Afternoon session examining London Fire Brigade's incident command training, revalidation processes, and response to cultural challenges in assessing commander performance and providing development feedback.
00:14:50 would you ask dr cohen hatton to come back in please
00:15:00 uh please sit down yes thank you that's it make yourself comfortable ready to carry on i am good thank you yes sister yes mr chairman thank you um dr co-in hatton i'd like to go back again now if i can please to the
00:15:12 go back again now if i can please to the document the future of incident command of
00:15:15 of of mid august 2015 lfb double zero double one eight two three six please page thirty five
00:15:29 and let's look together at the third paragraph
00:15:33 on that page and this is underneath the heading
00:15:36 heading challenge three selection assessment and development of incident commanders and what is said there is this it is important that a safe learning environment is provided in order to
00:15:47 environment is provided in order to develop incident command skills incident command is something that is closely aligned with a sense of identity for many officers this means that criticism of command is something that can be particularly emotive through a
00:15:59 particularly emotive through a constructive approach it is is essential sorry though a constructive approach is essential for development fire and rescue services may wish to consider the culture of their learning environment aspects such as confidentiality and the
00:16:11 aspects such as confidentiality and the way in which feedback is presented should be considered to ensure that the processes and the culture of the learning environment are aligned with the services desired command ethos
00:16:22 the services desired command ethos now
00:16:24 now cutting through the euphemisms there is the basic message uh which the authors of this document sought to impart that the lfb should think of ways of training incident commanders without being too critical of
00:16:35 commanders without being too critical of them and hence upsetting their sense of pride which is a hurdle to improvement no the
00:16:41 no the point that this paragraph is trying to make is also reflected in the national operational guidance for incident command and the foundation document for instance command and that's how services should consider the impact of their
00:16:53 should consider the impact of their organizational culture on eliciting a positive learning environment so the point it's actually trying to make is that the expectations that people will have within a service essentially inform
00:17:05 have within a service essentially inform the culture of that service and it's important that that culture considers how it might best elicit people to be open about
00:17:16 open about areas of underperformance or things that they may be able to do better in future so that you're more able to learn
00:17:26 is the observation that's made in this paragraph uh
00:17:33 uh consistent with your own experience at the time of how officers responded to criticism or feedback on their performance as commanders in london fire brigade specifically yes in london fire brigade specifically
00:17:44 in london fire brigade specifically i think there were some challenges culturally in london fire brigade in relation to uh the way that feedback was given um i alluded to some of this in my evidence
00:17:55 alluded to some of this in my evidence yesterday in the area of my witness statement that relates to the review of pdps and inp points and how they're considered to be how the the work that we did found that
00:18:08 how the the work that we did found that people considered them to be punitive which might impact on the way that learning um comes about now you say there were some challenges culturally in london
00:18:19 london uh in the lfb in relation to the way feedback was given are you is you describing the culture surrounding the the giver of the feedback the person
00:18:31 the the giver of the feedback the person making the judgment or the culture surrounding the person to whom it was given i think it's difficult to disentangle the two because the culture of the organization would encompass everybody and their
00:18:42 encompass everybody and their experiences of it i think specifically in this case one of the points that's relevant
00:18:49 relevant was that
00:18:51 was that people were given development points as we'd discussed yesterday in a way that for some was seen to be punitive or it was received in a punitive way there was
00:19:02 was received in a punitive way there was also a lack of consistency over the way in which development points were structured or given or the rationale for them that was given if i take you back momentarily to the future of incident
00:19:13 momentarily to the future of incident command document in the section specifically that talks about the impact of organizational culture on incident command in particular there
00:19:24 on incident command in particular there is a list of points that fire and rescue services may wish to consider that might impact on how their culture affects their incident commanders one of the points in there in particular
00:19:37 one of the points in there in particular talks about having consistent expectations so obviously the consistency in the way a development point would be received or indeed the content of that development point would
00:19:48 content of that development point would be important for setting consistent expectations right that point doesn't exactly jump out of this paragraph but you say it's elsewhere in the report uh one way of reading the paragraph i've
00:19:59 uh one way of reading the paragraph i've just read to you is to suggest that incident command officers tended to be delicate when it came to criticism such that the policies needed to be changed am i is that a misreading or misunderstanding of what's being said
00:20:11 misunderstanding of what's being said here yeah that's not my interpretation of it the point that this paragraph is trying to make is that incident command is very closely entwined with an instant commander's sense of identity it becomes part of how
00:20:24 sense of identity it becomes part of how they see themselves so when you're talking about under performance in relation to instant command it can be quite emotive for some so talking about under
00:20:35 emotive for some so talking about under performance and creating an environment where you can talk about not just underperformance but also how a particular performance that might have been satisfactory even could be improved
00:20:46 been satisfactory even could be improved or how a particular way that an organization might do something could be improved should be done in a constructive way that may that feels like a safe environment where people
00:20:57 like a safe environment where people feel essentially psychologically safe to be open about those experiences and to be trusting about the way that those experiences would then be used to drive improvement i see you use the word
00:21:09 improvement i see you use the word punitive
00:21:11 punitive and i think it's a word that was used by another witness earlier in this module about the response or to describe the response
00:21:19 response emotional response of an incident commander at a performance review when you say emotive or punitive particularly punitive
00:21:28 punitive what do you can you just explain a little bit more about that yes one of the exhibits to my witness statement was a review that we commissioned into how people were receiving um pdp's personal development
00:21:41 receiving um pdp's personal development plans and in particular how those development plans that would be related to an imp point would be received
00:21:49 received that
00:21:50 that that piece of work involved focus groups it involved a review with the pdps that were on the system so there were qualitative and quantitative measures that were included in there and
00:22:01 measures that were included in there and the message that came through uh in fact some of the wording that came through directly from staff was relating um to a punitive experience so some felt they were being
00:22:14 so some felt they were being punished yeah chastised for perceived under performance yes and if i can if i if i make a illustrator point one of the areas that we one of the examples that we give in
00:22:26 we one of the examples that we give in that report for example was a imp point and a personal development plan given to someone for having flat batteries in their torch but of course the argument from that individual
00:22:38 course the argument from that individual may well be it's not until i turn on my torch that i understand that the batteries are flat
00:22:46 but that was classed as an element of under performance worthy of creating a formal development plan right
00:22:56 i mean was there a sense in the in the brigade that because of occasions such as the one you've just identified by way of illustration uh incident commanders might feel as if
00:23:07 uh incident commanders might feel as if they're being picked on or punished in some way
00:23:11 some way the lfb
00:23:12 the lfb were
00:23:13 were more
00:23:14 more trod more carefully in the way in which they
00:23:17 they assessed their incident commanders and sought to develop them i don't think it's a matter of treading more carefully i think it's a matter of constructively
00:23:28 i think it's a matter of constructively identifying areas that could be improved on
00:23:32 on some of the direct quotes that are included within the review indicated that officers were directed to give development points or they would be getting a poor review under the pdrs
00:23:44 getting a poor review under the pdrs system there were others that were directed to give out a certain number of development points or imp points forgive me um
00:23:52 me um by a certain point in time so the feedback from those people were that it was felt that they had to find areas that were areas of under performance to give an
00:24:04 areas of under performance to give an imp point to rather than uh then constructively assessing a particular situation or a particular performance and giving a genuine and constructive view on what
00:24:16 genuine and constructive view on what could be done differently or what could be improved yes and if we look at the next paragraph uh here you can see that it says the way in which underperformance is dealt with
00:24:27 in which underperformance is dealt with may influence factors such as openness trust risk appetite and it responds to errors
00:24:32 errors difficult conversations relating to poor command performance should not be avoided and an appropriate command culture should support this the use of operational mentoring and
00:24:43 the use of operational mentoring and coaching initiatives may provide support and direction to improve both command performance and confidence this may also be used to drive the command culture set by the service
00:24:53 service did you agree with that yes and was that was that taken on board by the brigade during your time
00:25:05 elements of this were pieces that we had tried to pick up through the pdp review itself and i think actually it reflects back
00:25:15 back the areas that were raised in this report in particular operational mentoring and coaching was something that we had planned to include under the guise of revalidation
00:25:27 under the guise of revalidation one of the reports that you'll note that's exhibited to my witness statement talks about high scorers in in their revalidation instant command
00:25:38 in their revalidation instant command exercise being used as a operational a command mentor or a command coach to help support other incident commanders who may not be performing
00:25:50 who may not be performing at a similarly excellent standard to that to that person can we now go back to your 17th of november 2015 paper at lfb00118186
00:26:02 i'll just put the first page up for you to remind you of it it's the revalidation of incident command competence which we looked at before lunch can we go please to page six
00:26:15 go please to page six and look at paragraphs 19 and 20. and uh
00:26:20 and uh paragraph 19 and the first bullet points you
00:26:23 you suggest a process for effective revalidation a three-stage process officer's technical knowledge and procedural knowledge is at an appropriate level in
00:26:34 knowledge is at an appropriate level in his current knowledge test the appropriate level of command skills is maintained incident command exercise such knowledge is consistently applied effectively in practice cpd and then a paragraph 20 in the first sentence you
00:26:46 paragraph 20 in the first sentence you say
00:26:47 say this paper proposes that these three areas are assessed over a biennial period
00:26:52 period with line managers taking responsibility for assuring that officers achieve the required level that i think is that a reference to the the uh the biennial process you were giving evidence about this morning uh
00:27:05 giving evidence about this morning uh yes the proposal was to revalidate people over a two-year period yes now um you can see what those are now if you go to page 11 you also propose a paragraph 63
00:27:20 you also propose a paragraph 63 a minimum target of 20 to 40 hours per year of practical experience of incident command you see that yes my question is this is it correct that individuals would be expected to supplement their hours of experience of command at real
00:27:32 hours of experience of command at real live incidents with appropriate training opportunities yes that's correct uh
00:27:38 uh yes and in the last sentence there you'll see that there's an expression uh acting up firefighters act up um i tell you that that means acting in a more senior capacity than their rank yes there are some
00:27:50 their rank yes there are some firefighters who will not hold a rank of crew manager but they would take opportunities to act up to the the level of crew manager essentially and to
00:28:01 of crew manager essentially and to perform an incident command role at incidents in the absence of a crew manager or a watch manager now you then go on to
00:28:08 go on to paragraph 72 page 12 if we can just look at that
00:28:12 at that and at 72 through to 77 you set out the proposed assessment criteria
00:28:19 criteria for
00:28:19 for achieving incident command revalidation and you've got the scoring criteria summarized in table two
00:28:28 does that include and i think it does action that the lfb could take in relation to those individuals who don't perform well in the assessments uh there is a paragraph that outlines
00:28:39 uh there is a paragraph that outlines those activities and i can't recall whether it's in this report specifically or in a later report but it is included in there somewhere yes i'll show you that perhaps specifically but before we do go to
00:28:50 specifically but before we do go to paragraph 74 high scorers competent command competent individuals who scored over 75 and to complete their command hours and make themselves eligible to undertake the role of an operational mentor to those
00:29:02 role of an operational mentor to those who would benefit from their support i think that's what you were referring to as as one of your reports which said that yes that's there right then if we go to paragraph 77 on page 13
00:29:14 77 on page 13 this is under the heading significant development requirements it says this um commanders who score below 50 fail a retest following their 30-day improvement plan or fail to reach their annual command hours would not pass the
00:29:25 annual command hours would not pass the incident command revalidation process these individuals would be passed to the incident command development panel
00:29:33 and if you go to page 14 you can see the conclusions and recommendations there now
00:29:41 there now in short and i've scampered through this quite quickly now look let's look at paragraph 85 your conclusion is this paper sets out a process for the revalidation of incident command that will provide organizational assurance
00:29:53 will provide organizational assurance that officers are performing incident command at the required level it also sets out a method of providing an auditable trail of incident command practice and development and encourages continuous improvement through the
00:30:04 continuous improvement through the uptake of professional development opportunities in short taking this report as a whole is it right that you were proposing a in full detail a new scheme by which
00:30:16 full detail a new scheme by which incident commanders could refresh their existing skills and develop their knowledge further in in specific areas against a carefully gradated set of past
00:30:26 past and and failed criteria with with consequences in part in order to cater for the decline in real operational experience yes with the slight caveat that it
00:30:38 yes with the slight caveat that it wouldn't cover the full maintenance of skills
00:30:42 skills requirement that all incident commanders should have which was covered under dam op which sat under the responsibility of the operations directorate so it should work in tandem with that this specifically looked at
00:30:55 specifically looked at opportunities to supplement that with cpd and include that under cpd as well as the additional opportunities to practice incident command through those minimum levels of instant command hours so yes with that
00:31:06 instant command hours so yes with that small caveat if i may say and in dam op you'd be given i think you said earlier specific training on specific policies uh the
00:31:15 uh the that would be where those policies would come in yes it would be under damp yes now um
00:31:21 now um this report that we're looking at your report of november 2015 am i writing saying was replicated in a further report to the cmb the corporate management board in december 2015 the
00:31:32 management board in december 2015 the next month yes i'd initially presented this report to the commissioners group to get some informal feedback from uh the commissioner and directors
00:31:43 commissioner and directors as to the content to ensure that they were happy with the proposals they made some suggestions which included from recollection are moved to a knowledge test every year as opposed to every other year and they
00:31:56 as opposed to every other year and they included an additional suggestion for the delivery of knowledge tests through the use of um area hubs as well as assessment centers let's look at that report lfb double
00:32:07 let's look at that report lfb double zero one one eight one nine three take it in stages it's dated the 16th of december 2015. it's also titled revalidation of incident command competence uh report by
00:32:19 incident command competence uh report by you to the corporate management board and there's the same summary um and in and you've summarized in your statement uh paragraph 68 what this report says but is it right
00:32:31 report says but is it right as a further summary that it proposed that knowledge tests and incident command exercises should be implemented from april 2016 and the cpd log that you were uh
00:32:42 and the cpd log that you were uh recommending should be implemented from april 2017. yes that was what the uh the initial plan had suggested would be a reasonable inter implementation date and you go on in your statement to say at
00:32:53 you go on in your statement to say at paragraph 69 that the cnb agreed the proposal for a formalized incident command revalidation process and that time scale yes that's correct so to be clear
00:33:03 clear uh
00:33:04 uh that was
00:33:06 that was implementation of the knowledge tests and incident command exercises from april 2016 and the cpd log from a year later yes with the caveat that it was dependent on the time frame for the
00:33:17 dependent on the time frame for the delivery of the new instant command training through babcock the new incident command training being the um
00:33:26 the um the the
00:33:28 the the cde uh
00:33:30 cde uh the revised training that was being developed under the incident command project board oh i see the wider training yes just the exercises yes now
00:33:40 now moving on in time
00:33:43 time uh february 2016 you say in your witness statement it's paragraph 71 i don't think there's a need to look at it um that you provided two updates um it to the corporate management board
00:33:55 um it to the corporate management board both in february 2016 on the progress of the implementation of the revalidation scheme yes and also on the assessment of incident command skills for promotion yes yes uh
00:34:06 command skills for promotion yes yes uh and we call i think we've called those february update one february update too or you have yes yes um is it right that by that time february 2016 the proposed revalidation scheme was intended to replace the
00:34:17 scheme was intended to replace the operational assessment element of the current promotion process that was yes that was something that was requested by the director of operations because of the resource intensive nature of the command assessments as they were
00:34:28 command assessments as they were currently run right the intention was to explore whether we were able to use the revalidation process to deliver part of that i thought
00:34:37 thought we don't need to look at any of the reports in detail um what i just want to get
00:34:43 get straight is whether it's right to say that the revalidation project that we've seen in your two reports to the cmb
00:34:50 the cmb in november and december 2015 were on track to be implemented from april 2016 onwards uh broadly initially yes and then i think there were further
00:35:02 and then i think there were further updates you gave to the cnb on the revalidation program in june 2016 8th of june
00:35:08 june first of september 2016 and then the 10th of january 2017. yes i believe so yes now let's just take those in in order can we can we look at the 8th of june 2016 update
00:35:19 june 2016 update that's um at lfb
00:35:22 lfb double 001 8189
00:35:28 8th of june 2016
00:35:32 implementation of revalidation of incident command competence update and you can see the date 8th of june 2016 on the right hand side there report by you and there's the summary the paper provides an update on the
00:35:44 the paper provides an update on the implementation of the revalidation of incident command process which is under the governance of a corporate project governance level b this process will provide organizational assurance that officers are performing incident command at the required level
00:35:56 incident command at the required level it also encourages continuous improvement through the uptake of professional development opportunities and then if you go please to page
00:36:07 page two and look at paragraph eight
00:36:13 uh under implementation it says this the cmb agreed the implementation of the knowledge tests and incident command exercises during 1617 with the cpd and annual hours being
00:36:24 with the cpd and annual hours being introduced in 1718 a draft policy has been circulated for peer review within the validation working group membership comments will be considered and a final draft will be circulated to directors
00:36:35 draft will be circulated to directors for approval then consultation with heads of service now it looks like neither the knowledge test nor the command exercise had yet been implemented at the time of this report
00:36:46 report june 16. yes that's correct that's right am i right also that the time scales being indicated here so knowledge tests and exercises in 1617 and cpd and annual hours in 1718
00:36:59 1617 and cpd and annual hours in 1718 have been pushed back from those uh indicated in your earlier report yes that's correct because they indicated deadlines of april 16 and 17. yes that's correct
00:37:10 april 16 and 17. yes that's correct what's the reason for that pushback we had some difficulty with uh getting the incident command training the new incident command training under the guise of the instant command project
00:37:21 guise of the instant command project board
00:37:22 board implemented by that point initially babcock had indicated and you'll note from minutes of the icpb that they'd indicated that all of the new training would be ready for april 2016. so when
00:37:35 would be ready for april 2016. so when we originally put those dates in place it was on the assumption that that would be correct now i should say that part of or the incident command exercise element we'd intended to
00:37:47 exercise element we'd intended to deliver as part of the instant command training courses on the on the refresher instant command training courses um so the in the full implementation was
00:37:59 um so the in the full implementation was very much dependent on the delivery of those new courses the knowledge test itself was something that initially we had planned to do through offices
00:38:10 through offices developing question sets offices that are the policy holders essentially developing questions that would be included in the question set the particular areas for inclusion i
00:38:21 the particular areas for inclusion i should say were identified in the development of the knowledge profile for incident command that was compiled by babcock as part of the incident command training review so those knowledge areas
00:38:34 training review so those knowledge areas that had been identified and agreed would
00:38:38 would essentially we would approach the policy lead the the the department with responsibility for that policy to select a number of questions that were relevant to that policy
00:38:51 were relevant to that policy which would then be compiled into a database of of questions which we could then deliver through the um the revalidation program what we when we were doing that what we
00:39:02 what we when we were doing that what we discovered is that we were actually placing a lot of uh a lot more work onto officers who were already
00:39:10 already um quite uh who were already at capacity so we didn't get those questions back as quickly as we needed and we also had to do further work on the questions to make sure that they
00:39:22 the questions to make sure that they were all consistent with each other so in practice whilst it might have been more useful to go directly to those policy leads actually in practice it was very difficult to
00:39:34 in practice it was very difficult to make that work so we had latterly agreed with babcock that babcock would draft the questions on behalf of the brigade and that was formalized in a tea cap
00:39:47 and that was formalized in a tea cap for them to deliver for them to develop the question sets and then to deliver the questions as part and parcel of the revised incident command training so the
00:39:58 revised incident command training so the work that we were doing was very much connected to the delivery of that yes now did anybody at any stage seeing the delay in the revalidation program think
00:40:11 revalidation program think to see whether that program could be disaggregated separated from the progress of the incident command training which babcock were developing yes in the in one of the
00:40:25 developing yes in the in one of the initial um reports that i prepared i think the one that you initially showed me we outlined a number of options for the delivery of incident command revalidation one of which were
00:40:37 revalidation one of which were standalone incident command exercises in practice that would have been very difficult to deliver across the board including
00:40:45 including crew managers and watch managers because of the sheer volume and then and critically the number of lfb officer hours that would be required to both deliver those exercises and to assess
00:40:58 deliver those exercises and to assess them
00:40:59 them we then considered perhaps delivering only to
00:41:04 only to station manager and above as a standalone assessment with the additional watch managers and crew managers having a confirmation of skills provided while they were going for their refresher
00:41:16 they were going for their refresher training
00:41:18 training the challenge that we had with that again were the officer hours that would be required to deliver the assessments so in discussion with uh with other colleagues
00:41:29 colleagues in practice that would have been very difficult to achieve it was difficult in practice for us to get enough capacity from people to develop the question sets does it come to this that in order to get your revalidation
00:41:42 that in order to get your revalidation program going it had to be dovetailed with the development of the incident command training being being run by babcock in order to deliver it with the resources that were there yes
00:41:53 resources that were there yes did anybody give any thought to expanding the resources so that you could deliver it without being inextricably linked to the delivery of the incident command program being developed and delivered by babcock
00:42:05 being developed and delivered by babcock yes the precise resource requirements that would be needed to do that were set out in the paper um uh in a list of options for one week for delivering revalidation so those
00:42:16 for delivering revalidation so those were considered who decided that it should remain aggregated with links to the incident command training being developed by babcock as opposed to being taken and developed separately perhaps
00:42:27 taken and developed separately perhaps with more resources ultimately the decision was taken at the commissioners group right now let's move on then in time first september 2016. this is your further
00:42:38 september 2016. this is your further update lfb double zero double one zero six six zero
00:42:45 and you've explained this in paragraph 79 of your statement forgive me while you're pulling this up it was some the cmb not the commissioner's group that the decision would have been taken
00:42:57 that the decision would have been taken up forgive me
00:43:00 the decision that you referred to a moment ago was yes was taken at the cmb the corporate manager as opposed to the commission just remind me who sat on that board at the time
00:43:11 me who sat on that board at the time that decision was taken um there would have been a range of people it would be in the notes which would be appended to my uh witness testimony it's in one of the exhibits forgive me i wouldn't be able to recall the precise membership it
00:43:23 able to recall the precise membership it was heads of heads of the the main department directors and heads of main departments yes now um this
00:43:30 this let's have a look at this report uh
00:43:34 uh let's look at what you say in your statement i think first of all um you say in the first sentence of paragraph 79 on first of september 2016 i provided a further update to the cmb on the implementation of the
00:43:45 on the implementation of the revalidation of incident command competence
00:43:49 and a copy of the report is exhibited which you do exhibit um the
00:43:54 um the let's have the report up um lfb double zero double one eight one nine zero please
00:44:03 and that is um first september 2016 there it is and if we go please to page three in that document paragraph 10
00:44:14 that document paragraph 10 conclusion progress on the revalidation of incident command progress process has been good with keen engagement from senior stakeholders all milestones are currently on track although it is
00:44:25 currently on track although it is recognized that some proposed time frames are dependent on the incident command course review machinery and therefore subject to change now if we go back to your statement
00:44:38 if we go to page 22 again and look at paragraph 80 you say the report sets out three areas of significant progress including a knowledge test
00:44:49 including a knowledge test which you said was still at the pilot stage and at b you say stretch objectives for each level of command are currently being scoped by the implementation working
00:45:00 scoped by the implementation working group and will be fed into the incident command course review prior to the development of level two and above scenarios
00:45:08 scenarios and does that essentially mean that those were still a work in progress yes right
00:45:18 so although the masters had been met the fact is that there was still work being done yes i believe we changed some of the milestones in a later report we changed some of the timelines that were
00:45:29 changed some of the timelines that were associated with those in a later report now if we move forward in time to the 10th of january 2017 there's another update this time to the commissioners group rather than the cmb
00:45:41 commissioners group rather than the cmb as you say in your statement uh
00:45:44 uh now let's go to your statement to term uh paragraph 84 again we could just go back to that on page 23.
00:45:54 you say there under the heading update on 10th january and you refer to the update and you save as provided to the commissioner's group a less formal meeting that happens in between cnb meetings
00:46:05 that happens in between cnb meetings minutes are not taken now if we go to the report itself that's at lfb double zero double one eight one nine four let's just have the first page up there it is 10th january 2017 update
00:46:19 up there it is 10th january 2017 update and the summary again says it's an update on the current position in relation to the implementation of the revalidation incident command process if we go to paragraph 10 on page three you say this
00:46:31 you say this under implementation the implementation of the revalidation process is dependent on the babcock time scales for the development and delivery of the revised incident command maintenance courses these are currently being developed as
00:46:42 these are currently being developed as part of the incident command training review the new maintenance courses will be used to deliver both the knowledge tests and incident command exercises for revalidation current estimates are that new
00:46:53 current estimates are that new maintenance courses that will facilitate revalidation will be available to pilot by april 2017 however it should be noted that this time scale has slipped several times and current estimates may be
00:47:04 times and current estimates may be ambitious
00:47:05 ambitious now
00:47:06 now i think it's clear from what you've told us not very long ago this afternoon that the incident command training review uh is the course review by babcock overseen by the incident command project
00:47:17 overseen by the incident command project board yes
00:47:19 board yes uh can you explain uh
00:47:24 uh well
00:47:25 well is the explanation for this this slippage of several times what you've just explained to us already namely the the speed or lack of speed with which that review was progressing
00:47:36 with which that review was progressing yes
00:47:39 yes yes
00:47:42 now in february 2017 the next month there was a meeting of the incident command project board and it's right i think that you expressed your concern at that meeting
00:47:54 expressed your concern at that meeting that the revalidation project was being pushed back further yes in fact we could pick this up at paragraph 87 of your statement if we go to that please
00:48:03 it's a page 24 paragraph 87 you refer to the meeting and then you say this set out in the number of the icpb meeting minutes in section a training above revalidation was a discussion point at a
00:48:15 revalidation was a discussion point at a number of the icpb meetings with babcock previously in a meeting of the icpb on the 23rd of february 2017 i raised my concerns that the implementation of a revalidation process was being pushed
00:48:26 revalidation process was being pushed back further cara kelly babcock explained that revalidation requirements will need to be detailed in tcaps in order that babcock commenced work on introducing revalidation at the meeting a number of
00:48:37 revalidation at the meeting a number of different delivery methods for revalidation assessments were also discussed however an agreement was not reached
00:48:47 uh now can we look at the note of the meeting the minute of the meeting at lfb double zero double one eight one nine two and pick up the detail
00:49:01 that's the first page you can see it's the date of the 23rd of february 2017 incident command t-cap project board monthly review uh you are present as is lee drawbridge uh and cara kelly from
00:49:12 lee drawbridge uh and cara kelly from babcock is there and if we go to paris page two paragraph six please under the heading revalidation towards the bottom of your screen um it says this sch that's you raised
00:49:25 um it says this sch that's you raised her concerns about revalidation being pushed back further ck cora kelly advised that there are limited resources that will need to be considered an lfb will need to set the parameters as to what is required before
00:49:36 parameters as to what is required before this can be agreed and then in bold sch to confirm the requirements so that pd can submit a tcap to babcock to cover the revalidation training requirements
00:49:50 what is meant or what was meant there by the phrase lfb will need to set the parameters as to what is required so this was um a departure from the position that we'd had previously as
00:50:03 position that we'd had previously as we've been going through the incident command project board you'll no doubt note from the previous minutes that revalidation featured as a standing agenda item yes we had previously discussed the requirements under
00:50:14 discussed the requirements under revalidation being encompassed in the incident command review itself so the new training courses would in their development encompass the principles of revalidation and namely
00:50:26 principles of revalidation and namely the exercise that would be delivered that we would assess our incident commanders against this meeting was the first time in which babcock said that they would require a
00:50:39 babcock said that they would require a separate tcap to cover the revalidation training requirements it was previous previously understood that they would be encompassed within that within the review of training itself and
00:50:52 within the review of training itself and the tcap associated with that um
00:50:56 um the point that cara raised that i think is relevant here is that babcock had limited resources to uh to deliver the training which we know was already
00:51:07 training which we know was already sorry to deliver the review of the training and the new and the development of the new training which was already behind schedule and i think what babcock wanted was some clarity of precisely what would need to
00:51:18 clarity of precisely what would need to be included with it so that they could consider the resource allocation that would be associated with that which in itself isn't an unreasonable request however it was it was slightly
00:51:29 however it was it was slightly frustrating that it was a departure to the position that we had understood up until that point in time why couldn't babcock
00:51:38 babcock why didn't babcock make this tcat point earlier uh that's a point that we raised at the board and what was the answer uh that they had limited resources and they need they needed to uh set those clear
00:51:50 they needed to uh set those clear parameters was it essential that a tea cap you needed after all you've done all the work and have identified exactly what it was that needed to be the subject of the training in both your november and december 2015 reports uh that's the
00:52:02 december 2015 reports uh that's the correct that's correct nevertheless we agreed to do the tcap because it was important to get the process moving so by doing the tcap we were at least able to set out the criteria precisely and
00:52:14 to set out the criteria precisely and start to agree some time scales that were associated with that so there were clear expectations on both sides right was it not the case that discussions between
00:52:22 between uh lfb and babcock about developing the revalidation proposals had already taken place including how they would be implemented yes and was kara kelly aware or she not
00:52:33 and was kara kelly aware or she not aware of what was required i believe she was aware because she would have attended the boards there are previous minutes of instant commands uh the incident command
00:52:44 commands uh the incident command project board that included sections referring to the discussions around revalidation so why did they need a tcap that was the question that we posed at the time okay that's is that another way
00:52:57 the time okay that's is that another way of saying good question yes all right now the minutes go on to record at the foot of the page this the delivery methods for revalidation assessments were discussed however agreement was not reached
00:53:08 agreement was not reached as you've said in your statement these discussions included a separate revalidation assessment dates formal revalidation assessment being formed as part of the mos course and revalidation assessments replacing
00:53:19 and revalidation assessments replacing the maintenance of skills course for that year scheduling and costs will also need to be considered and agreed remote assessments were also considered whereby an fb assessor can mark assessments without having to be there it was also
00:53:32 without having to be there it was also discussed that scenarios used for recruitment assessments could potentially be reused as they can be fed into the current complement of scenarios sch to discuss these considerations with steve apter and directors and feed this
00:53:45 steve apter and directors and feed this information into a tcap now this
00:53:49 now this suggests
00:53:50 suggests that you are going back to the drawing board in relation to how the revalidation program was to be delivered is is that fair uh no this was in relation to some very specific
00:54:01 relation to some very specific considerations one of the uh one of the concerns of officers in the lfb was the additional resource requirement that you would need to be able to go down and assess
00:54:13 to be able to go down and assess the revalidation assessments in common practice it would mean uh whoever was conducting the assessment so perhaps a station manager a group manager or a dac essentially taking a
00:54:25 manager or a dac essentially taking a day out of their diary to go to either bechten or to harrow where those assessments were conducted and to directly observe a number of those
00:54:36 directly observe a number of those typically there would be anywhere between two to four in a day when you were
00:54:41 were when you were undertaking for example promotional assessments where you'd deliver a similar number so there was a concern about the amount of officer time that it would take to be
00:54:52 of officer time that it would take to be able to deliver those um and that was a that was a concern that that existed throughout the development of revalidation one of the proposals that that i had was to use um uh to have
00:55:05 that that i had was to use um uh to have cds or dvds filmed of people undertaking the assessment which is something that was done as a matter of course anyway to assist in feedback but to actually use those dvds to score
00:55:18 but to actually use those dvds to score individuals there is precedent for that when officers would go down to bechten or to harrow to observe the assessments and to to conduct the assessments
00:55:29 and to to conduct the assessments one officer would be located in the command unit in which the simulation was being undertaken so they might be very close to that individual the other officer would be seated in a room
00:55:41 officer would be seated in a room separately and they'd be observing through a video link so they would essentially be doing all of their assessing all of their scoring by video link
00:55:50 link so it was conceivable to me that you may be able to use a copy of a dvd that could be passed on to an officer after the event for them to do perform their assessment and then feedback to that
00:56:02 assessment and then feedback to that individual if you imagine that each assessment might take anywhere between 40 minutes to an hour for one officer to be able to assess for
00:56:13 for one officer to be able to assess for which is the number that you would conceivably need to do in a day it might take significantly less time that's four hours worth of of data essentially that you would have to um you'd have to score
00:56:25 you would have to um you'd have to score you'd have to assess against rather than an entire working day spent traveling and waiting for candidates in between now
00:56:34 now was just scrolling back to the beginning of your answer i think you were illustrating it but the the core of the answer is that
00:56:42 that you needed an additional resource for somebody senior to assess the assessment uh yes or an alternative way of making that assessment which might require less
00:56:54 that assessment which might require less resources than the traditional approach now was that not something that was envisaged right from the start in your november 2015 report uh it was something that was discussed but there was a general reluctance to uh
00:57:07 but there was a general reluctance to uh to consider that as a way forward why
00:57:12 why traditionally assessments had always been done in person and i think that there was a preference to do that now there might be a reasonable argument because if you're there in the room you can
00:57:25 there in the room you can you can hear more clearly you may be able to observe more uh more things but conceivably i think one of the elements that we talk about and i'm not sure whether it's in the minutes of this or or another document but we talk about
00:57:37 or another document but we talk about the requirement for improved um improved cameras and microphones to try to negate that so that the quality that you'd be able to observe uh essentially would be similar to the quality that
00:57:50 would be similar to the quality that you'd observe if you were there in person now what i'm really trying to get at is whether this was a new thing that came up in early 2017 uh
00:57:58 uh as we can see here or whether this is something that was foreseen or foreseeable in november december 2015 when you first proposed revalidation uh it was it was discussed
00:58:09 revalidation uh it was it was discussed previously but informally um i can't recall due to the passage of time precisely when those discussions would have taken place whether it was late 2015 or later on in 2016. but it
00:58:22 late 2015 or later on in 2016. but it was something that had been raised and discussed informally uh in terms of do you think that this might be possible with this work and there was a general reluctance because there's a preference
00:58:33 reluctance because there's a preference i think for the gold standard which would have been to to observe those uh those assessments in person my question really is why is it given that this was as you say discussed in early in late 15 early 16 why is it now
00:58:47 in late 15 early 16 why is it now rearing its head at this point february 17
00:58:50 17 as something in relation to which you've got to uh go away and discuss with steve apter and the directors and then feed into a t-cap because again we were looking at ways in
00:59:01 because again we were looking at ways in which to ease the burden of on officer hours so it was something that was revisited
00:59:07 revisited and suggested more formally right and the the burden on officer ours was that not something foreseen in the earlier days of this proposal yes it was but it's something that remained to be
00:59:18 but it's something that remained to be challenging right but what had made it more challenging uh in in the time between uh early 16 and uh february 17th uh nothing the
00:59:27 the the the challenging nature of it remained we were looking at alternative ways to ease that right why could i why could this discussion not have been had a year before as i said it was had it informally but
00:59:38 as i said it was had it informally but there was resistance to it so it was left and we pursued the uh the other avenues that i outlined earlier namely having officers going in person to observe it but it's something that i
00:59:49 observe it but it's something that i still felt could work and raised it again okay now let's move a forward a month then to the last briefing that you did on incident command revalidation
01:00:01 on incident command revalidation this is at lfb00118187
01:00:10 it's dated march 2017 briefing note revalidation project status report and this i think is this right was intended to be seen by the cmb the corporate management board
01:00:22 the cmb the corporate management board i believe so yes uh
01:00:26 uh yes and if you look at page one in the second paragraph under the heading background it says this following monthly meetings in which all stakeholders and relevant departments have been invited to help
01:00:37 departments have been invited to help shape the way in which revalidation will work within the authority we have arrived at the final stages of the pilots and reviews does that mean that pilots had in fact
01:00:48 does that mean that pilots had in fact been carried out or was that the stage that needed to be completed next some had yes so we had the draft policy at that point uh this was march 2017. so
01:01:00 at that point uh this was march 2017. so um i i hope that i'm going to provide this in the correct chronology although i'm sure that the the the various documentations will will confirm that or not but my understanding by march 2017 is we
01:01:11 but my understanding by march 2017 is we would have had the draft policy completed um the draft policy was circulated to heads of service and uh the director of operations had discussed the draft policy with the
01:01:23 discussed the draft policy with the trade unions and was going to take it through the brigade joint secretary's health safety and welfare committee which would be the process by which a policy
01:01:34 process by which a policy would would need to go through that relates to anything operational would need to go through for approval so that was in the final stages we had piloted um we'd tested the
01:01:46 we had piloted um we'd tested the question sets on people and although the future development of the question sets was subject to change we had something that was ready to go for all four levels of incident command we had also piloted um the level three
01:02:00 we had also piloted um the level three incident command revalidation we essentially retrospectively tried to apply revalidation in one of the principal officer exercises there was
01:02:11 officer exercises there was there was some learning that we had from that it didn't uh it didn't dovetail uh perfectly so that was something that we were able to take away and do some more work with
01:02:19 work with so we were essentially at the point in which we had done most of what we could do in the absence of the delivery of the incident command training which would have provided the vehicle to uh to
01:02:31 have provided the vehicle to uh to deliver
01:02:32 deliver the
01:02:33 the latter parts of revalidation can we then go to your statement and just pick this up in summary form i think there at paragraph 89 which we'll find on page 25.
01:02:47 i'm sorry 24 i'm so sorry my fault can we go back to page 24. um this is where you you summarize uh the update uh at the very bottom and then over onto
01:02:59 uh at the very bottom and then over onto page 25 at the top you say the revalidation policy was shared with representative bodies and content agreed in the third quarter of 2016-17
01:03:11 agreed in the third quarter of 2016-17 the next step was to formally consider it a brigade joint chair health and safety and welfare committee etc knowledge tests tcaps cpd log is what you cover there
01:03:22 tcaps cpd log is what you cover there and at paragraph 90 then you say this at the icpb tcap review meeting on the 22nd of august 2017 that's after the grenfell tower fire it was noted that the tcaps for the
01:03:34 it was noted that the tcaps for the revalidation process were almost ready to be submitted formally to babcock in addition it was also confirmed that a stakeholder group for levels three and four training would be established with steve apter as the sponsor assisted by ac mills and me i would
01:03:46 assisted by ac mills and me i would extend the consultation beyond the group and then feedback information a copy of the meeting minutes is exhibited this statement
01:03:54 statement now um
01:03:56 at this point we're now in august 2017 um
01:04:01 um you're noting that the tcats for the revalidation process were almost ready to be submitted formally to babcock what did that mean for the implementation time scale
01:04:12 time scale in terms of the implementation time scale it would regardless of the content of the tcaps it was still dependent on the delivery of the incident command training
01:04:23 training so because it was still caught up in that process it didn't significantly hinder that in any way because babcock still weren't at the point in which they were developing that training right but
01:04:34 were developing that training right but the tcap is usually followed in your experience perhaps perhaps you disagree with this but by a period often of lengthy discussion between lfe and babcock it
01:04:44 it it is i think the difference here that is worth uh bearing in mind is that we had already had much lengthy discussion with babcock at the various
01:04:55 discussion with babcock at the various pro instant command project board meetings at which revalidation was a standing agenda item for some time yes but you said that i just wonder i mean was the tea cap just being insisted on as a bit really just a formal step a
01:05:07 as a bit really just a formal step a piece of paper to have it uh
01:05:10 uh i think i i couldn't answer as to why babcock had insisted on the tcap at that point in particular but it was important to them that we provided it to to enable us to move on from that point now at
01:05:22 us to move on from that point now at this point when did you think that the revalidation process would actually be implemented i had hoped that it would be implemented as soon as the level uh three and four training was established
01:05:33 three and four training was established and ready to go um i had hoped that that would be before i had left the london fire brigade the other point that is worth considering uh with the time frames is that once
01:05:45 with the time frames is that once the grenfell incident had happened much of the activity of london was focused on dealing with the immediate aftermath of that so some of the priority of activities was uh uh was somewhat
01:05:57 activities was uh uh was somewhat rescheduled right but grenfell aside and we know you left in november 2017 is the answer to the question that you were anticipating that the revalidation process would in fact be implemented by november 2017. i very much wanted that
01:06:10 november 2017. i very much wanted that to be the case at the time but it wasn't now even november 2017 is two years in fact after your initial report to the cmb in november 2015.
01:06:23 report to the cmb in november 2015. in your experience of the lfb by that time was that a normal sort of time frame time frame within the brigade to progress a project like this this was the main project of that scale and scope
01:06:35 the main project of that scale and scope that i'd been involved with i do understand that there were a number of change projects that took a long time one that jumps to mind was the review of the command units
01:06:48 mind was the review of the command units which i understand took some years to uh to deliver on so
01:06:54 so whilst i didn't have direct experience of other projects that i was involved with that i could draw as an analogy to this i do know that there were other projects that involved
01:07:06 projects that involved change across various directorates and departments that also took a long time now you left as you told us in 2017 to go to the manchester's inspectorate
01:07:17 go to the manchester's inspectorate what happened i want to ask you now what happened to this project then uh
01:07:22 uh i think it's right first of all that peter critchell took over from you didn't he yes that's correct uh as dac in the ord team who took over as develop as head of development uh nobody it was a um it
01:07:35 development uh nobody it was a um it wasn't a position that was continued when i was put into that position there was uh it was created as there was an additional dac on the rotor um so it was
01:07:47 additional dac on the rotor um so it was a it was a it was an additional um uh position that was created that wasn't continued after i'd moved on are you aware what steps were taken after you left to progress the revalidation
01:07:58 left to progress the revalidation program further after i left london fire brigade
01:08:02 brigade uh no not directly um the only insight i have to that is the reference to it in uh the inspectorate report that suggested that there wasn't one indeed
01:08:14 suggested that there wasn't one indeed that's june 2019 i think correct yeah and in in their recent report of february 21 this year the inspector i think has confirmed that the revalidation process has since been
01:08:25 revalidation process has since been started
01:08:27 started do you know that uh only from the content of the report yes right well let's just let's just have that up briefly inq30s one four seven
01:08:38 that up briefly inq30s one four seven nine five please let's have the first page up to identify the document there it is and then we go please to page 31
01:08:48 page 31 on the very foot of the page um this is under the heading assessing competence and at the foot of the page uh it says since then and that since 2019 the brigade has introduced a more
01:09:00 2019 the brigade has introduced a more robust way to assess whether an incident commander has maintained their competence data provided by the brigade shows that at the start of december 2020 66 of level 1 and 35 of level 2
01:09:12 66 of level 1 and 35 of level 2 commanders had been trained and assessed the numbers of level 2 commanders assessed as fully competent has decreased since 2018 the data shows that despite meeting the minimum standard 41
01:09:23 despite meeting the minimum standard 41 of the level two incident commanders who are reassessed will put on a personal development plan to improve their competence
01:09:32 when you were working within the nfb on the revalidation process did you have any view of what sort of proportion of commanders you might expect to see either failing the revalidation
01:09:43 either failing the revalidation assessments or demonstrating your need for further development if the revalidation program was working again in conjunction with a clear and thorough maintenance of skills program through
01:09:54 maintenance of skills program through demop one would expect that uh most if not all commanders would have an opportunity to pass a revalidation process and that would be my expectation
01:10:05 process and that would be my expectation in other services my experience is that there are very few that fail a revalidation process because they have the the training and development prior
01:10:16 the the training and development prior to that and a clear maintenance of skills program did you have any sense at the time that you were preparing the revalidation program in late 2015
01:10:26 2015 out to march 2017 that as many as 41 of level 2 commanders who were reassessed might be in need of further development uh no i hadn't considered what the levels
01:10:38 no i hadn't considered what the levels might be although given the level that of incident commanders that passed um the assessment process as we saw in that first report being 25
01:10:49 first report being 25 the one year 25 the second year and i think 36
01:10:53 think 36 the year after that um it would it i'd expected there to be a need to improve the training and the development of incident commanders so whilst i didn't
01:11:05 incident commanders so whilst i didn't expect expect a particular number that doesn't land as a surprise it doesn't land as a surprise no um i'd like now to turn to um something we've discussed
01:11:17 um something we've discussed a little bit in your evidence really by way of following up certain things that you said but this is personal development plans and i want to ask you about your role in the creation of a new personal development
01:11:28 creation of a new personal development portfolio which i think was intended to replace system the system of pdps which i think have been in place for many years yes now let's go to your witness statement to page 16 please and let's look at
01:11:39 to page 16 please and let's look at paragraph
01:11:41 paragraph 68
01:11:44 and you cover this at some length in paragraphs 50 58 59 and 60.
01:11:53 it's page 16. i think we need to go back to page 16. paragraphs 58 to 60. they're on the screen in front of you and i'm going to read it out to you but in summary correct would you correct me if i'm
01:12:05 correct would you correct me if i'm wrong to say this that you you say that personal development plans or pdps as you've referred to them recorded inp points meaning points that had been raised in relation to an individual
01:12:16 individual an individual's performance as part of the lfb's incident monitoring process yes
01:12:22 yes and the incident monitoring process is a database uh or a process which leads to an impd which is the database that the brigade maintains recording matters normally of
01:12:33 maintains recording matters normally of concern in relation to performance either at incidents or during training events yes and
01:12:41 and uh
01:12:42 uh is is it all say right you say that you you felt that the pdp process needed to be changed for a number of reasons yes and the reasons you've set out at
01:12:53 yes and the reasons you've set out at paragraph 58 uh we can read um namely let's just pick it up uh the fifth line down the review found that over 90 percent of the pdps issued
01:13:06 that over 90 percent of the pdps issued in 2015 to 16 related to under performance significant negative connotations existed with pdps the receipt of which was often perceived to be punitive and this could make the process more of
01:13:17 and this could make the process more of meaningful learning challenging in addition the review indicated that people who had received a pdp from an imp point felt that this had a negative impact on their future operational performance and in particular this may
01:13:29 performance and in particular this may increase risk aversion and decision inertia as anxieties over receiving an imp point may distract from the operational goal at hand
01:13:40 operational goal at hand both the national operational guidance for incident command and the cfoa future of incident command report identify that additional stress and excessive focus on accountability anxieties can
01:13:52 focus on accountability anxieties can have a negative impact on operational decision making and these phenomena have been linked with risk aversion
01:14:02 is this right that that describes fairly and fully what you were trying to explain or were explaining earlier about the negative um
01:14:12 um uh receipt by those being um those being uh assessed yes
01:14:19 yes now does it follow from that that you had concerns that the pdp system was in fact having a negative impact on the effective development of incident commanders yes and during your time at the brigade did you have first-hand
01:14:30 the brigade did you have first-hand experience of how the pdp system did that
01:14:34 that i had experienced feedback from others and the first-hand experience that i had was in commissioning the pdp review itself which as i mentioned earlier involved running a series of focus
01:14:46 involved running a series of focus groups and evaluation of the pdps that were on the system yes now um let's go to a document uh lfb double zero double one eight one eight eight this is an email
01:14:59 this is an email uh that you sent to graham ellis peter groves and lee drawbridge as you can see on the 19th of august 2016. oh forgive me may i just say that's dominic ellis not graham ellis
01:15:11 that's dominic ellis not graham ellis i'm sorry they had different roles
01:15:18 yes they did have different roles there but i think they're both dac's they were um forgive me no dom ellis at this point was an assistant commissioner yes dom ellis was an assistant commissioner
01:15:29 ellis was an assistant commissioner graham ellis was a dac dom ellis in this in the capacity in which i'm contacting him here was the assistant commissioner in charge of fire stations in the operations directorate
01:15:41 yes thank you uh and if we look at the second email on page one this email here you can see that um the subject is pdp meeting dear all
01:15:52 the subject is pdp meeting dear all thank you for your contribution to this morning's discussion i think we made a great deal of progress just to summarize our discussions and some next steps and then you say in the in the first bullet point we discussed a model
01:16:03 bullet point we discussed a model whereby the brand of pdps are scrapped and we moved to a system where everyone had a development portfolio or a cpd log which captures any areas of development
01:16:15 and then you go on i will link him with ronnie and develop a draft policy based on this principle we will work towards an agreed draft ready for cnb at christmas and launched by april it will include the following principles
01:16:27 include the following principles first sub-bullet people on development will not have learning outlined in a separate system such as pdp replacement rather learning will be captured on their epdr development be a safe space
01:16:39 their epdr development be a safe space positive generic staircase development templates will form a framework for development to other roles strike additional skills develop clear protocols for use of pdps
01:16:50 develop clear protocols for use of pdps that focus on development rather than than discipline now the second bullet point there you say you're drafting a draw or developing a draft policy and that would be
01:17:01 a draft policy and that would be launched
01:17:02 launched by
01:17:03 by uh april
01:17:05 uh april and that would be april 2017 yes
01:17:09 yes uh and i think you say in your statement that the rationale behind that development portfolio was to create a system that was in your words less punitive yes yes that's right focused on development rather than uh punishment
01:17:20 development rather than uh punishment and would it also be right to say that the intention here was for the emphasis of the new system to be on getting better developing yes and to remove or try to remove the previous stigma associated with pdps yes
01:17:34 previous stigma associated with pdps yes and did you actually go on to develop a new policy no the policy itself um i should say it the policy itself was due to be written by the organizational development team
01:17:45 by the organizational development team so ronnie is ronnie laurie who was heading up that team so the role that i had was to link in with ronnie and two assists so she that department owned the pdp policy so i appreciate as it's
01:17:57 pdp policy so i appreciate as it's written there it looks like it's a it's incumbent on me to draft the policy but i was going to assist in the vein of making sure the points that we were discussing around that
01:18:09 that we were discussing around that particular issue with pdps and inp points was adequately captured um that team the organizational development team uh was a very small team with a huge workload
01:18:22 team with a huge workload it
01:18:23 it ronnie reported into peter groves and i'd had several discussions with peter about the
01:18:29 about the the workload of that team and the development of the policy and where that might sit
01:18:34 might sit and so we'd agreed that actually it would be difficult to bring that forward given some of the priorities that that team had
01:18:40 team had so we were waiting for that for the point to come up when that draft policy which was linked to a wider holistic learning program was to be developed and i would link in with her at that point
01:18:51 i would link in with her at that point and make sure that those elements were reflected how far had this proposal got by the time you left the lfb in november 2017. uh it hadn't uh got very far we passed the i drafted some suggested
01:19:04 passed the i drafted some suggested changes
01:19:05 changes to the imp policy
01:19:08 policy that was sent to um lead drawbridge at that time to be included in the review of the imp policy which i don't believe made it into the policy by the time i
01:19:20 made it into the policy by the time i had left lfb progressing this was something on the work plan that we had when i took over the ort team
01:19:31 when i took over the ort team but obviously given the events of grenfell it was something that was pushed back a little bit so that we could continue to prioritize some of the areas that were that were critical in the response in the immediate aftermath
01:19:48 the areas around the development of um the uh the the pdp system itself um that was sitting with uh
01:20:00 um that was sitting with uh as i recall peter groves's team yes thank you um now dr cohn hatton you'll be pleased to hear that i've come to the end of my prepared questions and there may be
01:20:12 prepared questions and there may be further questions that i've missed that i may need to revisit with you or visit on you uh there may be questions that others have but i'm going to ask the chairman now to take the customary break uh and see if there are other questions
01:20:24 uh and see if there are other questions mr chairman yes thank you mr minute well as you may know we always have a break at this point so that council can check that he's not omitted anything and that those who aren't present can if
01:20:36 and that those who aren't present can if they wish uh suggest further questions that should be brought to the witness so we'll
01:20:41 we'll we'll break now we'll combine it with our afternoon break i think and uh resume at 25 past three and then we'll see at that point
01:20:52 three and then we'll see at that point were there any more questions for you thank you thank you very much would you like to go to the action thank you
01:21:06 thank you mr willit 25 possibly thank you very much mr chairman
01:58:56 would you ask dr conhacklin to come back in please
01:59:06 yes please do thank you well dr manhattan i'm sorry we kept you waiting much longer than i had indicated i'm afraid that was for reasons really giving people more time
01:59:18 reasons really giving people more time to consider whether they wanted to ask or wanted to ask to ask you any more questions but anyway here we are we'll find out now whether there are more questions for you yes yes mr chairman i just have one question and it's this i
01:59:30 just have one question and it's this i wonder if the witness could please be shown lfb double one i'm sorry lfb double zero double one eight two three zero
01:59:40 pay this is the statement of uh of graham ellis and i'd like to go please to page three paragraph 17 in that document
01:59:53 and what he says there by way of the explanation of the briefing note which had been prepared by group manager phil butler uh is uh in the
02:00:04 uh is uh in the center middle line where he says this uh it had been um and i'll read it from the second second line onwards the briefing note highlighted the fact that incident command training at the lfb had
02:00:16 command training at the lfb had previously been driven by policy whereas what was being proposed and being incorporated into the developing icnog products was a transformational change in what should be considered when
02:00:27 in what should be considered when developing incident command training
02:00:32 do you agree that the changes being proposed in the incident command energy products that you were developing were transformational
02:00:43 transformational they were certainly a step change because the focus was moving away from policy uh sorry the focus was moving away from process and was more focused on the person
02:00:55 on the person i am unable to quantify what he means in this regard by transformational i think that's my difficulty so i'm having difficulty agreeing with the line when i can't quite quantify in what
02:01:07 when i can't quite quantify in what regard he means it to be transformational you say it was a step change yes it was a step change it would require
02:01:17 require a change to training however that change to training was already scheduled so to the degree in which it would have been transformational over and above the review that was that
02:01:29 over and above the review that was that was already commissioned i think that's that's the element that i'm struggling to quantify there was already change programmed so it wouldn't have been a change over and above the change that
02:01:40 change over and above the change that was already programmed that would have been the opera that would have been the opportunity to have done that change yes thank you very much i have no further questions for you it only remains for me to thank you very much
02:01:51 remains for me to thank you very much for coming to the inquiry and assisting with our investigations it's been extremely helpful to us and we're extremely grateful to you thank you very much doctor co-inhabitant and it's right dr gaine hatten that on behalf of all
02:02:02 dr gaine hatten that on behalf of all three members of the panel i should thank you very much indeed for coming to give us your evidence i think we've all found it very interesting and very helpful
02:02:10 helpful thank you very much indeed thank you now you're free to go thank you [Music]
02:02:25 yes mr millet well um we do have more witnesses to here but perhaps not this afternoon is that right uh mr namaste that is right mr chairman yes the next witness will be assistant commissioner hughes uh who
02:02:37 assistant commissioner hughes uh who will be taken uh by mr andrew kenya queen's council and uh he'll be available tomorrow at the official time yes yes thank you well in that case we'll close at this
02:02:48 well in that case we'll close at this point for today and we shall resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning with our next witness thank you very much 10 o'clock tomorrow peace
02:03:01 you