I have watched from afar, as it were, purely as an innocent bystander, the threads about apparent breaches of just about every Article of the FSO possible at the CLG HQ, Eland House.
Ever since I read the Enforcement Notice, or rather read about it, a conundrum has occurred to me and causes me to toss and turn at night. It is one of those conundrums....well has anyone ever followed what appear to be an inexorable sequence of steps in a logical order and you find that the last step shows the earth is flat when you know full well it is round, but then, when you retrace your steps, you cant find the flaw in the logic?
Well, this conundrum is a bit like that, and I will try to set it out logically in the hope that my sleep can be resumed by identification of the flawed step by someone much wiser than I.
1. It is said that the Notice cites a contravention of Article 18, which, as we know, requires the RP to nominate someone to assist him in (in short) compliance with the FSO. If the RP has a competent person in his employment it must be that person who is appointed, rather than a third party, such as a consultant. Indeed, it is said that the Notice cites not just breaches of the FSO at Eland House but a lack of ownership of fire safety management across the CLG Estate.
2.The RP would be the employer of people who work in the building so that would be the CLG. The boss of the CLG would be the Secretary of State, and that is consistent with the fact that it was on the S0S that the Notice was served.
3. By all accounts the Notice was not challenged. Indeed it is said that the CLG accept the recommendations of the Notice.
4. Now that would mean that they accept the contravention of Article 18 and that, therefore, the Secretary of State had no competent person in his employment (or otherwise) to advise him on compliance with the FSO.
But surely that cant be right can it?? I would never even suggest such a thing personally, and yet my (somehow flawed) logic would lead to such an incorrect conclusion, for it is what the CPIG wallah seems to say and that the CLG accept.
When I get to that point I always start again,,,,so the RP is the CLG and the SoS has the notice served on him.....Nope still can't find the flaw even though I know in my heart of hearts there is one.
On the other hand if the poor old Secretary has no one competent in his employment to advise him (which I say again is not my personal belief of course), he can use outside consultants and, in this connection, Minister, I am ready and willing to assist England's Queen and country, pending my forced repatriation to Scotland.
