4. Ms Catherine Frances

MS CATHERINE FRANCES (affirmed).

Questions From Counsel to the Inquiry

Ms Blackwell: Please sit down.

Ms Catherine Frances: Thank you.

Counsel Inquiry: Is your name Catherine Frances?

Ms Catherine Frances: It is.

Counsel Inquiry: Ms Frances, thank you for coming to give evidence today and thank you for the assistance that you’ve given so far. You’ve provided a witness statement which we’ll look at on the screen in a moment. Before we confirm that this is your witness statement, I notice that you’re quite softly spoken. That’s not a criticism, but please keep your voice up and speak into the microphone so that the stenographer can hear you for the transcript. If you need a break during the course of your evidence, just ask and we will do that.

So can you confirm, please, Ms Frances, that this is your witness statement?

Ms Catherine Frances: I can.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you. We don’t need to go there, but can you also confirm that at the end you have signed it as being true to the best of your knowledge and belief?

Ms Catherine Frances: I have.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you, we can take that down, please.

You are the Director General for Local Government Resilience and Communities, a post which you have held since April of 2019?

Ms Catherine Frances: That’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: I think that you joined the civil service in 2001, and prior to joining this department you were director of public services in Her Majesty’s Treasury?

Ms Catherine Frances: That’s correct.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you.

Now, a warning, my Lady, we are about to enter a realm of shifting acronyms and names, so I’m going to try and deal with it all at once so that we can then move on.

Ms Frances, I need your assistance in relation to how the government is formed and its previous iterations, please.

The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, referred to as DLUHC, which I’m going to use during the course of your evidence, has operated in various forms and under various names over its lifetime, hasn’t it? It was created in 2006 to replace the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which had taken on the Local Government and Regions portfolio from the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in 2002.

When it was first formed, the department was called the Department for Communities and Local Government, DCLG, but then in January of 2018 it became the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, MHCLG, and then in September of 2021 it became DLUHC.

Have I got that right?

Ms Catherine Frances: You have got that right.

Counsel Inquiry: Good, right.

You are responsible in your role for what we know as RED, which is the Resilience and Emergencies Division, although it is now known as the Resilience and Recovery Directorate; is that right?

Ms Catherine Frances: That is correct.

Counsel Inquiry: I’m going to refer to it as “RED” during the course of your evidence. Just pausing there, why has that particular name changed?

Ms Catherine Frances: It’s changed for two reasons. Firstly, because this is part of our organisation which works on resilience planning and response, and we wanted to recognise that we were thinking in a holistic way about how you recover from emergencies as well as how you just immediately respond. So the name has been changed for that purpose.

It’s also been changed to reflect, I think over time, changes in the resourcing of that team and set of teams. It is now run by a director who has responsibility solely for that function, and previously it’s been in slightly different arrangements over the years.

Counsel Inquiry: All right, thank you.

The department is a ministerial department with oversight for local government and elections, homelessness, housing and home ownership, planning, building safety and levelling up and the unions since 2021, but the Inquiry is interested in its oversight in terms of local government, because it oversees the local government sector and is responsible for the stewardship and oversight of local authorities in England, which includes ensuring that the frameworks for accountability and finance of local government are robust, and that local authorities operate in accordance with what’s described as a “best value” regime.

Ms Catherine Frances: That is a correct description of our role nationally in relation to local government. I think it’s important for the Inquiry to understand, and that because local government does so many different things, in England the way that this is organised is that the lead government department for a particular service area would take national oversight and accountability for that.

So to give you an example, the Department for Health and Social Care would be responsible at national level for social care, even though local authorities are a major player in social care.

Similarly the Department for Education would be responsible for children’s services, and we as a department would be responsible for homelessness at a national policy level.

Counsel Inquiry: Right.

Ms Catherine Frances: But you’re correct in your description that we did the overarching framework.

Counsel Inquiry: In terms of resilience, which is of particular interest to this Inquiry, your department shares joint competency for local resilience with the Cabinet Office, I think; is that right?

Ms Catherine Frances: Yes. May I set this out very clearly for you?

Counsel Inquiry: Please do.

Ms Catherine Frances: So the way to think about our department’s role is in two different chunks, if you like. The first is, as any other government department, we have lead areas of responsibility, and they are exactly as you have set out: housing, homelessness, building safety and local government overarching accountancy in stewardship form.

There is then a separate function that sits within our department which is the Resilience and Emergencies Division, now renamed RED.

Counsel Inquiry: RED?

Ms Catherine Frances: RED. Now, RED performs a function which is not just for our own department, RED performs a function on behalf of all of government, central and local. I can set that out role for you now if it’s helpful.

Counsel Inquiry: Yes, please.

Ms Catherine Frances: So this is all based in legislation and in the civil contingencies framework and then the supporting guidance that goes with this.

So at national level civil contingencies are arranged in such a way as you have the Cabinet Office with overarching responsibility, and they have responsibility in terms of policy, known as doctrine, for local emergencies planning too.

As you have probably heard from other people there’s often a lead government department which takes forward a particular risk and plans for that.

Locally speaking, we have a situation defined in legislation where Category 1 responders, hospitals, local authorities, blue lights, have a responsibility for planning for emergencies and then responding in emergencies. They also have a responsibility to come together in local resilience forums, and those forums are in place to enable planning and response when it needs a cross-agency response locally.

The role of RED in that wider system is, in a sense, relatively simple: it is the connecting team between the national level civil contingencies arrangements and the local LRFs.

Counsel Inquiry: Right.

Ms Catherine Frances: So those 38 LRFs in England will have RED connecting officers working with them, and they will work with them on planning and also in response. I hope that’s clear.

Counsel Inquiry: It is, thank you very much.

Local government is responsible for a range of services for people and businesses in defined areas, and I’d like your assistance, please, now, on how the local government levels work.

So there are different times of local authorities, aren’t there?

Ms Catherine Frances: Correct.

Counsel Inquiry: Can you tell us what they are, please.

Ms Catherine Frances: Yes. So there are a range of different types. There are some authorities, metropolitan authorities and integrated authorities that have responsibility for a full range of services. To give you an example, that would include social care, children’s services, those sorts of services, it would include libraries, it would also include responsibilities for refuse collection and things like that, and planning.

In other parts of the country where we don’t have that unitary authority that integrates both tiers, that can be split between a county, which holds some responsibilities, and, underneath it, some district councils.

Counsel Inquiry: Right.

Ms Catherine Frances: They have separated lines of responsibilities that are set out very clearly in all legislation. For example, districts would do refuse and that sort of service and at the county level you might find adult social care and children’s services.

Counsel Inquiry: So differing types of local authorities –

Ms Catherine Frances: It is a patchwork across the country, well understood by practitioners, but it is not regular. Then, in addition to that, in some parts of the country there are combined authorities or mayoral combined authorities, they bring together the authorities in the area and have certain accountabilities that are set out in a series largely of devolution deals and then legislation that follows those.

If it would help the Inquiry, they tend to be less directly responsible for the public services that are affected immediately in a pandemic-type response.

Counsel Inquiry: Right, but what’s the interrelation between the local resilience forums and local authorities? Is there a direct correlation between the area that a local resilience forum covers and a local authority, or do some local resilience forums cross boundaries?

Ms Catherine Frances: Thank you for asking that question.

So in the legislation the 38 local resilience forums are set out as being along the same footprint as police authorities.

Counsel Inquiry: Right.

Ms Catherine Frances: So that is what defines them.

You can imagine that a local resilience forum will sometimes be responding to a situation where the police may be other lead agency, so one can see why it’s set out like that –

Lady Hallett: I thought there were 42 authorities? Sorry to interrupt.

Ms Catherine Frances: 38.

Lady Hallett: I thought there were 40 …

Ms Catherine Frances: I would bow to your greater knowledge on the police.

Lady Hallett: I thought it was over 40 police forces. Forgive me for interrupting.

Ms Catherine Frances: It may have changed, I don’t know. I’m afraid I can’t help you on that one.

You asked about the connection with local authorities?

Ms Blackwell: Yes.

Ms Catherine Frances: Because they are Category 1 responders, they are required to engage with the local resilience forum of which they are a part.

Counsel Inquiry: Under the Civil Contingencies Act?

Ms Catherine Frances: Exactly.

Counsel Inquiry: Yes.

Ms Catherine Frances: In practice, what that can mean is that you’ll have a local resilience forum that has several councils in it, that is perfectly standardised, and you may find that councils don’t all individually attend, they can nominate each other to attend on each other’s behalf.

Counsel Inquiry: So the department’s role in preparedness and risk management for civil emergencies, as we’ve established, sits within RED, and you’ve explained how RED really sits between central government and local government, and provides a conduit for advice.

Does that extend to assurance? So what level of assurance does RED have over plans and arrangements that a local – that might be held at a local level?

Ms Catherine Frances: Okay, just to break this down, so firstly I think we do have civil contingencies responsibilities as a department outside RED as any other department would.

Counsel Inquiry: Yes.

Ms Catherine Frances: But just looking at RED, its role is to act as the connecting point between central government and LRFs. So in the preparedness phase, RED’s role is to act as a critical friend of local planners, to check that they are asking themselves the right question, because the accountability for planning lies with them, to share with them and point them in the direction of guidance that’s been issued, so that they can understand that, to ensure that they understand the national risk registers that are issued, and then of course local planners then have to make their own community risk registers, and to help local partners identify risks.

In a response phase, RED’s interaction would build on that sort of relationship, and effectively they would act as a communicator between the local LRF and the centre, highlighting where there are issues that need to be resolved and facilitating the transfer of information between central and local.

For the avoidance of doubt, RED has no role in assuring the local plan, because the local plan is the responsibility of the local responders, and legislation and accountability very clearly sits there.

Counsel Inquiry: All right.

The identity of the person that sits in RED who communicates at a local level, is that person called a resilience adviser?

Ms Catherine Frances: They are called a resilience adviser when they’re planning and advising, yes.

Counsel Inquiry: In the event of a response period, if you like, does the name of that person change to become a government liaison officer?

Ms Catherine Frances: They do, and the reason for the change of name is literally that they turn into a function where they are liaising very proactively between the local and the national to make sure messages get through and to make sure they’re helping to solve problems and handing things to lead departments and things where it’s needed.

Counsel Inquiry: Is it more often than not the case that that person is the same person, the resilience adviser is the same person as the government liaise officer?

Ms Catherine Frances: Often and usually – we may come on to this later – at points where the whole country’s systems are activated, as in a pandemic response, we had to work on shift bases and with a bit more variety, but normally we would try for as much continuity as is possible.

Counsel Inquiry: All right.

Do you think it’s perhaps unnecessary and a little confusing that the name of that person changes or the title of that person changes, or do you think it’s helpful?

Ms Catherine Frances: I think for people who work in the system, they understand absolutely exactly how the systems work.

Counsel Inquiry: In terms of oversight and assurance, you’ve explained why RED does not hold a responsibility of assuring that the local plans are in place, et cetera. Do you think it would help if RED did have that level of assurance and accountability to provide at that level comfort that the local plans are dealing with the national risks appropriately?

Ms Catherine Frances: I think it potentially could be quite confusing done in that way, because what we are trying to achieve in RED is a situation where RED supports the local people who are accountable for planning and helps them in a supportive, collegiate way to assure themselves that they are at an appropriate level of preparedness, and that accountability and the clarity of that accountability is relatively important, I think.

I would say two additional things, if you would let me. The first I think is that that’s not the same as saying that RED disengages from the process of local plans and local risk assessments. If I can take an example in pandemic preparedness, we may come on to it later, I mean, RED has participated in a lot of the exercises over the years that have been important in pandemic preparedness, but we have also taken steps over the years – I mean, in December 2017 we interviewed all LRFs and said – I think 35 or 38, and asked them about levels of preparedness, fed back what they said to central government departments to aid that communication. RED has additionally run workshops for LRFs to attend and had central government partners there as well, so that they could work together on the issues that needed to be grappled with in terms of planning for a pandemic. RED have also facilitated a sort of local resilience forum engagement group to work through particular issues with central government partners.

So although they’re not assuring local plans whatsoever, RED’s interlocutor role when it’s a major risk, such as pandemic planning, extended as far as facilitating the communication in those sort of joined-up ways between local and national.

The second thing to say, I think, is just that we do recognise that LRFs need to be able to assure themselves and have good accountability locally for their own plans, and although I believe it wasn’t set out in my witness statement, because it postdates it, we have made some further announcements about further work on that.

Counsel Inquiry: All right, thank you.

At the heart of the system is the principle of subsidiarity; is that right?

Ms Catherine Frances: Correct.

Counsel Inquiry: Can you explain to us what RED’s approach is to that and how it ensures that matters cascade down in the way that that principle expects.

Ms Catherine Frances: Well, the principle of subsidiarity is that decisions should be taken at the lowest possible level, and co-ordination should happen at the lowest necessary level. In general, RED’s approach is therefore to make sure that information is cascaded down, if I can use that terminology, to local resilience fora. So, to give you an example, RED will have facilitated events following – workshops and things, following the issue of the National Security Risk Assessment to make sure that every LRF in the country understood that and could dock that into their plans.

RED’s general approach is to share as much information as is possible with local resilience fora. We do that depending on the security of the information and also the sign-off of the lead government department, but we have a very strong culture of sharing with local colleagues. And in relation to a pandemic, the preparedness here really was whole-system, so RED’s approach to subsidiarity there was to dock into the central structures, which you’ll have heard a lot about, the Pandemic Flu Readiness Boards and structures like that, and to convey there what local resilience forum were saying and then to facilitate the flow of information into local resilience forums, to be part of joint exercising, locally and nationally, and to facilitate the flow of messages back up and down through the system.

So I think in summary, it is an approach based on subsidiarity.

Counsel Inquiry: Yes.

Ms Catherine Frances: It is just a whole-system approach when planning for a pandemic, because some elements of it involve national decision-making and some, quite rightly, either LRF level or more local decision-making because –

Counsel Inquiry: Even more local than that.

Ms Catherine Frances: It is local partners who know their communities –

Counsel Inquiry: The best, yes.

Ms Catherine Frances: – and we know that local planners are very good at dealing with their communities.

Counsel Inquiry: Well, let’s have a look at a couple of documents, please. The first is a report from the C-19 National Foresight Group, entitled “Covid-19 Pandemic Third Interim Operational Review”.

Thank you.

Now, this is dated October of 2020 so it’s outside of our Module 1 time period but I want to look at page 22, please, because it sets out some concerns that were felt by – from delegates.

If which can highlight the second paragraph there, please, this was a group that had gathered evidence from all but one local resilience forum and it said:

“Delegates report that they did not feel understood or trusted by Central Government and Ministers. Delegates have reported that Ministers and some government departments still do not understand what LRFs and SCGs are, what these structures can and cannot do, and what the difference is between an LRF and an SCG.”

Is that a strategic commissioning group, an SCG?

Ms Catherine Frances: Co-ordination group.

Counsel Inquiry: “This hampers the ability to integrate the national and local approach, as the expectations from the national decision-makers are misplaced and misaligned with the civil contingencies’ frameworks, or guidance materials are incorrectly framed, or include incorrect details.”

Is that something that you recognise, Ms Frances?

Ms Catherine Frances: So I was aware of this work being done at the time, and indeed RED attended some of the sessions to hear first-hand, because it was important to learn from practitioners and what they were feeling at the time.

I think, not to deflect the query you’re making, but this is October 2020 –

Counsel Inquiry: Yes.

Ms Catherine Frances: – and I think quite a lot of what we’re hearing from delegates here is their reflection on evolution during the pandemic and how they felt certain things were going. The distinction between an LRF and an SCG is, of course, important in operational work –

Counsel Inquiry: What is the difference?

Ms Catherine Frances: The distinction is literally that an LRF is the group that brings together all of the Category 1 responders.

Counsel Inquiry: Yes.

Ms Catherine Frances: But when you go into response you need a strategic group that is just running the response and that is designated by the LRF, that is the SCG.

To avoid a huge number of letters creeping in, in central government I think possibly sometimes people referred to LRFs when they meant SCGs, but I don’t think that would have meant that central government departments didn’t understand what an LRF was, or indeed an SCG.

I think this question about feelings of trust between central government and ministers is one that one really has to ask local partners about. We often heard from local partners that they wanted to have advanced notice of decisions that were being taken, and sometimes they asked about the sharing of information in a timely way. I think some of that is coming out here.

From a RED perspective, and indeed a wider departmental perspective, we shared material when it was authorised to be shared, when decisions had been taken and so on and so forth.

Counsel Inquiry: All right.

We can take that down, please, and let’s replace it with INQ000177803, which is the witness statement of Mark Lloyd from the Local Government Association. He is going to be coming to give evidence to the Inquiry at a later date.

Could we go to page 51 and have a look at paragraph 199, please. Thank you.

“The LGA’s view is that in a number of [cases], the principle [this is of subsidiarity] is not currently being applied effectively” –

Lady Hallett: Areas.

Ms Blackwell: “Areas”, I’m so sorry.

“… in a number of areas, the principle is not currently being applied effectively. Subsidiarity implies that local agencies are trusted, equal partners in emergency preparedness and response which, in appropriate circumstances, are empowered to lead local resilience work. However, there are a number of examples of practice suggesting otherwise.”

If we could read on to the next paragraph, please:

“As noted, a persistent issue, which has undermined trust and therefore the principle of subsidiarity, has been the extent of central Government’s willingness to share information with local partners. There have been repeated challenges with central Government sharing intelligence and information about national risks (for examples, planning assumptions reasonable worst-case scenarios) on a limited basis or not at all, thereby undermining the ability of local areas to undertake timely and informed local planning.”

Thank you.

It appears from what Mark Lloyd has to say, certainly in those two paragraphs, is that there was a lack of sharing of information or certainly a perception at the local level of not being fully informed about the National Risk Assessment and what lay behind it.

Do you agree, Ms Frances, that if the risk assessments at a local level are going to be meaningful and adequate, there needs to be an understanding of the assumptions that are being used at a national level to perform the National Risk Assessment?

Ms Catherine Frances: So the national risk security assessment is shared with every LRF in England. There are elements of it that can be secure and they can be accessed through secure routes. LRFs themselves nominate who has access to that information. So – and we use the LRF to cascade that information because it is the named ways for doing so in civil contingencies approaches in legislation.

Counsel Inquiry: Just so that I understand it correctly, there is a confidential – there is a secret part of the National Security Risk Assessment, isn’t there? There is an element of it which is not public facing? Are you suggesting that, in relation to that part of the assessment process, there is a facility whereby the local resilience forum can have access to that, but it requires the nomination of a person, presumably who has security clearance to do that?

Ms Catherine Frances: So my understanding is that the NSRA is shared with every LRF in the country, and certainly in 2019, when it was updated, RED and the CCS ran a series of events with local resilience fora, so that they understood changes to the NSRA and appreciated how that could affect them.

That is not the same as saying that every local partner saw the NSRA or the associated documents. An LRF would each have had to decide who had access to that material, and my understanding is that the areas that are more secure are treated in a more secure way.

Counsel Inquiry: Right.

Ms Catherine Frances: But it would have been for the LRF to determine who saw that, and I would certainly expect key people to have seen the key documentation.

Counsel Inquiry: So does it surprise you that Mr Lloyd’s opinion appears to be that there have been repeated challenges about the sharing of information?

Ms Catherine Frances: I think that he’s making two points, if I read this right. So the first is around the national risk assessments where, as I’ve said, it was shared in the appropriate way down the appropriate routes.

The second point I think he’s making is a general question about whether information more widely was shared.

I think I’d say two things here.

I mean, the first is that before the pandemic local planners had the same epidemiological sort of assumptions that were there in all of the documentation as national planners were using from the 2011 and 2013 documentation, and were working using the same planning frameworks as central government planners, and I think we also shared with them updated Covid material when it was available.

So I understand that local partners – and we did hear local partners saying, “Are you sharing as much as you can?” But I think in terms of pandemic preparation the basic building blocks were all common across central and national government. The exercises that we were doing were on common bases, and the same for planners.

I would say that in the pandemic things moved at pace, and sometimes that may have led local planners to say, “Could you not have told us this earlier?”

Counsel Inquiry: Yes.

Ms Catherine Frances: Totally accept that. That’s absolutely something we heard.

Counsel Inquiry: But in terms of preparedness and the National Risk Assessment and the ability of that to be carried forwards and cascading down to a local level, do you think there is a disconnect between what happens at a national and a local level or are you confident that there is sufficient quality of information flowing from the top to the bottom?

Ms Catherine Frances: Well, I think if we set out the National Risk Assessments we hold a series of events to explain the changes and then LRFs are required, and I think do, understand what’s in the national risk assessments, that that’s acceptable. I think they then need to work out at a local level, and this can be challenging actually, how the local community risk assessment works, because you may have a part of the country which has a different balance of risk assessment to another, for entirely legitimate reasons. Maybe it’s subject to more flooding than another part of the country or something. We see those sorts of variations. But, yes, I think local planners had those framework pieces.

Counsel Inquiry: What are regional resilience teams?

Ms Catherine Frances: So are you referring to the arrangements which were in place before RED started in our department?

Counsel Inquiry: Yes.

Ms Catherine Frances: Yes. So before 2011 –

Counsel Inquiry: Yes.

Ms Catherine Frances: – government was structured in a different way and there were a series of government offices across England. In that context, there were a series of regional resilience teams and they were Cabinet Office teams who reported directly in to the Cabinet Office, and they did – what the name suggests, actually – a very similar function to that which RED performs and has performed since 2011.

Counsel Inquiry: But spread out across the country?

Ms Catherine Frances: Yes, exactly. Located in those government offices which no longer exist and didn’t after 2011.

Counsel Inquiry: Yes. If it were to be suggested that consideration perhaps should be given to the reinstatement of regional resilience teams to add an additional level of assistance, and perhaps combined with a level of assurance between central and local government, do you think that that’s an idea that’s worth considering?

Ms Catherine Frances: There are very different views around the country on the regional situation, and I think that we think that the regional position is more complex than – in resilience terms, than existed prior to 2011.

To explain that a little bit more, there are some parts of the country where the collaboration jointly between resilience planners on the old regional footprint still continues to feel relatively natural, if I can put it that way.

So to draw an example, the northeast or the southwest, the LRFs in those areas tend to work jointly in a way that is very close to the original regional footprint, and RED works with them on that basis as well. If they want to work like that, we support them on that basis. But there are other parts of the country where that geography doesn’t feel so natural, maybe because there’s a very rural area next to a very urban area, and the connection there just feels less significant than maybe other structural connections.

So RED works in a way that we support collaboration across different LRFs in the way that works for whatever the task that needs to be done. So if I can give you an example, in preparations for the possibility of leaving the EU with no deal, we worked with different LRFs across the country who had ports and airports, and clearly they weren’t all in one region but they shared a common set of issues that they needed to deal with, and so we would flex our approach that way.

I should just add one more point, which is that RED does work on a regional basis, we have four regional offices.

Counsel Inquiry: Right.

Ms Catherine Frances: At various times it’s been four or five. But all of the workshops that we’ve run in pandemic planning, for example our workshops in, I think it was, early 2018, were run in four locations so that if connections needed to be made on the regional basis we were facilitating that.

Counsel Inquiry: Right, so from what you have said, RED takes the issue that’s been raised, considers the area in which it’s being raised, and prepares and presents a suitable solution, and it’s got flexibility within the organisation in order to be able to do that?

Ms Catherine Frances: That is a very good way of putting it, thank you.

Counsel Inquiry: Thank you very much.

I want to move on to resources now, please. The Inquiry will hear that, in terms of local government funding, there were real terms reductions over the period of time that this Inquiry is involved in, up to, in some cases, 57%. That evidence is going to be coming from Mr Lloyd. And that however large the reduction was, there was a significant amount of concern at a local government level as to whether or not there was sufficient resource in order to be able to carry out proper preparation for any civil emergency happening.

Did you witness the impact of reduction in funding or changes in funding in your day-to-day relationship with local government?

Ms Catherine Frances: Can I correct one thing for the record, first?

Counsel Inquiry: Yes, please.

Ms Catherine Frances: I think you said that there was a 57% reduction in local government budgets.

Counsel Inquiry: What I intended to say was that the councils had their core funding from central government reduced and in some areas that amounted to a real terms reduction of 57%.

Ms Catherine Frances: So I think that’s a quote from Mark Lloyd’s witness statement.

Counsel Inquiry: That’s exactly where it’s come from.

Ms Catherine Frances: I just think it’s important for the Inquiry to understand that that is not a measure of the resources available to local government, particularly because it doesn’t include resources from council tax.

Mark Lloyd in his witness statement does make reference to another figure which is drawn from the National Audit Office –

Counsel Inquiry: Yes.

Ms Catherine Frances: – and I would strongly recommend that we use that one, because it represents a holistic view of resources for councils, it’s at paragraph 287 in Mark Lloyd’s witness statement.

Counsel Inquiry: Do you agree that there was a reduction?

Ms Catherine Frances: Absolutely.

Counsel Inquiry: Right. And my question was: did you witness any impact of that reduction in your day-to-day work with local government?

Ms Catherine Frances: So there was definitely a really significant reduction in local government resources in the 2010s, as part of the wider government approach to fiscal policy. What I’ve witnessed varies a lot between different councils, and it’s hard to draw simple conclusions about the budget reductions and preparedness for a pandemic, actually. Firstly, I think, because councils make their own decisions about what they’re going to prioritise within the statutory framework, and so they will naturally have looked at where they had statutory responsibilities, like to plan for emergencies –

Counsel Inquiry: Yes?

Ms Catherine Frances: – and for big public services, which were critical, and will have formed a view about what was necessary. Because they take different locally-based decisions as well, they also take quite different strategies, and it’s hard to generalise. And they’re quite good and have been very effective organisations at working in a creative way to get out efficiencies over this era.

So I would say I’ve seen councils’ capacity being affected, that is the case. I’ve also seen them working in a very efficient way through different reductions.

At an overall level, when you look at the choices they’ve made on services like adult social care and children’s services, they’ve tended to try to uphold the expenditure in those areas and make reductions elsewhere.

And, yes, I don’t think you can draw quite a straight line from the resourcing question to their capability and their planning, because they’ve seemed quite resilient organisations to me and quite adaptable, and they were in the pandemic.

Counsel Inquiry: In your witness statement you make reference to “best value duty”. What does that mean?

Ms Catherine Frances: There’s a duty in legislation that councils have regard to efficiency and economy and improvement, which is a requirement on all councils essentially to govern themselves well and to continue with due regard to those principles. They – the best value principle has been used when councils are in severe difficulty, but it’s a relatively unusual context, a relatively unusual intervention to make, on best value grounds. Most councils govern themselves exceptionally well and are very effective at managing this sort of resource pressure.

Counsel Inquiry: Do you think that at the present time the subsidiarity model is still capable of working effectively, given the level of funding that local government has?

Ms Catherine Frances: Absolutely.

Counsel Inquiry: Right.

Other issues relating to the relationship between RED and the local government, both local authorities and local resilience forums.

Would it assist in the planning that they have to do for civil emergencies for there to be one single repository of material that they need to consider? The Inquiry has received information that there isn’t at present a single repository for relevant guidance and information on emergency preparedness, and that that – consideration of creating that is something that should happen.

Ms Catherine Frances: So the Cabinet Office hold a system called ResilienceDirect which can be accessed by LRFs, and some of the guidance is also available on public websites. We have heard exactly the same feedback from local planners, and you will have seen in some of our documentation attached to my witness statement that that’s reflected in some of their feedback.

Counsel Inquiry: The Inquiry has also heard that, in the main part, guidance that reflects upon all civil emergencies, but in particular pandemic planning, did not cover the issue of non-pharmaceutical interventions. Do you think that, going forwards, that is something, the involvement of that in planning documents and guidance given to those in charge of local government about non-pharmaceutical interventions, would be a welcome addition?

Ms Catherine Frances: So local planners for the pandemic were using the same planning guidance documents and the same assumptions as national, and thus – as you will have heard from other witnesses and you will have seen from the published material – there were elements in there, and what happened in the pandemic, that weren’t included in there.

Counsel Inquiry: Yes.

Ms Catherine Frances: In terms of what should be in a planning document for pandemic, whether flu or otherwise, I would absolutely defer to the Department of Health and Social Care, because they are the lead government department in defining what should be included in that. So I hope that answers your question.

There were gaps in terms of the comparability of what we were planning for and what ultimately happened. They had the same information as central government departments, and I would absolutely defer to DH.

Counsel Inquiry: When one considers that particularly taking into account the model or the principle of subsidiarity, that it is those people on the ground acting locally, following plans and guidance locally, that are in the greatest need of practical guidance, then it is imperative, is it not, that the guidance that they follow includes the practical application of things like non-pharmaceutical interventions?

Ms Catherine Frances: It’s absolutely necessary that the plans that everyone is following are as close as can be reasonably expected to be what is likely to happen, and that everybody has a shared understanding of that, and that in exercising and in reflecting on exercises and in workshopping things we are talking about the same thing, whether at a national or a local level.

Counsel Inquiry: I’d finally like to ask you about the vulnerable and what level of involvement planning and guidance has had in terms of identifying those who are the most vulnerable in society and how they need to be accounted for in terms of planning and also in terms of any response to a civil emergency.

You say in your witness statement that:

“RED engages with voluntary, community and social enterprise (‘VCSE’) partners in preparedness, response and recovery planning. This is primarily through LRF engagement where VCSE partners are core partners within individual LRFs.”

Can you explain to us, please, how that works?

Ms Catherine Frances: Yes, certainly. So the department is not the lead department in national government in terms of overall relationship with the voluntary and community sector.

Counsel Inquiry: Yes.

Ms Catherine Frances: But it is absolutely critical to emergency preparedness and response that the voluntary and community sector are part of that. The guidance that sets out how LRFs should work stipulates that LRFs should be expected to work with volunteering organisations at the right footprint, and so the way that we support LRFs on that is simply to make sure that they are aware of that guidance and to make sure they factor it in.

I think more precisely, in terms of preparing from RED, if I can give you an example, at the national level, we try and make sure we have some connections with lead VCS organisations. So, for example, the British Red Cross has attended our twice-yearly LRFs, chairs a conference on very regular occasions, and is a regular attendee and invitee, but then we channel most of our work with the VCS simply by looking at the LRF and what the LRF is doing.

To elaborate yet further, when we’re in response, and indeed in planning, we often find that the LRF area itself is quite a large footprint for engaging with charities, so in the pandemic a lot of very kind people gave of their time and effort, and they did so at what I would describe as a hyper-local level, so often that was corralled and organised by local authorities who themselves would then be part of the LRF structure. So there’s some engagement by us at the national level, but our primary engagement with the VCS is to ask LRFs to do that, and then we absolutely acknowledge that local authorities and even smaller partners are working collaboratively with the VCS.

Counsel Inquiry: All right.

You mention the British Red Cross, so I would like to display part of the witness statement that we have from Mr Adamson, who is the chief executive there.

It’s at INQ000182613, and if we can go to page 10, please, and look at paragraph 43. Thank you.

“The [British Red Cross] has long believed that increased engagement between the CCS and the voluntary sector would be beneficial for the UK’s emergency preparedness. It is in that context that, in 2019, the [British Red Cross] and other voluntary organisations sought to engage with the CCS. Our focus was on seeking to develop a strategy with the government for the voluntary sector to react to a range of emergencies based on the lessons learned from responding to the multiple emergency events of 2017. The intention was for the voluntary sector to offer something more than the gold, silver and bronze model which usually dominates emergency responses, in particular to focus on the human aspects of recovery that are sometimes forgotten. The experience was somewhat dispiriting and there appeared to be a lack of curiosity on the part of the CCS regarding what the voluntary sector could provide.”

Further down, please:

“44. I had also previously approached the RED in 2018 and received a more positive response, including a proposed approach to the CCS for a three-way meeting. However, this meeting did not materialise.”

Could more be done, Ms Frances, to engage with the voluntary sector and to ensure that, so far as both planning and response is concerned, those most vulnerable in society, and who require the services and assistance from the voluntary sector, are engaged with, both at a national and also at a level at which RED was, and is, existing?

Ms Catherine Frances: So a lot of what you’ve just read out is in relation to CCS, not RED. I don’t know about the particular meeting that Michael Adamson is alluding to in paragraph 44.

Counsel Inquiry: But forgive me, you were talking, in your previous answer, about engagement at a national level with CCS, between CCS and the –

Ms Catherine Frances: No, I was talking about engagement at national level primarily between RED and the British Red Cross, but I also noted that the British Red Cross often attended at –

Counsel Inquiry: Yes.

Ms Catherine Frances: – are joint LRF chairs, joint with CCS there.

I mean, I think that there is always more to be done working with the voluntary and community sector. It has an incredibly distinct and important role. It is exactly, as Michael Adamson notes, not the same as the role that is provided through gold, silver, bronze structures, so I accept his feedback that local resilience partners, whether that be in LRFs or other fora, can continue to build their connections with the VCS.

I also noted in his witness statement that he talked about progress that had been made about interrelations with the VCS over the course of the pandemic, which seemed to me to be positive and were led by the lead government department for the VCS.

In terms of RED’s engagement with the VCS, as I’ve said the national engagement in the LRFs chairs forum has been the principal one, and we have looked across the sector at how people are engaging with the VCS to see if we can learn any lessons or take any cues from that. We haven’t yet moved forward with the work.

Counsel Inquiry: Because if RED is expecting to be able to rely upon the British Red Cross and other organisations within the VCS, in the event of a response to a civil emergency, that is likely to make more of an impact if the VCS has also been engaged in the preparation, isn’t it?

Ms Catherine Frances: RED is asking local responders but RED is acting as a communicator between central and local government and structures. RED is asking that local responders who are responsible in legislation are content that they have plans, and the Cabinet Office guidance, which is very sensible, expects LRFs to have good connections with the VCS. I completely agree that good connections with the VCS is a vital part of the mixture, part of the recipe of good response and good planning. I’m not sure I can go very much beyond that.

Counsel Inquiry: All right.

Ms Catherine Frances: Our recent publications on this express a desire to integrate preparedness and response more closely with communities, which of course is in part about the VCS, though not entirely.

Ms Blackwell: Thank you very much.

Would you excuse my back, please?

(Pause)

Ms Blackwell: My Lady, there are no questions for which permission has been granted, and so that concludes Ms Frances’s evidence.

Lady Hallett: I think we have all had enough acronyms for one day.

The Witness: I’m sorry about that.

Lady Hallett: It’s not your fault, I’m afraid it’s systemic.

The Witness: Yes.

Lady Hallett: If only it was enough acronyms for a lifetime, but I fear it’s not.

Thank you very much indeed for your help, Ms Frances.

The Witness: Thank you.

(The witness withdrew)

Lady Hallett: Right, as far as next week is concerned, obviously we’re not sitting tomorrow, it’s a Friday, we don’t normally sit on a Friday. We had hoped to sit Monday morning but for various reasons it hasn’t proved possible, so I will next sit again at 2 o’clock, Monday afternoon.

Ms Blackwell: Thank you, my Lady.

Lady Hallett: Thank you.

(3.07 pm)

(The hearing adjourned until 2 pm on Monday, 3 July 2023)