:24 and indeed it's probably the most useful subject to turn to now um can we go to page 24 of your how training works report

02:19:37 and you see it towards the bottom of the page is the emboldened heading continuous improvement and below that paragraph 9.1 says this all courses within the training contract

02:19:49 all courses within the training contract are subject to a continuous process of course review the focus scope and time frame for course reviews are determined in partnership between the brigade and btl now bearing

02:20:01 now bearing in mind that phrase continuous process of course review can we look at your second witness statement which is at lfb00102138

02:20:12 forward 16. and if you look at paragraph 19 in particular where you set out there the quotation in italics this course review process

02:20:25 italics this course review process babcock have committed to a review of all of the current training courses within the first three years of the contract so picking up the phrase you used an earlier answer now is that course reviewed by babcock

02:20:37 now is that course reviewed by babcock the self-same thing as the continuous process of course review that you refer to in the how training works it's the same thing exactly the same yeah

02:20:48 so if bob babcock's review were to be undertaken within the first three years of the contract that process would be completed by april 2015 presumably yes was there any variation to that date yes

02:21:02 was there any variation to that date yes uh in what to when and in what respects so in the first 18 months of the contract

02:21:08 contract no course reviews have been undertaken and why was that there was a disagreement between the lfb and babcock about what

02:21:19 about what constituted what the component parts of that review would be

02:21:25 would be you say component parts the subject area so like instant command or whatever know more about what the actual analysis of that review would be and who would do what roles and responsibilities

02:21:37 what roles and responsibilities so by the

02:21:38 so by the contractually agreed deadline of april 2015 what had been done in terms of review of training but memory serves me correct i believe

02:21:49 but memory serves me correct i believe that there were

02:21:54 course reviews for driving ba

02:21:59 ba incident command

02:22:03 and immediate emergency care i believe for the first i think those four key areas were done it's a bit hard for me because i wasn't responsible for that at the time but i'm pretty sure that was the case okay thank

02:22:15 pretty sure that was the case okay thank you now if we can go to an exhibit that you provide which is pg-14 which can be found at lfb double zero one zero double two zero one um hopefully you find us of

02:22:27 two zero one um hopefully you find us of a pictogram headed babcock initial course review process and if that could be expanded now is that the process that's otherwise

02:22:38 now is that the process that's otherwise known by the initials icrp or confusingly ipcr

02:22:49 yes

02:22:53 and was the intention underpinning the three year course review um that all courses would be comprehensively reviewed and if necessary amended all training curricula were reviewed

02:23:06 all training curricula were reviewed within three years i think there was a slight um

02:23:12 misunderstanding not every single course was reviewed in detail so what they would do is they would take a training curricula

02:23:19 curricula so instant command would be an example of that and then they would look at all of the courses beneath that and then would look at feedback that they had received or areas in which they felt that they could make an improvement

02:23:32 felt that they could make an improvement and they would come forward and say these are the courses within that particular training curriculum that we need we think needs to be focused on what criteria would determine the depth

02:23:43 what criteria would determine the depth of the review would it be the risk that was attendant upon the activity such as instant command or what other factors would determine intensity yeah um so going back to my earlier sort of answer

02:23:56 going back to my earlier sort of answer around the core course uh sorry the core skills courses so those areas that were considered to be the

02:24:03 be the um essential areas for a firefighter in the front line those the areas that were had a deep dive rather than other areas

02:24:14 had a deep dive rather than other areas and

02:24:15 and give you an example things like i.t or personal skills those were didn't um they weren't subjected to such a deep dive

02:24:25 dive is that looking at it the practicalities of the review did it amount to babcock effectively marking its own homework by reviewing the content and quality of its courses

02:24:38 the content and quality of its courses yes

02:24:41 would it have been more appropriate for the lfb or indeed an external body to have undertaken the review process external body yes did you ever suggest that at the time

02:24:54 did you ever suggest that at the time no

02:24:55 no do you

02:24:56 do you did you express any concerns that babcock was effectively marking its own homework and how best to remedy that problem

02:25:08 i recall mentioning that to um

02:25:14 um robert scott as part of the ribbond uh report and he was the author i think of that was yes and so was it a concern that uh struck

02:25:25 and so was it a concern that uh struck you after the fire was it a concern that predated the fire

02:25:30 the it was something that struck me post the fire the reason being the incident uh sorry not incident the course review process

02:25:41 course review process um hadn't really been embedded at that point whilst there had been those uh initial reports with a whole series of recommendations

02:25:54 series of recommendations it wasn't until later that you actually saw

02:25:57 saw products being delivered can we go back to your second inquiry witness statement which is

02:26:05 two one lfb0010213 eight forward slash eighteen and paragraph twenty one uh you set out there fourteen skill errors i think they're the ones you touched on in an earlier answer uh those

02:26:17 touched on in an earlier answer uh those are the skill areas that you were referring to yes and if we look at the fourth bullet point down it refers refers to instant management training is that the same as instant command training it is

02:26:29 training it is were you personally or your department involved in the review of that subject area

02:26:34 area [Music]

02:26:37 [Music] the department the the wider department yes at that time i wasn't responsible for training commissioning that come later

02:26:48 training commissioning that come later but the department certainly was yes now if we can look at paragraph 25 of your second inquiry statement which requires us to turn to page 20.

02:27:02 you say there that all training materials including trainer guides timetables and presentations would be considered in the course review alongside delegate feedback materials considered are detailed in the course

02:27:13 considered are detailed in the course review report for each skill report recommendations would be considered at the course review board and any recommendations taken forward would be through a tcap and governed and assured

02:27:24 through a tcap and governed and assured through the tcap as part of the course review babcock made recommendations the brigade course review board albeit it was the brigade's decision as to any decision any changes made to courses

02:27:35 decision any changes made to courses and so

02:27:36 and so the upshot of that is that the findings of the three-year court review process were actioned via the tcap process and via tcap forms is that correct yes now base

02:27:47 now base now it appears that all of the lfb's evaluation processes related to assessing existing training material

02:27:55 material what we've seen thus far is that of fair view to take as part of the course review process yes and there was no process by which the training department took the step back

02:28:08 training department took the step back and asked what might be missing from that

02:28:10 that programme which needed to be addressed

02:28:14 addressed no

02:28:17 was that a mission noted by you or anyone else at the time no

02:28:24 that is a marked deficiency in the effectiveness of the review program isn't it yes

02:28:35 could we turn now to a separate distinct topic which is local training and

02:28:42 and what i'd like to start with here is what you describe the process as being in your how training works report which is lfb treble zero double five two 127

02:28:53 lfb treble zero double five two 127 forward slash 15 and paragraph 6.1

02:29:02 now what you say here is this in addition to training delivered via the brigade btl contract workplace training is delivered at fire stations as part of the developing and maintaining

02:29:14 the developing and maintaining operational professionalism daymop requirements best practice assessments borrow training plans and revalidation of instant command now having set that context can we look

02:29:27 now having set that context can we look at the demop process itself and the starting point is the policy which you exhibit to your statement as as pg-3

02:29:35 as pg-3 and that can be found at lfb 005 129.

02:29:45 okay the date of that iteration policies 2006 and reviewed in september 2016 and if we go to the introduction on page 2 paragraph 1.1

02:30:02 this summarizes the policy thus the authority has a statutory duty to ensure that operational staff are trained to do their job effectively and safely 1.2

02:30:12 1.2 to achieve this training is provided in various forms to equip staff with the necessary skills knowledge and understanding to carry out their role to the required standards initially training for firefighters is

02:30:23 initially training for firefighters is provided by our training provider and subsequently most development and maintenance of skills will be carried out at station 1.3

02:30:32 1.3 once the initial learning phase has taken place it will be necessary for staff to practice their newfound skills knowledge and understanding in conjunction with

02:30:43 and understanding in conjunction with and in addition to their existing skills knowledge and understanding 1.4 this practice is what is referred to as station based continuation training and this training note in conjunction

02:30:55 and this training note in conjunction with the guidance sets out what is required to enable staff at stations to maintain their professionalism and competence by continually developing their skills knowledge and understanding

02:31:07 their skills knowledge and understanding what processes or arrangements did your department have to ensure that station based training mirrored and accurately enhanced babcock's own training

02:31:18 enhanced babcock's own training so sorry can i just go back and just want to confirm so this is up to the point of the fire yes none

02:31:29 why there were no such arrangements in place and because the uh responsibility for local training at that point sat with the head of fire stations who did not sit with the training department

02:31:43 so your department had no such arrangements did the head of fire services departments have arrangements to ensure consistency of station-based training with that provided by babcock

02:31:57 i don't know i couldn't answer that i think that's one for a colleague but what i can say is that a number of the computer-based training packages that were produced were used as

02:32:09 packages that were produced were used as part of the demo process um mr groves it is a question and is a point for you though to answer isn't it given your responsibilities in charge of training

02:32:20 training there's a risk that if babcock centrally provided training is not accurately reflected in station-based training there's a risk that of injury and harm flowing from that would you accept that

02:32:32 flowing from that would you accept that yes

02:32:34 yes given

02:32:36 given that would you accept that that risk of injury or harm or anything else is an obvious risk given the absence of any arrangements that check what is being trained out by the station

02:32:50 i i would say yes that's why as part of the people's services review the function was changed and moved across to the training department there was a corporate project

02:33:01 was a corporate project to actually look at the whole demo process

02:33:05 process but before 2018 yeah no one had thought how best to eliminate or mitigate the risk

02:33:13 risk of an inconsistency between babcock training and station-based training is that right from asking me that question i would say no i don't know whether a colleague in fire

02:33:25 don't know whether a colleague in fire stations had considered that but from your perspective the answer is no yes

02:33:31 and certainly you're not aware of any such arrangements to eliminate or mitigate the risk that have been put in place by the fire status fire services department

02:33:44 um could we turn to page three of the policy and section 4 which is headed what training needs to be done at station level

02:33:54 now over the next few pages under section 4

02:34:00 the policy sets out under various bold headings a list of key areas of training we can see core risk

02:34:07 core risk critical skills specialist skills and knowledge and if we can turn over the page to page four we see procedures core risk critical personal skills

02:34:18 core risk critical personal skills physical training etc going through even on the skin read that policy how would a crew manager a watch manager or indeed a station manager

02:34:30 manager identify what they need to train their firefighters on so

02:34:37 so i believe that the process is so there's a borough training plan so that's one area in which the training need is identified

02:34:48 need is identified in terms of what is the local area in terms of what are the risks in your your local area so and

02:34:57 so and in terms of those risks what regular drills and exercises need to be completed to enable individuals to perform

02:35:05 perform safely

02:35:07 safely there is also best practice assessments which are routine drills and exercises to ensure that individuals maintain their skills there would have been

02:35:19 computer-based training and other training that was identified as part of operational news so there was a range of areas in terms of that would

02:35:30 a range of areas in terms of that would enable a crew manager watch manager and station manager to look at these are the type of things that you need to be considering for your local borough training plan there's nothing in the demo policy

02:35:42 there's nothing in the demo policy to give the station manager that assistance is there no that's a separate policy

02:35:50 before we leave the democrat policy can we turn to page five and section five so just over the over the page and there's a heading how much training needs to be done

02:36:03 needs to be done at the very top and paragraph 5.1 says from the second line down

02:36:09 line down it has been determined that on average station based personnel need to train for approximately six hours per tour in order to maintain competence in the core risk critical skills and associated knowledge together with

02:36:21 and associated knowledge together with practice in the implementation of operational procedures 5.2 is recommended that approximately half so three hours is programmed for core risk critical

02:36:32 is programmed for core risk critical training the remaining time being used to address individual and or teen needs and any other training necessary to prepare for instance relating to risk on that station ground

02:36:44 relating to risk on that station ground now by my creaky mats that works out as approximately six hours of training for every 48 hours of working is that right yes

02:36:55 48 hours of working is that right yes would those six hours include time spent on babcock's computer-based training packages

02:37:04 um i'm trying to um the original six hours was um

02:37:12 was um determined by a corporate project and at the time that that corporate project

02:37:18 project determined those six hours i'm pretty sure

02:37:21 sure that the cbt packages were not part of those six hours we're not yeah what about training associated with operational news that

02:37:31 that yeah the cool this six hours would have been before the operational news has been

02:37:36 been um

02:37:36 um so what systems would the lfb so whether your department or the fire services department have in place for ensuring that

02:37:44 that required training was actually being provided at station level yeah so um so at this time at the time of the the fire there would there would have been

02:37:55 fire there would there would have been um

02:37:57 um a group of officers i think they were known as

02:38:01 known as training review implementation offices actually known as trios and i think they went out

02:38:08 went out and did routine inspections to see whether

02:38:11 whether um

02:38:13 um drills and exercises were being completed and they would scrutinize uh station training records would they look at adequacy as well as the fact that training was done

02:38:26 i i would say yes because there were feedback from trios that would be discussed as part of those project boards

02:38:36 boards so yes they would have done that and if we can go back to your how training works report so lfb trouble zero double five one two seven forward slash two zero

02:38:48 forward slash two zero and paragraph six point twelve

02:38:52 you say this btl support the brigade in the design and development of training materials accessible online cbts to support the delivery of workplace based training

02:39:03 delivery of workplace based training through the democrat process so just so that i've got this clear is it right that this is a relatively recent development and at the time of the fire

02:39:13 the fire babcock were not involved in the preparation of daymob training materials i'm

02:39:19 i'm i'm 95 sure that that is the case thank you

02:39:24 thank you now can i turn to a separate topic which is borough training plans which is something you refer to in earlier answers

02:39:31 answers and again can we go to page 21 of your how training works report so it's just over the page and look at paragraph 6.17 where you describe the role and process of boro

02:39:43 describe the role and process of boro training plans in the following way a borough training plan is developed which identifies training needs through assessing local risks and determines what and how training needs

02:39:54 determines what and how training needs to be provided to mitigate these risks a training risk matrix contained within policy note 698 borough training plan provides a mechanism to analyze and

02:40:05 provides a mechanism to analyze and assess the risk and identify what additional training is required at borough level now

02:40:12 now hopefully you exhibit um the borough training policy and it's a pg-4 and can i first take you to a version which predated the grenfell fire and that can be found

02:40:24 the grenfell fire and that can be found at lfb

02:40:26 at lfb 0060216

02:40:35 and if we can turn to page two and the introduction that paragraph 1.2 which says at station and borough level there are a number of local risks that

02:40:46 there are a number of local risks that require a risk assessment to determine what training is required by station-based staff to be better prepared to deal with these risks the purpose of the borough training plan is to provide a method to help borough

02:40:57 to provide a method to help borough commanders identify local training needs through assessing local risks and then determine the training required to address them the use of the trending risk matrix appendix 2 will also inform borough

02:41:08 appendix 2 will also inform borough commanders of what further resources are required to assist in borough training now the first question that arises from that is this were borough training plans

02:41:20 that is this were borough training plans the sole means by which crew managers watch manager station managers

02:41:25 managers uh determined the station-based training to be provided to their crews

02:41:32 i can't answer that i i wasn't responsible for that it was a it was a fire station lead so it's the head of fire um stations um

02:41:44 stations um so i think that's best directed to i'd say mr brown do you have any knowledge of the subject no this is this is only now becoming

02:41:55 no this is this is only now becoming part of the training department remit so at the point i left there were discussions about borough training plans becoming the responsibility of the training department

02:42:07 just following on from that given that division of responsibility to what extent if at all did the training department assist borough commanders in assessing training needs

02:42:19 commanders in assessing training needs in their boroughs none none

02:42:24 none that fell squarely within fire services did it yes and so mr brown is the man to answer those questions

02:42:33 um could we um turn to page five of this policy

02:42:41 and we see there in the top half of the page a table which sets out the various forms of training that can be provided and if we look at the bottom row we see that

02:42:52 we see that the letters ice ice or instant command exercise

02:42:57 exercise would you agree and just ensure that i haven't missed anything that there's no reference there to either command decision exercises or tactical

02:43:05 tactical decision exercises

02:43:09 um our degree review that doesn't seem that's not reference there can you help me what is the difference between instant command exercise a command decision exercise and a

02:43:21 a command decision exercise and a tactical decision exercise i can't help you i'm afraid to have to be an operational colleague can you help us as to which individual or department would have been responsible for

02:43:33 responsible for a provision of training on those matters would be fire services again um

02:43:37 um so in terms of

02:43:40 anything incident command related at the time would have been the responsibility of the incident command policy team which sat within the um

02:43:52 the um operational

02:43:56 i'm trying i can't remember what it was called at the time it's now um ops policy and assurance but whatever that is

02:44:05 was it the one that was headed by danny cotton

02:44:08 cotton yes

02:44:11 and can you help us do and please say so if you can't do instant command exercises command decision and tactical decision exercises are they different to local exercises

02:44:24 uh an instant command exercise is something that's done as part of a promotion round so it's it's usually um so if an individual is

02:44:35 individual is going through a promotion round they need to pass an incident command exercise

02:44:39 exercise to prove that they are fit for purpose for want of a better work in terms of the cds and tds i i can't um help you with that i'm afraid

02:44:51 help you with that i'm afraid now we see uh the middle column of this table deals with the frequency of the training activities and just skim reading that column you can see that many of the activities

02:45:03 you can see that many of the activities don't have a specified uh frequency instead are determined by the relevant assessment of risk by that borough who would be responsible for setting the number and frequencies of training

02:45:15 number and frequencies of training activities in the governing area would it be the borough commander i

02:45:20 i i would imagine that it's part of the and i would say all of the deputy assistant commissioners within the fire service

02:45:29 service fire association's department would have got together annually and would determine which things need to be done across the board so area dacs yes sorry

02:45:41 yes sorry and that's that was part of the back to basics program well we'll come on to elements of that and due course okay and so would the area dacs also be responsible for planning and designing uh the the substance of station-based

02:45:54 uh the the substance of station-based training no that would predominantly be the responsibility of the borough commander and the station manager okay and again

02:46:02 and again is it right to say that the training department provided no assistance to stations on the the substance of the training they provided that's correct

02:46:11 did you have any role in ensuring that a sufficient amount of training was being undertaken locally whether in terms of advice or audit no

02:46:22 again would that be something which lay with fire services yes uh can we now turn over the page to or the page immediately to next uh is page six and paragraph seven point two and

02:46:34 six and paragraph seven point two and seven point three and we see that at the bottom of page six under the heading action plans and 7.2 says this a gap analysis should be carried out by borough commanders

02:46:45 be carried out by borough commanders using the information on the training risk matrix to identify if all training solutions applicable to the risk can be provided and resourced if borough commanders identify gaps in

02:46:57 if borough commanders identify gaps in training provision or are unable to resource training solutions these deficiencies are to be discussed in the first instance with the area trio who will provide advice and guidance and if appropriate liaise with central

02:47:09 if appropriate liaise with central operations and training departments to provide the necessary training requirement but hopefully you've explained what a trio is before so thank you for that but what training or assistance did borough commanders

02:47:21 assistance did borough commanders themselves receive uh from you or anyone else uh to assist them in evaluating training and conducting gap analyses um

02:47:31 um so at that time um i

02:47:35 i believe there wasn't any assistance provided from the training department previous to that so when

02:47:44 so when the lfb delivered the training so pre-2012 yeah there was a course which was a

02:47:51 was a basic training skills module and there was an advanced training skills module those were not commissioned or required as part of the

02:48:03 commissioned or required as part of the annual training requirement that has changed subsequently since the incident

02:48:10 incident did you receive any complaints or representations about the absence of that course after 2012. no

02:48:20 do you know how often borough commanders through the area trio liaised with the training department to identify resource problems or seek advice on gaps there were

02:48:31 were from recollection the discussions were predominantly around lack of training resources equipment i'm thinking specifically

02:48:42 specifically around things like training foam and scrap cars that sort of that was where the training department became involved so the wherewithal to conduct

02:48:54 involved so the wherewithal to conduct training as opposed to content of courses yeah

02:49:02 was it something that you considered whether

02:49:05 whether your department could give more or more focused assistance to borough commanders to help them do the job of training that they were required to do yes i think it's come back to my earlier

02:49:17 yes i think it's come back to my earlier point when i said i felt like the department was becoming more transactional rather than a learning development professional service [Music]

02:49:37 now given that a lot of the work was done via

02:49:40 done via area trios sorry can i just sort like i need to say something um please so in terms of when the contract was awarded

02:49:51 was awarded uh one of the things that was clear was that the lfb was not to have its own training department it was not to deliver training that's what the

02:50:02 to deliver training that's what the outsource provision was for so the department that was set up which was split between training insurance and that commissioning team was about supporting the function and

02:50:15 was about supporting the function and having the governance and structures in place

02:50:19 place all of the learning and development expertise

02:50:24 expertise was considered to be part of that babcock contract that's why

02:50:32 i'm saying that i felt that the department became more of a contractual transactional rather than a learning and development

02:50:41 department but i do know now that

02:50:46 that there is an external consultant who is looking at um

02:50:52 um the department and what it provides with the means to bring all of that into one place potentially understood looking at taking the step back bearing mind

02:51:02 mind the evidence you've given in respect to the role of the area trios is it fair to say that at least in relation to the borough training plans there was no independent audit process of their

02:51:13 independent audit process of their adequacy or fitness for purpose whichever description is used i

02:51:18 i thought that was part of the role of the trio to be honest with you i suppose the emphasis in that is on the word independent oh i see what you mean um no

02:51:27 no not that i'm aware of mr brown might say different but not that i'm aware of from your perspective yeah thank you can we now come on to a separate and distinct topic which is um how you train the trainers

02:51:41 um how you train the trainers and if we can go as our starting point to the ribbon star report again which we can find at lfb triple zero six double seven eight six forward slash nineteen

02:52:02 and we see there at the very top of the page

02:52:05 page next to paragraph 4.7 the title watch officer preparedness and then if we can zoom out and go to the bottom we see a red and grey box at the bottom of the page

02:52:16 the bottom of the page and that sets out the recommendation and it says this providing all watch-based officers with some formal instruction on how to deliver a lecture conduct station-based training oversee a

02:52:28 conduct station-based training oversee a drill or fire ground scenario and improve their ability to carry out their role within the station now given that station-based managers had received

02:52:39 had received no guidance on the most basic of training tasks on what basis uh were trainers deemed fit by the lfb to train others

02:52:53 i wouldn't call these trainers so they're facilitating a process um

02:53:00 um but there was as i said there wasn't um that basic training skills module available to them they use there was previously a um course that was the line manager as

02:53:13 a um course that was the line manager as coach

02:53:15 coach and trainer and mentor that wasn't um commissioned or added to the training requirement so there was

02:53:27 there was limited

02:53:29 limited there wasn't a formal course and i would imagine that it would be through coaching and mentoring from those who had previously been trainers

02:53:40 had previously been trainers could i just pick you up on one point you said that there are essentially facilitators but just looking at the recommendation there in the first paragraph it does use the word conduct

02:53:52 it does use the word conduct station-based training yep they were trainers

02:53:56 trainers and

02:53:57 and facilitate i would i i'm sorry i i would say not they're facilitating the station exercise this is work that they do day in day out so this is a normal drill and

02:54:09 in day out so this is a normal drill and exercise

02:54:10 exercise and they would be observing that and seeing whether for want of a better word an example like if a ladder was being pitched correctly that's something that would be their bread and butter i don't think that's a

02:54:23 bread and butter i don't think that's a training

02:54:24 training um

02:54:26 function or responsibility i can see what

02:54:31 what is being recommended here and i do i do support that and agree that but i wouldn't have said that they were trainers

02:54:39 trainers but nonetheless there was no formal arrangement in place to ensure that they were they'd met a particular standard of fitness or competence to provide training or facilitate provision of training yeah there wasn't

02:54:51 training yeah there wasn't now given that the lfb scrutinizes the competency and performance of babcock trainers

02:54:56 trainers why wasn't that same process adopted or a

02:55:00 a similar process in relation to trainers or facilitators within the lfb itself

02:55:07 that goes back to my my point earlier that

02:55:11 that the lfb doesn't have a training department its training department is in effect babcock um what we're talking about here is the

02:55:23 um what we're talking about here is the i repeat my word about facilitating an exercise a drill but i but as time moved on then um

02:55:34 it was identified here as part of this report and there was a first-line leadership course that was introduced which um

02:55:42 which um took the individual back to a point where they um needed the basics

02:55:49 basics in terms of how you would um oversee a drill how you conduct that how you would provide feedback

02:56:00 so yes that that was missing and it needed to be

02:56:06 to be addressed

02:56:07 addressed i think

02:56:09 i think what this

02:56:10 what this shows is that there was a process known as the integrated personal development system and part of that system which dates back to

02:56:23 system which dates back to before

02:56:24 before the contract was awarded there were a number of statutory examinations which individuals had to undertake as part of their career operational

02:56:36 operational personnel

02:56:37 personnel and one of those qualifications was being able to design develop deliver training

02:56:46 training all of those statutory examinations were disbanded as part of the ipds system i think as time has gone on it's proven that some of the technical

02:56:58 it's proven that some of the technical knowledge whether that is operational or learning in development has been lost and

02:57:04 and there's a

02:57:05 there's a an understanding um that those that technical knowledge whether it's operational or learning development needs to be reintroduced which is why

02:57:16 needs to be reintroduced which is why you're getting things like assessment centers

02:57:19 centers revalidation of incident command the first line leadership course those have all been reinstated so you've lost some element of that technical

02:57:30 technical competence and experience thank you mr group now i'm going to move on to a separate topic now which is one that has been flagged up in earlier questions and that concerns the training in

02:57:43 and that concerns the training in response to the recommendations made by the coroner following the latino inquest in relation to instant command mr groves i don't want to stop you answering in full sorry however i'd be very grateful

02:57:54 full sorry however i'd be very grateful um if you felt able to do so to give more concise answers sure um but i recognize and sometimes context is all important

02:58:03 important now if on that note following the conclusion of the latino house inquest in march 2013 the coroner sent the lfb what was then known as a rule 43 letter which contained her recommendations for

02:58:15 contained her recommendations for reducing the risk of future deaths now that letter we can find at lfb trouble zero three two one five eight [Music]

02:58:30 and we see that letter addressed to them fire commissioner and if we can turn to the top of page three

02:58:39 we can see the coroner's recommendation that the lfb consider reviewing its policies on the number of instant commanders the commands at an instant and also the lfb consider providing

02:58:50 and also the lfb consider providing additional training to instant commanders

02:58:56 and it said there at the top of the page it is also recommended that consideration be given to training of ics and potential ics to enhance their performance in relation to the following

02:59:08 performance in relation to the following and i'll read these out for the sake of completeness use of the dynamic risk management model and other management tools to enable ics to analyze a situation and to recognize and react quickly to

02:59:20 and to recognize and react quickly to changing circumstances to recognize when to escalate attendance by more experienced ics to anticipate that a fire might behave in a manner inconsistent with the

02:59:32 in a manner inconsistent with the compartmentation principle to be aware of the risks to those above and adjacent to the fire flat hand over from one ic to the next an effective deployment of outgoing ics

02:59:46 effective deployment of outgoing ics the collection of information from all possible sources use of methodical search patterns now the lfb's response to the coroner's letter is that lfb treble 0042089

03:00:07 updated the 23rd of may 2013 and if we go to page six and the second paragraph on that page

03:00:18 that could be expanded please this sets out the response to the instant command training recommendation and the response said this the brigade

03:00:29 and the response said this the brigade will engage with its training contractor to ensure that the seven points identified in this recommendation are embedded within the current incident command training the brigade will ensure that these issues are further considered

03:00:40 that these issues are further considered as part of the current review process of incident command training which is being undertaken with the brigades training contractor this work will aim to ensure that the training provided enhances performance

03:00:52 training provided enhances performance across the range of required skills and knowledge needed to support effective instant command now just looking at the process

03:01:03 now just looking at the process is the reference to the current review process of instant command training which has been undertaken with a brigade training contractor a reference to the babcock initial course review process

03:01:15 babcock initial course review process that we discussed earlier i would say yes

03:01:20 yes and you're not aware of any other separate process not that i'm aware of no this was before my time but i am i would imagine that's the case now earlier in your evidence we

03:01:32 now earlier in your evidence we discussed

03:01:33 discussed mr ellis's criticisms of bab cox heavy reliance on lfb's subject matter experts in light of that criticism and the evidence you have

03:01:44 that criticism and the evidence you have given about the slow start and work up particularly in relation to incident command are you able to help us as to why babcock were asked to review the instant

03:01:57 babcock were asked to review the instant command training so as to check its conformity with coroner's recommendations and not any other body

03:02:06 well as as the training provider then i

03:02:11 then i i think it was right and proper that they would be asked to consider the content of the training curriculum what was being provided at that time i don't think

03:02:23 i don't think i'm not saying that should be exclusively but they should have been involved in that yes picking up on that word exclusively do you know whether any consideration was given to undertaking

03:02:34 given to undertaking the review required by the coroner internally within the lfb in relation to instant command i don't know i don't know when you assumed your senior positions in the training

03:02:46 your senior positions in the training department is it is it right to say that there was no existing process which was reviewing the quality of instant command training

03:02:58 quality of instant command training beyond the bad cop process beyond the babcock um

03:03:03 none that i'm aware of

03:03:08 by what means that the lfb have oversight of or involvement in babcock's review of instant command training as required by the rule 43 letter

03:03:23 i'm sorry i feel like i'm giving you a bit of a cop out here but i don't know i wasn't involved in i wasn't in a role that was involved in the sort of commissioning at

03:03:35 involved in the sort of commissioning at that point so i can't answer that i'm afraid can we go um to and see what assistance you can provide in relation to this document it's lfb treble zero three eight one seven zero

03:03:49 treble zero three eight one seven zero and it's tcap number zero one two four and it's something we touched on um earlier on the subject matter we touched on earlier on and it's entitled enhanced incident command training based

03:04:00 enhanced incident command training based on latino inquest rule 43 recommendations and first of all have you seen this document before yes now

03:04:10 yes now i think just to be clear the document on your screen at the moment is not in fact the tcap form but as a proposal written under tcap0124 is that correct

03:04:21 that correct i i think so now was

03:04:25 now was tcap0124 the means by which babcock were instructed to undertake the review of instant command training for the purposes of the coroner's recommendations yes it looks that way yes

03:04:39 now the opening paragraph says uh there's a review that a review of the current incident management training provision directly relating to the areas identified by the seven rule 43 recommendations has been undertaken

03:04:52 recommendations has been undertaken the purpose of the review was to confirm current practice and to identify areas for improvement to meet the requirements of tcap

03:05:00 of tcap 0124

03:05:01 0124 and then the review considered the following instant management courses and we see a list of nine covering crew managers up to dac level

03:05:12 up to dac level and then if we can look at the final paragraph on this page

03:05:22 it says the the following table gives a broad overview of the outcomes from the review process in terms of the areas identified for improvement and the provide proposed solutions to enhance

03:05:34 provide proposed solutions to enhance training

03:05:35 training and if we can look at this table the left-hand column identifies different aspects of the lfb's incident command training and then moving rightwards

03:05:47 and then moving rightwards at the column set up babcock's findings action taken and outcome is that right yes

03:05:53 yes and then if we look as means of an uh an example

03:05:57 example the first left-hand column deals with learning outcomes and reading across babcock's conclusion was that quotes existing learning outcomes are in need of revision transfer the training is tightly focused

03:06:10 transfer the training is tightly focused and addresses the outcomes required for each rule 43 recommendation is that right yes and if we can turn over the page

03:06:21 and to the second row we can see that the first column relates to training provision and then babcock's findings there were and i quote existing training

03:06:32 were and i quote existing training provision was either explicit or

03:06:35 or implicat i think it means implicit there across the different roles some received dedicated theory and practical training for other roles it depended on the exercise scenario they

03:06:47 depended on the exercise scenario they are exposed to as part of the training as to whether or not all areas relating to the rule 43 recommendations were covered and assessed and then if we look at the row immediately below is concerned with

03:07:00 row immediately below is concerned with exercise scenarios babcock's findings were as mentioned above existing exercise scenarios were found to be in need of revision to meet all areas the rule 43 recommendations

03:07:11 areas the rule 43 recommendations and if we move to the next column to the right it detailed action taken we see the following update and i quote suitable exercise scenarios have been identified and coron's supplementary

03:07:23 identified and coron's supplementary injects

03:07:24 injects written aligned to each role in covering the identified lfp policies and procedural notes to ensure delegates knowledge understanding and ability is tested by application in addressing the

03:07:35 tested by application in addressing the instant command challenges posed by each of the exercise scenarios now apologies for having to listen to me for a prolonged period of time but can i draw some of these various strands

03:07:46 draw some of these various strands together and see whether i've summarized it correctly and please say if i haven't babcock reviewed the instant command training against the coroner's seven recommendations is that right yes

03:07:59 recommendations is that right yes babcock found that while the content of the recommendations could be said to be contained within the instant command trainings it was sometimes implicit or not tightly focused would you accept

03:08:11 or not tightly focused would you accept that yes

03:08:12 that yes and that whether any given individual received the relevant training depended both on rank and the exercise scenarios they happen to be exposed to as part of their training yes and would you accept those

03:08:25 training yes and would you accept those as a fair three-fold summary yes now could i now look at the covering email

03:08:33 email that under which the proposal was sent and that can be found at lfb 001 5289

03:08:46 and if that could be expanded

03:08:51 now we see it's an email from doug massey of babcock sent on the 19th of september 2013 so some six months after the recommendations were published to

03:09:02 recommendations were published to stephen green who i think worked in the learning and development strategy team is that right he did yes now

03:09:08 now rather than listening to me read something out which is painful for everyone i'll invite you to read that to yourself mr grove

03:09:52 thank you mr gross first question is what was a minerva type exercise

03:10:04 i believe it's a um

03:10:07 it's a um simulated computer generated exercise but i'm not the expert on that i think it would have to be one of my operational colleagues who would advise you on that now doug massey referred to

03:10:20 you on that now doug massey referred to developing quotes a sufficient number of exercise scenarios close quotes with 1616 having already been identified to start with now how many command decision exercises

03:10:32 now how many command decision exercises or cds as they're referred to in this email did babcock or the lf and or the lfb envisage creating in response to the coroner's recommendations i can't answer that i wasn't

03:10:45 i can't answer that i wasn't involved at the time

03:10:49 now if we can look at

03:10:52 at how this program was implemented and what factors informed it and what i want to turn to next is the development of the command decision exercise and in particular the whole croft house

03:11:04 particular the whole croft house exercise

03:11:05 exercise and first of all can we start with the tcap form which is lfb quadruple zero three seven one six

03:11:22 there we go and if we could turn to page eight in this document

03:11:28 and if we could look at the box at the bottom of the page

03:11:36 it records the decision to development command decision exercises and has headed note of any key decisions made issues raised etc and if we look at the first paragraph it

03:11:48 and if we look at the first paragraph it makes reference to the babcock proposal document we looked at earlier and it goes on in the second paragraph to say this superseding babcock's proposal in stage 3 below

03:11:59 3 below it was not manageable to split this into separate tea caps for each instant command course as the proposal is to change and enhance six command decision exercises that will be

03:12:10 command decision exercises that will be used in all instant command courses the deadline of 20th december 2013 and current and stands for the enhancement of six cdes following this tcap recommendations will

03:12:23 following this tcap recommendations will be made for further enhancements that would be fed into the ic course review now the first question is an obvious one why was the number of cdes reduced from

03:12:34 why was the number of cdes reduced from the anticipated number of 16 or more down to six as i say i can't answer that would have to be

03:12:43 to be colleagues in a commissioning department at the time in opa or mr hughes who is responsible for commissioning i wasn't involved in the process at that time

03:12:54 process at that time now the next block of text in that box appears to have been added over a year later

03:13:01 later and starting from the penultimate line on this page it reads following a meeting

03:13:07 meeting at bechton training center on the 10th of december 2014 regarding the enhanced incident command training based on lachnal inquests rule 43 recommendations

03:13:18 43 recommendations the following points were agreed and if we go over the page the high-rise building within the initial demonstration was not felt to be suitable by the lfb as the main cde to

03:13:29 suitable by the lfb as the main cde to address the objectives of tcap124 this is now being changed to a cde currently held by babcock known as blackwall tower in addition to this

03:13:40 in addition to this dac graham ellis felt that there was an opportunity to use a recent incident within a high-rise block which had similarities to lachnal house as a cde

03:13:51 similarities to lachnal house as a cde now

03:13:52 now looking at the position as at december 2014

03:13:56 2014 there appears to be just one main cde is that a fair reading of that document that's how i would read that yes and that was initially intended to be blackwall tower cde

03:14:09 blackwall tower cde looks that way yes are you able to help us as to whether a decision had been taken just to use one command decision exercise or was there to be one main one supported by five

03:14:22 to be one main one supported by five supplemental ones to make the total of six i'm sorry i can't

03:14:29 are you able to give us any help very mind your later knowledge as to um

03:14:37 um whether the suggested cde was holcroft house or some other incident i i believe that holcroft house was the scenario that was used rather than

03:14:48 scenario that was used rather than blackwall tower i certainly remember that once i became involved that holcroft house was the scenario that was referred to can you help us as to why lachnal itself

03:14:59 can you help us as to why lachnal itself wasn't used as a cde no sorry

03:15:05 um can i now um go briefly to an internal babcock email um which can be found at lfb 003013

03:15:25 and if the um we see there an email at the top of the page from rugby narash to david language date of the fifth of december 2013 in which we see a babcock training designer

03:15:37 which we see a babcock training designer stating this my main concern with all of this is that the deadline still stands for tcap-0124 and we have promised the lfb that we would have six cdes completed

03:15:49 would have six cdes completed after talking to doug so that'd be doug massey

03:15:52 massey my understanding is that the lfb required changes to accept victoria view if this is the case would we be better working on this and submitting the single cde or two at the most ie

03:16:05 single cde or two at the most ie victoria vue and blackwall tower on the 20th of december now bearing in mind your later knowledge and having regard to what set out in that email to what extent was the

03:16:16 that email to what extent was the decision to reduce the number of cdes driven by babcock's inability to meet the lfb's deadline of the 20th of december

03:16:27 i i don't know is is the honest answer to that thank you um so we are one minute before one never mind convenient point we'll stop there thank

03:16:38 convenient point we'll stop there thank you sir

03:16:39 you sir yes well mr graves we're going to have a break now for some lunch so we'll stop we'll resume please at two o'clock

03:16:46 o'clock and while you're out of the room i must remind you please not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it

03:16:54 to it all right very good thank you very much thank you

03:17:07 thank you two o'clock

03:17:14 you