London Fire Brigade Evidence - Wednesday 29th September 2021 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:15:08 would you ask mr reason to come back in please

00:15:19 thank you right mr reason let's see if there are any more questions for you yes mr miller yes mr chairman there are a few um can i start please uh with this question

00:15:28 question um you i think told us on monday of this week

00:15:31 week that watch managers get a basic five-day training

00:15:35 training for trainers module um

00:15:38 um i think that's what you told us that's correct uh and for our reference purposes that's day 180 pages 187 to 189 now um

00:15:48 now um i i wonder whether that's really correct can you can you clarify that you were referring only to the pre babcock era in other words before and or in 2012.

00:16:00 before and or in 2012. yes because i was the head of training in 2009 when the crew manager development program was launched uh or revamped crew manager development program

00:16:09 program was launched and that included a five-day module as i described in my evidence on monday but i don't know if that was carried through into the babcock training contract

00:16:20 into the babcock training contract well that's the question uh to be clear what we're talking about we're talking about the basic training skills module b the stm yes or something equivalent to that yes yes um do you do you know why

00:16:31 that yes yes um do you do you know why it wasn't carried over into the babcock training program no i don't i'm sorry right should it have been uh

00:16:38 uh possibly i i i didn't work on the contract so i don't know right uh

00:16:44 uh next question um is about um qualitative assessment of the number of

00:16:53 of impd returns for station-based staff as against the totality of incidents we looked at this with uh with

00:17:02 with rita dexter and she gave evidence and we looked at the document we can go back to it if necessary which showed that there was about a four percent return uh positively in in circumstances where they were not

00:17:14 in circumstances where they were not mandatory but optional yes um now um i asked her the question whether anybody had ever benchmarked or qualitatively assessed the four percent and asked themselves is that a fair representative

00:17:25 themselves is that a fair representative of the figures uh and her answer was was that you would know more than she did about it do you um

00:17:32 um probably a little bit more the four percent i don't think we benchmark the four percent but the four percent was made up of um

00:17:41 um a number of constituent people that you know put information on that database and one of the key groups of staff that you know regularly put information on was the operational

00:17:52 put information on was the operational review team now there are a small carder of offices that are mobilized to predominantly pump incidents and above so incidents that attract more than six fire engines and above

00:18:03 fire engines and above uh and they are our incident management assurance team they look at incident procedures but they also look at incident command and

00:18:13 and so whilst i don't say that any anyone else's comments are not valued because of course they are uh that constituency of officer uh they're probably the most busiest officers in the country uh by

00:18:24 busiest officers in the country uh by some measure and so their contribution to the inp gives you a really rich uh view of what's going on in your organization because they are going to all the more significant incidents and they are such

00:18:36 significant incidents and they are such a small carder of officers that you know it's much easier to calibrate and benchmark

00:18:43 benchmark performance against standards when you've got such a small group of staff you know reporting on it right um

00:18:49 um now let's turn to a different topic can i ask you please first to go to lfb 306

00:19:00 this is your exhibit 70 gr70

00:19:05 gr70 and it is a report by the commissioner ron dobson of the 20th of june 2013 to the authority and the title is coroner's inquest

00:19:16 and the title is coroner's inquest following the fire at latin house on third july 2009 and if you look at the summary it says this report presents the outcomes from the recent inquests relating to the fire at national house on third july 2009 in

00:19:29 at national house on third july 2009 in which six members of the public tragically lost their lives and details the actions that the london fire brigade lfb will be taking in response to the coroner's recommendations the report also details the financial implications for

00:19:40 the financial implications for implementing these actions and describes the governance and reporting arrangements that will be used as a means of monitoring the implementation of the actions and the recommendation if you scroll down a bit further is to note this

00:19:51 down a bit further is to note this report including the cost implications and monitoring proposals which are detailed in paragraphs 19 to 20. um first did you um see this report at the

00:20:02 first did you um see this report at the time

00:20:03 time i saw the report when it was presented to the fire authority because i used to sit uh as an officer member on the fire authority right you're an office member on the fire authority did you have any input into

00:20:14 authority did you have any input into the drafting of this report only is so far that the action plan is appended to this is the action plan that i developed with the heads of service which was signed off by the commissioners group um prior to the commissioner responding to

00:20:26 prior to the commissioner responding to the coroner yes that's the action plans we've been seeing yes that date yes um now uh can i ask you then uh to go please to page five in this document

00:20:37 go please to page five in this document where we will see some bullet points um

00:20:42 um at the head of the screen the second one says

00:20:45 says two teacaps have been completed with babcock for the proposed training the first covers the request for a high-rise case study incorporating the learning points from latino house and other high-rise incidents babcock are responsible for

00:20:57 incidents babcock are responsible for the design of appropriate training and it is anticipated this will be computer-based training the second tcap enhances existing training for incident commanders and for command and control to address the specific issues raised by

00:21:09 to address the specific issues raised by the coroner i'm just pausing there that that's a summary of really what we saw it great much greater detail yesterday yes i believe it is the high-rise case study would probably involves contemporary media techniques such as 3d

00:21:21 contemporary media techniques such as 3d modeling to create a real-time case study and some officer time to support the development from previous similar exercises the total cost is estimated at eleven and a half thousand pounds to thirteen and a half thousand pounds the

00:21:33 thirteen and a half thousand pounds the additional cost of the enhanced incident commander and command and control training are anticipated to be minimal and deliverable within existing budgets uh my my overall question is did

00:21:45 budgets uh my my overall question is did you think that the existing budget or budgets to carry into effect all of the rule 43 or the responses to the rule 43 recommendations were sufficient yes i did did anything ever give you

00:21:57 yes i did did anything ever give you calls to think that they weren't no

00:22:02 no can i ask you to then to look at lfb triple zero eight five eight zero eight

00:22:10 now this is a document a little bit later it's an email from peter come up to you copy to danny cotton

00:22:21 cotton ac cotton on the 2nd of march 2014 and this you'll recall is

00:22:28 is just about the same time as the um comms training was coming out but it's not to do with that the first two paragraphs say this we've discussed this topic previously in the context of whether the current pda of three times

00:22:39 whether the current pda of three times pumps in an aerial is sufficient now the revised high-rise gra is published just to be clear about that that was that was in uh the previous month february 2014 yes it

00:22:51 the previous month february 2014 yes it was gre 3.2 yes the way is clear for lfp to update our local risk assessment and operational procedure to take into account the new hazards this document records much of that work has already been done and although we have not

00:23:02 been done and although we have not carried out task analysis it's clear that some of the new hazards which have been identified invoke smoke and invoke control measures that can be personnel intensive and then there's quite a lot of lit a lot of

00:23:14 of lit a lot of detail about um pda

00:23:18 um pda and if you go to the second page of this please look at the second paragraph um after the detail which i can take you through slowly if need be um he says this uh in saying that

00:23:31 um he says this uh in saying that uh and what he's saying the that there in summary is that if you increase the pda for high-rise incidence you lead to a lot more additional appliance movements per annum that's the point

00:23:42 movements per annum that's the point that is the point yeah he says in saying that i am of course aware of the sensitivities associated with lsp5 just pausing there's that london safety plan version five that is indeed yes right uh and which are likely to be

00:23:54 yes right uh and which are likely to be associated with any recommendation for increase at the time of budget constraints that said if a review indicates that it is the right thing to do in order to promote firefighter safety and improve our effectiveness i would not see those considerations

00:24:05 would not see those considerations stroke issues as insurmountable um first what did you understand mr cowart meant there in his email to you of at a time of budget constraints

00:24:18 you of at a time of budget constraints um

00:24:19 um so as i said earlier before the lunch that the period well a period from about 2009 to 2016 was a particularly difficult period for the brigade in

00:24:31 difficult period for the brigade in terms of budget efficiencies that were we were imposed on the brigade by the then mayor boris johnson

00:24:39 johnson so london safety plus pam5 which covered a period

00:24:43 a period between 2013 and 16 included

00:24:47 included a number of significant changes in the frontline establishment 13 pumps reduction 10 fire station closures and around 685

00:24:58 10 fire station closures and around 685 frontline posts were reduced as part of that

00:25:01 that uh lsp5 proposal so my

00:25:05 so my uh

00:25:06 uh reading of this was that peter was obviously aware of all of the proposals in lsp5

00:25:12 in lsp5 and he was bringing forward uh a report which eventually came to odcb and and and then went on to corporate management later in the year to increase the pda so i think his the term sensitivities

00:25:24 i think his the term sensitivities around lsp5 obviously that was a difficult period for officers in terms of uh

00:25:30 of uh the interaction with the fire authority members and indeed the mayor and also the the representative bodies that were representing those officers that were potentially going to lose their jobs

00:25:41 potentially going to lose their jobs so i think he's he's encapsulating you know he he was aware as a senior leader in the organization that there was you know considerable opposition to lsp5 uh and he was coming forward with a

00:25:52 uh and he was coming forward with a recommendation that would increase the number of fire engines that needed to be mobilized to an initial call to a high rise and you know whether whether that was going to put pressure on the

00:26:03 going to put pressure on the organization in terms of numbers of resources

00:26:08 resources going forward you might bring me to this i'm sorry but um the paper that eventually came forward laid out all of the impacts of increasing the pda that went forward via odcb

00:26:19 that went forward via odcb uh i think it went to odcb twice and then it went forward to the corporate management board i think in january after i left and and the decision

00:26:28 decision by the corporate management board was to increase the pda to four pumps uh

00:26:35 uh were these budget constraints of which mr cap speaks here in this email which i think you would agree is not to do with a response to the lack of coroner's recommendations

00:26:46 to the lack of coroner's recommendations yes it's not it's not anything to do with that it's to do with the london safety plan five and the budget yes do you agree that uh or is it the case that these budget constraints affected in any way

00:26:58 affected in any way the training and other responses to the latino house coroner's uh recommendations no i don't believe they did

00:27:06 did right

00:27:08 right given the time of budget constraints which you've just described um

00:27:13 um what was the mechanism by which the lfb

00:27:17 the lfb ensured that the brigade's response to the latino house coroner's rule 43 recommendations were insulated from budgetary difficulties

00:27:29 difficulties i don't think that was ever required because

00:27:32 because none of the proposals in the commissioner's response to the rule 43 recommendations uh were ever discussed in the context of budgetary constraint there was never

00:27:46 any discussion that i can recall and i know it to be a fact that it was not an inhibiting factor nothing that we did in relation to responding to the coroner's recommendations

00:28:00 coroner's recommendations was limited or inhibited by budgetary constraints as far as i'm aware did you ever feel that the budgetary constraints uh constrained the uh effective delivery of the babcock

00:28:13 uh effective delivery of the babcock deliverables under its contract uh not at all the babcock contract as you're probably aware is a 25-year contract so the budget provision for the 25 years and certainly in the we

00:28:25 for the 25 years and certainly in the we usually typically budgeted three years in advance to take account of the mayor's advice um that

00:28:32 that uh running cost of the babcock contract was always already factored into the lsp5 proposals right so did you ever feel that the limited budget or budgetary constraints were in

00:28:44 budget or budgetary constraints were in any way to blame for the slow production or perhaps poor quality of the training materials i don't think they're connected at all and on that score um can you tell me why was

00:28:55 um can you tell me why was computer-based training preferred to

00:28:59 to live teaching i don't think it's correct to say it was preferred it was just a tool in the in the toolbox that we had

00:29:10 tool in the in the toolbox that we had to to give stations different training opportunities um there is a mix of uh drill sessions so that's live training in the drill yard exercises which are external venues

00:29:22 yard exercises which are external venues and as part of the babcock contract there were two brand new state-of-the-art training centers uh that were one was opened in my time and one the second one opened shortly after i retired which was really the step

00:29:35 i retired which was really the step change in in the contract uh in terms of being able to do things differently with better better facilities one thing with your indulgence i might

00:29:46 one thing with your indulgence i might try and explain to the inquiry because i think it's relevant to this line of questioning is a lot of people assume that on the 1st of april 2012 when babcock took over

00:29:58 when babcock took over there was this significant sea change in the way training was delivered and whilst i fully accept that the decision to outsource training was a milestone in the history of the london fire brigade

00:30:10 the history of the london fire brigade in practical terms we gave the keys to the training facilities centers to babcock we closed the door on a friday babcock took over from the monday and a large percentage

00:30:22 from the monday and a large percentage and i can't give you the exact percentage of london fire brigade training staff were either cheaply transferred to babcock or was seconded the operational staff were seconded to babcock to

00:30:33 staff were seconded to babcock to continue the training basically

00:30:36 basically exactly the same as we were doing it because there was no new training facilities at that time that was part of the contract was to build two new training centers and so ostensibly on on the monday it was the

00:30:47 ostensibly on on the monday it was the same trainers at the same venues delivering the same type of training and the only difference the delegates would have seen was instead of someone wearing a london fire brigade logo

00:30:57 logo uniform they'd be wearing a babcock uniform now obviously that changed over the life of the contract and that was always planned to do that so it wasn't it was a big bang in terms of the

00:31:08 it was a big bang in terms of the contractual uh arrangements but the reality for delegates and for the brigade it it didn't really change other than what i've just described it was the same people using the same venues the same equipment

00:31:20 using the same venues the same equipment and that obviously changed in in the first three years when i was director right um i'll come back just explore some questions um in relation to that shortly can i

00:31:31 um in relation to that shortly can i just ask you before i do um did the lfb ever conduct any sort of study any kind of investigation into whether cbt was better more effective

00:31:42 better more effective as a way of delivering training to station-based staff um as opposed to in-person training um teacher-led or interactive i don't remember or recall a study being

00:31:55 i don't remember or recall a study being undertaken but part of the training commissioning process which which we've touched on and i know you've touched them with other witnesses once you identify the learning the desired learning outcome part of that

00:32:06 desired learning outcome part of that discussion process between the commissioning department and babcock is how that learning outcome can be best achieved and the options available to you to achieve

00:32:17 the options available to you to achieve that obviously could be face to face uh cbt

00:32:21 cbt live exercise and a whole range of other options i'm sure i can't think of now so it would have been a joint decision by the commissioning department and babcock

00:32:32 babcock in terms of how best to deliver that training to achieve those learning outcomes right and can you as you sit there assure people that the choice of using computer-based training

00:32:43 training uh was adopted on the basis of its perceived efficacy and not on the basis of the perceived budgetary benefits yes i can i don't

00:32:54 budgetary benefits yes i can i don't think budget came into it as far as i know now going back to babcock it's right i think that you had oversight and responsibility for the functions and departments that made up the ort

00:33:06 and departments that made up the ort and did that also include him to interface with babcock uh yes one of peter groves's team came under my director exactly what was your exact role in liaising

00:33:17 what was your exact role in liaising with babcock i didn't have a formal apart from the course review board which i chaired i didn't have a formal role in terms of the contract management but i did take

00:33:28 the contract management but i did take the opportunity at the start of the contract given that it's a 25-year contract

00:33:33 contract to introduce myself to the directors of babcock that were going to be responsible for the babcock training element of the babcock contract and obviously in those early days when

00:33:45 and obviously in those early days when there were issues i'm happy to discuss those if you need me to we had i think it was probably diarized on a monthly basis that probably didn't always happen but we tried to get

00:33:56 always happen but we tried to get together on a monthly basis just to you know to discuss where we were and some of the issues and that was part of trying to develop a kind of partnership working this is a you know this was going to be a long contract it was

00:34:07 going to be a long contract it was certainly going to outlive my time in the brigade and it was just trying to to one educate babcock on some of the challenges for london fire brigade senior managers in terms of the political environment you

00:34:18 terms of the political environment you know and indeed the budgetary constraints so that it wasn't an issue in this because this has been laid out as a 25-year contract but just to try and get them to understand our world and obviously for me to get to understand

00:34:30 obviously for me to get to understand some of the challenges that babcock were facing and trying to work collectively to try and resolve some of those issues and uh gordon reynolds i think was the babcock manager of the lfb training contract

00:34:41 contract uh with whom humor had most contact is that right yes he was my primary contact at babcock and how would you normally communicate with him um

00:34:51 face to face and sometimes on the phone and occasionally by email but most substantively would have been face to face right and

00:35:06 did cbt as a method of delivering training increase after babcock took over

00:35:16 i honestly don't know the answer to that but the sense i get is yes it probably did because babcock had

00:35:27 access to better technology and the capability to design interactive training materials i suspect that became you know more significant option during

00:35:38 you know more significant option during the commissioning process because of the the types of training they could deliver via computer-based training that we couldn't do in-house before that now you said in the answer before last

00:35:50 now you said in the answer before last it's somewhere in there that there were issues that arose in the early part of the

00:35:54 the relationship um could you give us a very brief thumbnail sketch of what those issues as you call them were yes so

00:36:01 yes so the first significant issue was um venues for some of the very specialist types of training high volume pumping which you need a you know a large body of water and you know it needs to be

00:36:12 of water and you know it needs to be away from members of the public because of the nature of the equipment that's being used uh what had happened which i think was a as a direct result of the short leading between contractor wald and babcock in effect starting to deliver

00:36:25 babcock in effect starting to deliver training

00:36:27 training that what happened they didn't have time to do due

00:36:29 to do due diligence or check that all the venues that we were using external to our own estate

00:36:35 estate would be available to them so what happened i think in the first week as an example

00:36:41 example we used chestington world of adventures for one of our high volume pump training

00:36:46 training facilities and i negotiated that contract with that establishment so the hvp arrived it was programmed to be trained the trainer arrived it's an

00:36:58 be trained the trainer arrived it's an lfb x trainer lfb equipment lfb crew same venue and the guy on the gate said you know what's going on you've got a different uniform on and he said oh yeah

00:37:09 different uniform on and he said oh yeah i don't work for london probably going i'm seconded to babcock and he said oh hang on a minute you can't come in and we had a few of that few of those issues happened and therefore we lost some very specialized training venues in

00:37:20 some very specialized training venues in in the first quarter of the contract which we did recover later on but it took babcock you know understandably a few months to renegotiate the lease agreements with those venues or they had to find

00:37:32 those venues or they had to find alternative venues um are there any were there any

00:37:35 there any problems relating to the delivery quality of training or the deliver or the content quality of training in the early years of babcock's

00:37:46 training in the early years of babcock's tenure uh

00:37:47 tenure uh not that i'm aware of not any significant beyond what we'd experienced within our when we were delivering it in-house

00:37:54 in-house um as i said you know answer to a previous question the real step change for me came in around june 214 2014 when the first of

00:38:05 around june 214 2014 when the first of the dedicated training facilities which was

00:38:09 was at uh beckton in north east london opened and that marked a significant change just one of the drivers for outsourcing or looking at outsourcing of training was the fact

00:38:20 at outsourcing of training was the fact that our training estate the lfb training estate was so dated and old and really wasn't fit for a modern fire service so the first of the dedicated training facilities opened around june i think

00:38:31 facilities opened around june i think we're using it slightly before that's when it was officially opened and then the park royal facility which was another brand new training development opened shortly after i retired

00:38:42 opened shortly after i retired do you recall whether there were any tensions as between babcock on the one hand and the fbu on the other you can recall yes vividly

00:38:54 yes vividly understandably and i do understand this so this is not a dig at the fire brigade union i absolutely understood their position

00:39:00 position they were resistant to outsourcing the training as a principal i think i think that's fair to say and

00:39:07 and a number of their members i think

00:39:11 i think went

00:39:11 went above and beyond to try and frustrate the delivery of the contract in the first wave um and we did get some quite poor behaviors not not across the ball but just

00:39:22 not not across the ball but just individuals that really frustrated babcock's ability to deliver the training in some context so i was fully aware

00:39:29 aware that the principle of outsourcing was not welcomed by the fire brigades union and there were some you know difficult management issues to resolve but that was kind of the extent of it

00:39:40 but that was kind of the extent of it but that did improve over time and i think draw the inquiry's attention to the ribbon style report which i've read in preparation for giving evidence and i was quite interested in in what the

00:39:52 was quite interested in in what the author would say about the view of babcock and i think it without trying to remember every word but i think in in the sense that there was a lot of resistance just because it was different and it was not lfb and i understand that

00:40:03 and it was not lfb and i understand that from an emotional point of view why people would feel that but i think when when you cut through that emotional and they asked the question well is training better under babcock once we got those initial issues resolved i think the resounding

00:40:16 issues resolved i think the resounding answer was they most majority of staff said training was better under babcock because of the facilities and all the innovation that have been bought by the training the dedicated training centers did anybody explain to you

00:40:28 did anybody explain to you what the principle was that by which the fbu

00:40:31 fbu objected to outsourcing uh no

00:40:35 uh no you have any idea what it was i can only surmise but i think it was just the principle of outsourcing which meant uh a number of staff that used to work for

00:40:47 staff that used to work for fire service would be seconded to babcock and that was a voluntary it was we didn't make them go and work for babcock we offered them a voluntary uh secondment for two years and that would be reviewed after two years um but i

00:40:58 be reviewed after two years um but i just think they got the sense that they just didn't like the idea of a third party

00:41:03 party uh delivering our training i think just thinking about it a bit more one of the other things that they were concerned about was the sector competence of the trainers

00:41:14 the sector competence of the trainers um

00:41:15 um but as i said the vast majority not all but the vast majority of trainers uh moved across with the contract either under gp transfer or uh secondment and then in that first

00:41:27 uh secondment and then in that first period the brigade developed a fit for train requirement as part of the contract which meant all of the trainers had to meet a certain specification in order to be able to deliver training and that was

00:41:38 able to deliver training and that was reviewed annually

00:41:45 yes thank you very much um mr reason those are all the further follow-up questions i have for you it only remains for me to thank you very much for coming to the inquiry and assisting us with our investigations

00:41:56 assisting us with our investigations we're extremely grateful to you thank you very much and it's right mr reason and i should thank you as well on behalf of all three members of the panel you've given us a lot of your time and we are very grateful to your to you

00:42:08 and we are very grateful to your to you for your assistance which has been considerable thank you my pleasure thank you very much indeed for coming along and you're now free to go lovely thank you very much thank you mr miller

00:42:27 yes mr millet no we have another witness but not today yes right uh no uh he is scheduled to come tomorrow this is assistant commissioner dan daly

00:42:39 this is assistant commissioner dan daly yes uh and he will be coming tomorrow and uh

00:42:42 and uh in case everybody wonders we've managed to catch up some time yes uh and uh as you say uh mr daley was um invited to come tomorrow and that's when

00:42:53 invited to come tomorrow and that's when he will be with us yes uh and we were looking at the timetable and we thought it less wise rather than wiser to leave the timetable as it stood rather than risk bringing the whole

00:43:05 rather than risk bringing the whole thing forward yes well in that case we'll

00:43:08 we'll rise at this point yes and we'll resume the hearing at ten o'clock tomorrow when we should look forward to seeing things today very good thank you thank you very much 10 o'clock tomorrow