Butler & Young Lift Consultants Ltd Evidence - Thursday 15th July 2021 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:41 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear evidence from two people who were involved in the original refurbishment of the list at grenfell tower

00:00:53 grenfell tower yes mr clear so america's stephen alice good thank you

00:01:06 good morning mr morning sir i gather you're going to make the affirmation it's there on the screen in front of you if you'd read it out please i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm

00:01:17 declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth good thank you very much indeed now do sit down thank you make yourself comfortable

00:01:30 that's it get yourself some water

00:01:37 right yes thanks sir um first of all would you mind confirming your name for the record stephen ellis thank you good morning mr ellis thank you for attending today um before we start there's three things

00:01:49 um before we start there's three things i should say first of all if at any time during your examination you require a break that's not a problem just say so secondly if at any time my questions are unclear

00:01:59 unclear or too long please say so and i'll just and i'll try to shorten it make them clearer

00:02:05 clearer and thirdly it's really important if you keep your voice up uh during the time you're giving evidence so that the shorthand writer can capture everything and also please don't nod or shake your head just say yes or no as the case may

00:02:17 head just say yes or no as the case may be

00:02:17 be yes now you've given two statements to this inquiry the first one we can find at but quadruple zero double zero

00:02:25 zero four zero and is dated the 23rd of september

00:02:29 september 2019. is that it yes it is and also note you provide a number of exhibits

00:02:35 exhibits which can be found at but treble 0-0-3-9 we don't need to go to them your second statement

00:02:43 statement can be found at b-u-t quadruple 0-0-5 and is dated the eighth of june uh 2021 is that it yes that is it

00:02:54 june uh 2021 is that it yes that is it and you provide an exhibit to that which is sbe 12 which can be found at but trouble zero trouble zero five three we don't need to go to it though um have you read those deep statements recently i have i know their content is

00:03:05 recently i have i know their content is true

00:03:06 true yes they are have you discussed your evidence with anyone before coming here today

00:03:12 today no but when i was first contacted by the inquiry

00:03:15 inquiry i did discuss uh the project with some of my former colleagues to ascertain memory really that what we could remember and what we couldn't remember about it and thank you one of the colleagues you contacted was

00:03:27 one of the colleagues you contacted was mr ian morehouse is that right it was and in his first statement we don't

00:03:31 don't need to go to it but the reference is a but quadruple zero double zero two three he states that paragraph a one this on receipt of the email from the inquiry

00:03:42 receipt of the email from the inquiry with the passage of time and events in my life i had no recall or recollection of the project and i've since been totally reliant on butter and young documentation on disc and also my former colleague s ellis whilst investigating the issues and

00:03:54 whilst investigating the issues and responding thereof can you help us what discussions did you have with mr morehouse regarding the project at grenfell the project in general term surf really um just what it was when it was

00:04:06 um just what it was when it was it was so long ago we've been retired a long time

00:04:10 long time um he more than me but that was really just to establish the what when and why of the of the scheme thank you and did you keep any handwritten notes in relation to

00:04:21 any handwritten notes in relation to your involvement in the grenfell project no sir now can i first of all look at your background your training experience and qualifications

00:04:32 experience and qualifications and hopefully you provided a cv uh which can be found at but treble zero trouble zero four one we don't need to go to it but is it right that you worked at otis elevator company from 1965 to 1988

00:04:46 elevator company from 1965 to 1988 as an apprentice and then a sales engineer as an apprentice then uh an installation engineer and then a test engineer and then a sales engineer and then you

00:04:57 and then a sales engineer and then you worked at m e design services from 1988 to 1993 as an associate lift consultant yes and then after that you worked at pickering lifts from 93 to 94 as a sales engineer yes

00:05:10 from 93 to 94 as a sales engineer yes sir

00:05:10 sir and then from 1995 until your retirement in 2014

00:05:15 in 2014 you worked as an associate engineer at butler and young is that right yes sir and that there you were a lift consultant with responsibility for all aspects of lift contracts from design

00:05:26 aspects of lift contracts from design development project management and commissioning is that right that's correct and that you carried out project management at the barbican estate

00:05:33 estate and rbkc lift refurbishments yes sir thanks others now in terms of your qualifications um have i summarized them correctly first of all you have an hnc in electrical and electronic engineering

00:05:46 in electrical and electronic engineering yes sir

00:05:47 yes sir you also have an hnc endorsement in computer engineering is that right that's correct sir and hnd endorsements in

00:05:54 in electronics and mathematics yes sir uh you're a member of the international association of elevator engineers or was and uh are you or were you a member of the chartered institution of

00:06:05 member of the chartered institution of building services engineers no sir never got there

00:06:09 got there now if we can look at your training and particularly your training in relation to

00:06:14 to the standards that were applicable to lifts at the time of the list project at grenfell now did you receive any training on the british or european standards

00:06:22 standards relating to lifts uh not specific training no did you receive anything in terms of general awareness of the existence of the standards

00:06:33 the standards oh yes we were working with the standards in those days so um would it be fair to assume therefore that in the period with which we're concerned so 2003 2004 uh you received no training on

00:06:46 2003 2004 uh you received no training on the principles and requirements of british standard double five double eight dash five ninety one uh which concerned five precautions in the design construction of use of buildings part five code of practice for

00:06:57 part five code of practice for firefighting stairs and lifts no specific training would you nonetheless have described yourself as familiar with the requirements of bs uh double five double eight dash five

00:07:09 uh double five double eight dash five yes i would in those days yes and did you have ready access uh to the uh british standard itself yes sir would you have had a copy

00:07:20 yes sir would you have had a copy a hard copy with you or is it available on

00:07:24 other archive resources at butler and young

00:07:28 i haven't got a copy with me no no at the time

00:07:32 the time oh yes there were there were copies uh hard copies at the office of butler and young at that time um is it fair therefore to assume that you'd receive no training on the principles and requirements of bs

00:07:43 principles and requirements of bs en 81-72 2003 which concerns safety rules for the construction installation of lifts and particular applications for passenger and goods passenger lifts

00:07:54 passenger and goods passenger lifts firefighter lifts no specific training external training now uh but nonetheless would you have described yourself as familiar with the requirements of uh bs en 8172 2003

00:08:05 uh bs en 8172 2003 at that time yes and again would you have had ready access to the to the standard itself yes um would it be also fair to assume that you'd receive no training on the

00:08:17 you'd receive no training on the substantive changes that were brought in uh in november 2004 to british standard double five double eight five yes that would be correct nonetheless

00:08:28 yes that would be correct nonetheless would you have described yourself as familiar with the changes that were brought in by that revision in november 2004 yes i was at the time

00:08:38 again would you have had ready access to the revised uh british standard double five double eight-five yes um would it be fair to assume given your previous answers that you received

00:08:49 your previous answers that you received no training on the substance of approved document b the 2000 edition in so far in so far as it related to lifts document b i'm sorry can you have you ever heard of

00:09:00 i'm sorry can you have you ever heard of it uh i can't recall document

00:09:07 and but you've never had cause to examine it as far as i'm aware now well it's just in case it prompts your memory you may know that the secretary of state issues guidance in

00:09:19 secretary of state issues guidance in relation to compliance with the building regulations and they're called approved documents does that ring any bells the one in particular we're interested in is approved document b

00:09:31 in is approved document b i must admit it's not familiar to me no thank you right right in relation to firefighting lifts did you receive any specific training at all on the design requirements of a firefighting lift

00:09:43 lift uh no not not specific training i'd been used to dealing with firefighting english since the med emini design days that was uh so you wouldn't have received any

00:09:54 so you wouldn't have received any specific training on for example the purposes and functions of a firefighting lift

00:09:59 lift not specific training um is it fair to say then

00:10:02 say then that your knowledge of the relevant standards was derived from practice and experience rather than specific training yes sir including

00:10:11 including can i now um turn to your specific position

00:10:14 position and responsibilities of butler and young now as we've dealt with before you're employed as an associate between 95 and 2004

00:10:23 2004 and your cv states that you are a lift consultant responsible for all aspects of lift contracts from design all the way through to commissioning now generally speaking would that role involve you advising clients on the

00:10:34 involve you advising clients on the types of lift that were required for the buildings that they were concerned with yes it would on occasion now where regulations did not expressly require a building to have a firefighting lift

00:10:46 a building to have a firefighting lift but would but nonetheless it would be good

00:10:48 good industry practice to install a firefighting lift for example uh would butler and young advise the client accordingly that they certainly would have advised the client of the existence of the

00:10:59 the client of the existence of the standard

00:11:01 standard and the implications of the standard and so would it be uh fair to assume that but young would advise clients as to whether and in what circumstances

00:11:12 as to whether and in what circumstances it was reasonably practical to install a firefighting lift for example yes it would and had you ever had occasion yourself to provide such advice to clients

00:11:25 i i believe so but i can't really recall at what time would butler and young be involved in the design of lyfts generally speaking uh

00:11:37 generally speaking uh in when you say design the design of the scheme yes yes the design of the scheme would be our responsibility

00:11:48 be our responsibility and the design of the lift car itself yes would you yourself have had the requisite knowledge and expertise and experience to have designed um for example a firefighting lift yes

00:12:01 um for example a firefighting lift yes sir

00:12:03 sir and would you have felt yourself competent to design or to draft the specification for a firefighting lift yes sir um dealing with your previous high-rise

00:12:14 um dealing with your previous high-rise residential building experience um before the grenfell project in 2003 what other experience did you have of lift projects in high-rise residential buildings

00:12:24 buildings um

00:12:32 some of the states in wandsworth or anna state in onesworth

00:12:41 and one in birmingham

00:12:47 and those are the two previous experiences spring to mind they spring to mind there probably were others but they spring to mind can you remember whether either or both of those projects involved upgrading lifts existing lifts to

00:13:00 upgrading lifts existing lifts to firefighting lifts no they didn't

00:13:04 have you ever been involved or were you involved before you retired in 2014 in a project that involved upgrading existing lifts to firefighting lyft standard no

00:13:17 now can i um now turn to the relationship between rbkc the tmo and apex now your cv states as we've touched on that you're involved in project management of the barbican estate and rbkc

00:13:29 estate and rbkc lift refurbishment and in your second statement we don't need to go to it but the reference is but trouble zero trouble zero double five forward slash two

00:13:40 forward slash two you notice that you carried out several projects for rbkc and the tmo including the 2001 refurbishment of passenger lifts at broadwood terrace and chesterton square and in 2003 the refurbishment of

00:13:53 square and in 2003 the refurbishment of 12 passenger lifts in kensington town hall as well as a refurbishment in 2007 of one lift at the chelsea old town hall did any of those projects involve high-rise buildings

00:14:06 high-rise buildings no sir they didn't in your experience did staff at the tmo have professional knowledge of lifts the design and the regulatory requirements yes they did

00:14:20 and in your conversations with them was it clear

00:14:23 it clear uh that the individuals concerned had sufficient knowledge of the british and european standards that apply to lifts yes with whom did you deal with at the tmo who had

00:14:34 tmo who had that experience uh david steppel principally and roman kalan to a lesser degree uh by a lesser degree do you mean your

00:14:46 uh by a lesser degree do you mean your involvement with with mr kalan was to a lesser extent than that with mr steppel are you saying that his knowledge was less i i think i i believe his knowledge was less yeah i

00:14:57 i believe his knowledge was less yeah i think david steppel was very knowledgeable

00:15:01 um had butler and young worked with apex before the grenfell tower lift project yes sir can you give us an idea how many times in broad terms or if you prefer to

00:15:12 times in broad terms or if you prefer to say

00:15:13 say regularly frequently or early as the case may be fairly frequently they were one of our selected

00:15:22 selected tenderers and contractors i appreciate you're a long time retired now but can you remember how many of the projects upon which work was done with

00:15:33 projects upon which work was done with apex involved high-rise residential

00:15:38 buildings only that one i think now can i turn to firefighting lifts and the relevant standards um now given your previous answer you may

00:15:51 now given your previous answer you may not have seen this before but could we go to approve document b section 18 11 which can be found at bre quadruple zero five three nine one

00:16:03 quadruple zero five three nine one forward slash one one zero

00:16:11 and now if we look on the right hand column just below the halfway point you'll see section eighteen point eleven and that states that firefighting shafts should be designed constructed and

00:16:23 should be designed constructed and installed in accordance with the recommendations of british standard double 558-5 1991 even if you had not seen the proved document b before

00:16:34 document b before were you aware of that requirement yes was that requirement well known in the industry to the best of your recollection uh yes it would be i i would imagine

00:16:46 uh yes it would be i i would imagine now can i turn to bs5508-5 it has a somewhat long title which just for the record is fire precautions in the design construction use of buildings part 5 code of practice for firefighting

00:16:58 part 5 code of practice for firefighting stairs and lifts and if we go to bsi quadruple one seven two

00:17:04 two one

00:17:07 now this was published in august 1991 and as its title suggests it's a code of practice

00:17:13 practice if we can go to page seven within this document

00:17:17 document and section one clause one there we go at the top left hand side you'll see under the heading scope it says this this code of practice provides guidance for designers in providing firefighting

00:17:29 for designers in providing firefighting stairs and lifts to assist the fire service in firefighting operations was that a document to which you had regard or reference during the course of the work at grenfell

00:17:44 um that scope part is not something we would have adhered to in the in the in the grenfell tower inquiry um

00:17:55 in the in the grenfell tower inquiry um project but why is it not something to which you would have adhered for the grenfell

00:18:01 grenfell lift project

00:18:04 because it was agreed that the lifts would

00:18:08 would not be firefighting but would be remain as fireman's lifts from the discussions with david steppel and john rogers okay we'll come on to that in due course

00:18:19 now if we can stay on this page for the moment

00:18:23 moment and look at clause 2.10 there we go it's on the right hand side under the heading firefighting lift which is designed the defined thus a

00:18:35 which is designed the defined thus a lift designated have additional protection with controls that enable it to be used under the direct control of the fire service in fighting a fire and note the fire fighting lift is the

00:18:47 and note the fire fighting lift is the development of the type of lift known as a fireman's lift although existing fireman's lift installations may be replaced

00:18:53 replaced fireman's lift should not be used in new installations only left complying with this code of practice can be designated firefighting lifts

00:19:01 lifts were you familiar with that definition yes yes sir can you help us what is the difference between

00:19:08 between a fireman's lift and a firefighting lift well the firefighting lift

00:19:17 has all the attributes that are described in this standard and that i described in my witness statement of

00:19:24 of the second witness statement so the fireman's lift was notably just had to be conformed to dimensional

00:19:35 had to be conformed to dimensional requirements and have a switch at the fire service access level which would be turned over and isolate the lift for

00:19:46 and isolate the lift for use by firefighters but the control module of that um lift would be something akin to

00:19:57 um lift would be something akin to what they call car preference control and not the more sophisticated control that

00:20:02 that was included in the 558 thank you and if we can stay on this page and look uh on the stay on the right hand column and look at section 2.12

00:20:11 2.12 it defines a firefighting shaft thus a protected enclosure containing a firefighting stair firefighting lobbies and it provided a firefighting lift together with its

00:20:22 firefighting lift together with its machine room we familiar with that definition yes yes sir

00:20:26 sir and if we could now turn to page 10 within this document

00:20:33 and if we can look at the bottom right hand corner at clause 3.6 or part 3.6 which is a headed provision and number of firefighting

00:20:44 of firefighting shafts and it says this and i quote the criteria

00:20:47 criteria for the provision and number of fire fighting shafts and many building types are given either in building regulations or in the relevant part of bs5508 however when no such guidance is

00:20:58 however when no such guidance is available the provision and number of firefighting shafts should be based on the following a buildings or parts of buildings where one

00:21:07 one the height of the surface of the floor of the topmost story excluding any story consisting exclusively of plant rooms exceeds 15 meters now stopping there would you accept that at least according

00:21:19 would you accept that at least according to bs55085 if a new building is built the advice should be

00:21:25 should be that it should have a firefighting shaft which would include a firefighting lift yes and the rationale for including a firefighting lift is uh simply this that it would assist

00:21:37 uh simply this that it would assist evacuation and firefighting efforts in the event of a fire firefighting effort so i'm not so sure about um evacuation i think that's a different

00:21:46 different case but certainly firefighting effort certainly firefighting now in your second statement at paragraph 17 and we don't need to go to it but the reference is but quadruple zero

00:21:57 reference is but quadruple zero double zero double five forward slash seventeen

00:22:01 seventeen you state that the view at the time of project one one project you're involved in was that when refurbishing lifts compliance with bs5508

00:22:10 bs5508 was not mandatory however in terms of existing buildings the rationale for installing a fire lift would

00:22:18 would sorry you say that now however in terms of existing buildings the rationale for installing a firefighting lift would equally apply to an existing building wouldn't it i.e it would assist firefighting efforts

00:22:29 i.e it would assist firefighting efforts in the event of a fire

00:22:33 um the problem with that is that to call the lift a firefighting lift you have to comply with this standard or the latest

00:22:44 comply with this standard or the latest standard

00:22:45 standard in every aspect otherwise you cannot call it a firefighting lift um that's been one of the problems i could go on a little bit if you like but no it's really the central point being

00:22:57 no it's really the central point being that um

00:22:58 that um you have a very good or a sound safety reason

00:23:03 reason for where you the opportunity arises for installing a firefighting lift insofar as it's reasonably practical to do so which is to enhance or to improve the prospects of firefighting efforts in the

00:23:14 prospects of firefighting efforts in the event of a fire that rationale exists whether it's an existing building or a new building would you accept that as a proposition yes i'll accept that as a proposition

00:23:28 so would it follow and please say if you disagree with this would it follow that even though british standard

00:23:35 standard double 5585 does not expressly say whether lifts installed an existing tall building should be upgraded to a firefighting lift there would be a very sound safety rationale for doing so

00:23:46 very sound safety rationale for doing so i.e enhancing the prospects of firefighting efforts in the event of a fire

00:23:51 fire i can't really say on that it's it's difficult to evaluate a set of circumstances where you can't

00:24:03 a set of circumstances where you can't comply with the whole standard and can't call the lifter firefighting lift what i would say is that the building that we were reviewing the tmo and

00:24:16 that we were reviewing the tmo and ourselves

00:24:16 ourselves in 2003 was a very different edifice to what it became in that it was recognized to be fire secure with very

00:24:28 recognized to be fire secure with very little risk of fire spreading from flat to flat let alone floor the floor

00:24:34 floor and that the application of the fireman's lift as it was would be more than an adequate tool and i think the suggestion being

00:24:45 the suggestion being made mr ellis is that if it were possible

00:24:49 possible given the physical limitations of the building but if it were possible to replace fireman's lifts with fire fighting lifts there would be a

00:25:01 fire fighting lifts there would be a good safety reason for doing that if that could be completely achieved yes

00:25:08 could we turn on to a different standard now which is bs en 8172 2003 and if we go to bsi quadruple zero one seven two five

00:25:22 mr can i apologize there's some slightly odd noise off which i think have you seen that probably he's got a crackling noise from something over in that sort of corner of the room it is it's subject to investigation

00:25:33 it is it's subject to investigation because i've seen mrs brooks leave the room so i suppose right now it's just to apologize to mr ellis that there's noises off sorry about that mr ellis we'll see if we can get it sorted out but

00:25:42 out but um i'm used to noises officer now we've got the um the standard up there it's um as you've indicated you're familiar with its requirements now it's published on the

00:25:53 requirements now it's published on the 22nd of july 2003 if we could go to page seven within this standard and again uh section one which defines scope in a particular 1.2

00:26:06 scope in a particular 1.2 now you can see there in the second and third dash points under 1.2 that the standard says it does not apply to lifts installed in existing buildings

00:26:19 to lifts installed in existing buildings or to important modifications to existing lifts installed before the publication the standard and it goes on to state that quotes however the standard may usefully be used

00:26:29 be used as a basis and that says that at the end of clause 1.2 would it therefore follow that this standard could provide a basis for the design and requirements of a firefighting lift in an existing

00:26:41 of a firefighting lift in an existing building

00:26:43 building it could could i turn now to a separate standard which is bs5508 2004 so the revision of the original

00:26:54 2004 so the revision of the original standard which can be found at bsi quadruple 0-1723

00:27:03 there we go you've already indicated that we were familiar with its requirements it was published on the 22nd of november 2004

00:27:10 2004 and obviously by that point uh the liv project at grenfell had started is that right

00:27:14 right uh sorry the date was 26th of november 2004.

00:27:19 2004. it had started in the sense of offsite hadn't started on site at that time if we could go to page 18 within this document

00:27:27 document and the very bottom of that page if possible

00:27:31 possible and we see there at the bottom clause clause 7 firefighting facilities 7.1 firefighting shafts and 7.1.1 provision of firefighting shafts the standard says this

00:27:43 standard says this and i quote firefighting shafts should be provided in tall buildings buildings with deep basements and buildings with large floor areas and if we could hold that in mind but turn over the page

00:27:54 turn over the page we should see table 4

00:27:59 which is subtitled provision of fire fighting

00:28:03 fighting shafts and in the top row on the left hand side

00:28:07 hand side it says this buildings or parts of buildings were the height of the surface of the floor of the topmost story excluding any story consisting entirely of plant rooms exceeds 18 meters should be provided

00:28:20 exceeds 18 meters should be provided with fire fighting stare firefighting lobbies provided with a fire main firefighting lift installation now would you agree and please say if you do not that it is

00:28:31 and please say if you do not that it is clear from this standard that new tall buildings i.e new buildings over 18 meters should have a firefighting lift yes sir and would you agree that the

00:28:42 yes sir and would you agree that the rationale for installing a firefighting lift

00:28:44 lift would apply equally to an existing building too i.e that facilitated the work of firefighters in the event of a fire

00:28:55 it's a difficult one to answer it's it's not a thing that was the industry standard at the time to to concern

00:29:06 to concern the design with with changing what was there in that sense now if we could look at that a bit further what what where you do have a building such as

00:29:17 where you do have a building such as grenfell where you had an existing building you had existing lifts

00:29:23 lifts are you saying that the industry approach would have been not to enhance the existing lift facilities at all i think in most cases that would

00:29:34 at all i think in most cases that would be true

00:29:36 be true again we come back to this if you unless you do everything you can't call it a firefighting lift so it can be

00:29:44 can be there is a theory that it can be confusing there are some publications that have said if you cherry-pick certain things uh that are appended to a fire fireman's lift

00:29:57 are appended to a fire fireman's lift but not making it a firefight it actually causes confusion um to the fire service and they're better off knowing that it's either a firefighting lift or it's a fireman's lift

00:30:09 it's a fireman's lift well they haven't got one at all i hope i don't put this too crudely but was a was it an all-or-nothing approach therefore that was adopted if you couldn't provide all the features of a firefighting lift you simply didn't do it

00:30:20 do it and kept the lifts as they were yeah yes that was that was basically it and although we'll come on to this and apologies probably straying away from the standards at this point was that the attitude that mr steppel

00:30:32 was that the attitude that mr steppel took when this question on your evidence was discussed in may 2003 or thereabouts yes as i remember that is exactly what it was and did he was he the one who volunteered that view

00:30:44 was he the one who volunteered that view or was that view uh prompted by discussion with yourselves and others at butwin young no that was his view that was very definitely david's view you say very definitely his view uh

00:30:56 you say very definitely his view uh was it in the manner of an instruction or a direction or was there some discussion of the point there was discussion but in the end it was a direction from david

00:31:08 now apologies for straying uh into that conversation but we'll come on to it in more detail later but i thought it was useful there to deal with it could i stay on the technical side of matters and look at the requirements of

00:31:20 matters and look at the requirements of a firefighting lift and really exactly what was required for a lift to be classified as a firefighting lift uh in accordance with the uh the relevant standards now

00:31:32 the relevant standards now if i summarize matters incorrectly please shout okay but um am i right in understanding first of all the standards require first of all a lift car certain dimensions material of limited

00:31:44 certain dimensions material of limited combustibility and it must run its course in one minute yes secondly it should have a lift car trapdoor

00:31:52 trapdoor so that an individual trapped inside could escape that is part of the standard certainly yes

00:31:58 yes water protection to protect the insulation from water which might enter during a firefighting operation yes two methods are required i think for my memory but in broad terms i've

00:32:11 for my memory but in broad terms i've summarized it yes indeed fourthly a fire control switch an associated system is required

00:32:17 required to bring the lift under the control of firefighters when required yes fifthly a fire service communication system an intercom yes uh a secondary power supply

00:32:30 yes uh a secondary power supply yes now if we can look at certain specific

00:32:35 specific elements of those requirements in particular the fire control switch and if for that purpose we could go to bsi quadruple zero one seven two eight

00:32:47 now this is not a standard we've looked at yet but it's another british standard it's

00:32:52 it's five six double five dash eleven eighty 1989 and it concerns as it sets out there

00:32:58 out there are the engineering and safety features to be incorporated when modernizing electric

00:33:02 electric lifts and if we could go to page five within this document and the very bottom or rather you see there on the right hand column 2.4

00:33:13 hand column 2.4 modernization by alteration existing installations apologies the word existing is obliterated by the watermark

00:33:22 watermark and if we could turn over the page to page six

00:33:27 we see at the

00:33:30 very top left hand corner it says this where the controller of a fireman's lift is changed the control system should comply with bs5508 part 5.

00:33:42 bs5508 part 5. this does not however imply compliance with all other requirements in that standard for a firefighting lift especially with regard to the structural uh

00:33:52 uh enclosure now am i right in understanding that that meant that any new fire control system should comply with double 588-5 yes and that applied irrespective of

00:34:05 yes and that applied irrespective of whether the works were a modernization or an installation of a new lift yes and there's no caveat anywhere in the standard otherwise no i don't believe so

00:34:16 standard otherwise no i don't believe so now could i draw the various strands we've been discussing together and please shout if i've got anything wrong or you feel is too crudely summarized first of all

00:34:27 is too crudely summarized first of all at the time of project one in your view did the relevant standards or any other legislation or guidance require the installation of firefighting lifts in new buildings no are we new buildings new buildings

00:34:39 no are we new buildings new buildings yes

00:34:40 yes secondly at the time of project one in your view

00:34:44 your view did the relevant standards or any other legislation or guidance require the installation of firefighting lifts in existing buildings no they did not did you consider that it

00:34:55 no they did not did you consider that it was

00:34:55 was industry good practice to at least consider

00:35:00 consider development and the design stage whether as many of the features of a full firefighting lift could be installed in existing tall buildings such as grenfell no we do not

00:35:18 is your evidence that as a matter of industry experience there would have been no consideration of such additional features maybe not all of them of a firefighting lift that

00:35:31 all of them of a firefighting lift that could be

00:35:32 could be incorporated so as to enhance the safety profile of the relevant lift it didn't seem to be well it wasn't an industry

00:35:40 industry typical standard it was the industry would either completely convert or install in new buildings a

00:35:51 or install in new buildings a firefighting lift or refurbishment would be just a repetition of the fireman's list now one of the points which i should put to you in in light of that evidence is

00:36:02 to you in in light of that evidence is that

00:36:02 that you're aware that the inquiry has retained its own lift expert mr roger howkins yes and that um if we go to his report it can be found at rho quadruple zero treble zero three

00:36:16 quadruple zero treble zero three forward slash one one eight and paragraph 248 and he says this in the opening sentence regardless of whether the lifts

00:36:28 sentence regardless of whether the lifts were considered new or modernized good practice would have been to consider if the lifts could be fully upgraded to the firefighting standard so far as was reasonably practicable

00:36:39 was reasonably practicable now is it fair to say that you disagree with that conclusion mr hawkins for the reasons you've just given yes i do

00:36:51 can i now turn to a separate topic which is the scale of the project at grenfell with which you were involved and for this purpose could i ask you to go to your first statement which can be found at but quadruple i'm

00:37:04 which can be found at but quadruple i'm sorry to introduce i think if i've understood you correctly mr ellis what you're saying is whether mr hawkins or anyone else would regard

00:37:16 mr hawkins or anyone else would regard it as good practice the industry didn't do it

00:37:19 do it it wasn't industry practice it wasn't in generally industry practice so now yeah all right thank you sorry thank you um

00:37:27 um so we're about to go to um your first statement but quadruple zero double zero four zero forward slash four

00:37:38 forward slash four and paragraph a 12 a which is three down three rows down from the top of the page and you say this butter and young did not consider the two refurbished lifts as new lifts

00:37:49 two refurbished lifts as new lifts significant equipment was retained now at paragraph 14 of your second statement which can be found at but treble zero treble zero double five forward slash

00:38:02 treble zero double five forward slash five

00:38:06 you say this that butter and young considered that the two passenger lifts at grenfell tower comprised a refurbishment because significant equipment was retained this retained equipment included guide rails guide bracketry

00:38:19 included guide rails guide bracketry counterweight and landing back boxes from recollection the term refurbishment was employed on every document throughout the project close quotes now probably useful to go to this could we

00:38:32 probably useful to go to this could we go to paragraph 223 of mr hawkins report which can be found at rho treble zero quadruple zero three forward slash one one

00:38:44 three forward slash one one one

00:38:49 and he says there that um when he quotes out the section of uh five six double five 11 2005 in which a new lift is defined as either where the lift is totally replaced

00:39:00 the lift is totally replaced or where only the guide rails are retained would you agree that that is the appropriate definition of a new lift to be uh deployed here sorry can i yes of course do that again

00:39:11 course do that again yeah if you look at i'll let you read paragraph 223 and this is mr hawkins report i'll just let you read that

00:39:37 yeah i understand that yeah and would you accept that is the definition of a new lift that was relevant here yes i would accept that

00:39:49 yes i would accept that now bearing in mind that definition can we look at what work was done to the lifts at grenfell tower and see whether and if so to what extent it satisfies that definition

00:40:00 that definition now the project required the replacement of

00:40:03 of amongst other things the complete lift car would you agree yes it did the counterweight i'm not sure

00:40:10 sure the counterweight i can't remember they apex in their returns claimed they were going to retain counterweight um the castling and platform uh that was replaced

00:40:21 replaced safety gear yes door operator yes car doors yes landing doors yes the landing control system

00:40:33 system by that you mean the uh when you say land in control system you mean the push buttons yes yes uh lift pit buffers

00:40:45 yes uh lift pit buffers yes electrical wiring

00:40:50 mostly i think yes uh the lift controller yes uh and the lift motor gearbox yes so i think the only doubt you entertained there was over the

00:41:01 entertained there was over the counterweights is that a fair summary and the landing back boxes which were retained

00:41:09 now i'm just following on from that um if we could turn to the specification which we'll discuss in further detail in due course uh if we go to but treble zero trouble zero double four

00:41:21 treble zero trouble zero double four four slash twelve and paragraph one point three point one

00:41:29 uh now it's summarized there the retained equipment has been essentially two fold first of all guides and single riser of car guide brackets and landing back boxes

00:41:41 and landing back boxes is that a first summary of what was retained that's what we suggested would be retained in the uh in the specification yes and am i right in understanding that

00:41:52 understanding that even though the car guides were retained they were

00:41:55 they were relocated to accommodate a larger car sizes yes they were so certainly from the lay perspective it would appear that the vast majority

00:42:07 it would appear that the vast majority of the component parts of the lifts were actually replaced as part of project one as would you accept that proposition yes i would would you therefore accept and please shout if you do not that the

00:42:20 and please shout if you do not that the lifts ought to have been considered as new lifts bearing in mind the definition we looked at earlier um i do i didn't think so and can you help us as to why you didn't think so

00:42:31 help us as to why you didn't think so given the scale of the change to the lift apparatus i always regarded it as a refurbishment if the counterweight was retained and the

00:42:41 the and the guides and the bracketry and the landing back boxes that was in my opinion a sensible definition of a refurbishment and when you were looking at what the definition of a refurbishment

00:42:53 definition of a refurbishment was is it fair to assume that you wouldn't have gone back to the relevant standards to see what the

00:43:03 what the regulatory definition of a new left was no i probably didn't and you would have relied upon your own expertise and experience in the field i would thank you

00:43:16 given the extent of the change to the if i can call it the lift apparatus

00:43:23 apparatus would you accept that there was the possibility of an opportunity to upgrade the lifts and make modifications so they had more of the features of a firefighting lift

00:43:36 firefighting lift it might have been considered early on but

00:43:39 but as we've already said that the the discussions were with the tmo went differently

00:43:49 just following on from that just for the sake of completeness given the scale of the works

00:43:54 the works given their duration i think given the contract value was 631 000 pounds odd would you've approached this project as being a major project

00:44:06 being a major project oh yes certainly would that have been another factor which went into the mix to consider whether these lifts were new or not and therefore whether their

00:44:17 or not and therefore whether their capacity or their capability capability should be enhanced um no i don't think so and by that you're saying you didn't view it in that way no i didn't do it

00:44:30 view it in that way no i didn't do it now if i can now turn to button young's initial involvement with the lift project and first of all the project brief itself now in or about august 2002 the tmo produced a project brief for the

00:44:42 produced a project brief for the potential lift consultants for the lift works at grenfell and if we can go to tmo double zero eight five three 783

00:44:53 hopefully we see that document

00:45:03 but we do not we do it on that tonight email well let's see um if we can go to um tmo double zero eight five three seven eight three four twelve

00:45:20 better luck that time have you seen that before only recently so we can take it that you did not see it in 2002 304 i did not i certainly can't remember

00:45:31 304 i did not i certainly can't remember seeing it in that time and that was assumingly seen during the fee tender process okay if we can go back to page one in this document please

00:45:44 and i get sorry page two

00:45:49 that front page is fairly nondescript does that prompt any memories as to whether you saw that before or not stated 27th of august 2002. now given

00:46:00 stated 27th of august 2002. now given that you hadn't seen the client brief before

00:46:03 before on what basis were you informed about what the tmo wanted the potential lift consultants to do for them

00:46:13 um

00:46:17 that would only have been derived from the project brief meeting that took place in i believe march 2003 were you given anything in writing at the time can you remember

00:46:28 the time can you remember no and so it's solely on the basis of verbal instructions uh yes i'd as i say until recently i've not seen that brief i've seen it now

00:46:39 not seen that brief i've seen it now i've seen it in recent weeks but not i didn't see it at the time given that this was a major project was it unusual in your experience for there not to be a written document from the client

00:46:52 to be a written document from the client setting out its instructions and expectations i yeah i would say that's true so it was unusual no sorry i mean it would be usual for usual

00:47:04 would be usual for usual for that to be presented to the tendering

00:47:07 tendering consultant now notwithstanding what you've said could we go back to page 12 in this document

00:47:18 and we see there paragraph 1.1 tmo and the lancaster way to west estate management board require a condition and feasibility report on the two traction passenger lifts

00:47:29 on the two traction passenger lifts serving grenfell tower and the single hydraulic passenger lift serving the adjacent offices now bearing in mind that you haven't seen this before can you remember whether the

00:47:41 this before can you remember whether the feasibility report was intended to address matters such as cost length of project and the building design yes they were and so you were aware of the request for a feasibility report yes indeed

00:47:52 a feasibility report yes indeed now the next sentence of the first of that section says this the report shall address the client's concerns in respect to the immediate and medium-term maintenance viability of the existing installations given the

00:48:04 of the existing installations given the current levels of failures availability of replacement parts compliance to latest british standards and energy conservation now looking at the last element of that

00:48:15 now looking at the last element of that quotation which concerns compliance of british standards did you discuss with the tmo which particular british standards were likely to apply to the project

00:48:26 i can't recall to be absolutely honest whether that particular bit was discussed looking at it more broadly was it your normal practice to advise clients on what the relevant

00:48:38 clients on what the relevant regulatory requirements were when consideration considering works to existing lifts yes so is it fair for the panel to assume

00:48:49 so is it fair for the panel to assume that it's likely that you'd have discussed with the tmo the applicable standards with them at some time yes it would be

00:48:58 with whom would you have discussed the applicable standards davis steppel principally and john rogers

00:49:07 rogers as the project manager for the uh

00:49:11 can you remember when you first discussed the applicable standards with mr steppel i'm afraid i can't it was possibly

00:49:22 i'm afraid i can't it was possibly before or after the first project brief meeting i can't really remember but relatively early stages very early stages

00:49:31 now what were the conclusions of the discussions you had in relation to the measures that would be required to comply with applicable standards the

00:49:42 with applicable standards the discussions around fireman's stroke firefighting lifts resulted in the if you like instruction as you call it earlier that we would not

00:49:54 as you call it earlier that we would not be

00:49:55 be upgrading to or attempting to upgrade to firefighting standards but would repeat what was there which was the fireman's lift with control now bearing that in mind

00:50:07 with control now bearing that in mind can we go to page 15 within this documents paragraph 4.10 it's entitled standards as there we see on the page and it says this

00:50:17 this a the installation shall comply with bsen

00:50:21 bsen 81 8's been inserted in manuscript 1998 which is safety rules for the construction installation of lifts part one

00:50:28 one electric lifts the health and safety stature instrument number 831 the lift regulations and electromagnetic compatibility and ieee regulations is that a fair summary

00:50:39 summary yeah yes and it goes on to say b however given the dimensional constraints associated with an existing building

00:50:47 building the report should identify any area where the new installation cannot meet current recommendations or legislation and make recommendations to reduce any potential risks now would you agree

00:50:59 any potential risks now would you agree that the brief expressly required the consultant to identify

00:51:03 identify where the new installation could not meet current recommendations or legislation and make recommendations to reduce any potential risks yeah now bearing in mind your evidence that you say you have not seen that

00:51:15 that you say you have not seen that was that nonetheless an instruction that was conveyed to you verbally i can't recall to be absolutely honest on that on that particular issue can you remember

00:51:26 remember uh whether you produced any document or gave

00:51:29 gave any form of briefing verbal or otherwise um

00:51:32 um setting out the extent to which the new installation may not meet applicable standards and what could be done to mitigate any risks arising

00:51:41 arising i can't remember doing so but the the scheme did involve the mitigation of such shortcomings uh as over travel and pit depth and

00:51:53 uh as over travel and pit depth and because we were increasing speed looked at differently was it your normal practice

00:51:58 practice uh when dealing with work to lifts and existing buildings would it have been your standard practice to have advised the client of the relevant standards and the extent

00:52:09 of the relevant standards and the extent to which works may not meet the relevant standards i would say so yes

00:52:14 so yes and did you do that at this project uh i can't recall to be absolutely honest now given the height of grenfell tower

00:52:21 tower together with existing physical building constraints uh the report i'm sorry i'm looking at subparagraph cena reports should shall address the issues of firefighting and evacuation lift

00:52:32 of firefighting and evacuation lift requirements and how they affect affect the proposed works

00:52:36 works now looking at subparagraph c would you agree that that is crystal clear that the brief required the consultant's feasibility report to address the issue of firefighting

00:52:47 address the issue of firefighting and evacuation lift requirements and how they affected the proposed works um yes i see that was the instruction on the brief for the feasibility study but as i said the

00:53:00 feasibility study but as i said the discussions with john rogers and david steppel resulted the outcome was that we wouldn't even be reporting on that and

00:53:09 that and evidenced by the feasibility study does not does not research it does not go to it

00:53:16 go to it and because of that instruction and because of that instruction now can we look at the tender process and in terms of that process if we go to your first statement which

00:53:27 if we go to your first statement which is at but

00:53:29 is at but quadruple zero double zero four zero forward slash two and a paragraph a six

00:53:40 you say there you weren't involved in the tender process um do you have any uh knowledge or recollection as to how butler and young came to be involved with the project at grenfell uh

00:53:52 grenfell uh by invitation by janet rhymes i believe to tender for the um consultancy services who was janet reims she was the do you mean janice ray

00:54:04 she was the do you mean janice ray no janet rhymes was the um she's she was the

00:54:08 the consultant consultant in a way she she appointed consultants for the tmo that was her particular role but you've got no direct knowledge that you can

00:54:19 got no direct knowledge that you can assist the panel with no sorry now looking at the appointment in relation to your involvement in batman young's involvement in the tower project

00:54:28 project you state at paragraph a2 which is page one of this statement that as far as i can ascertain butter and young involvement was from early 2003 through to the final camp document

00:54:40 2003 through to the final camp document dated february 2007. yes and i'm just picking up your reference to janet rhymes if we can go to but quadruple zero treble zero

00:54:52 quadruple zero treble zero five

00:54:58 uh we have here a letter from mr morehouse to miss rhymes dated the 7th of april 2003

00:55:08 in which he acknowledged receipt of formal instructions so it would appear that butler and young's involvement at least started in or about april 2003 would you agree yes it would absolutely yeah

00:55:20 absolutely yeah now if we can now turn to butler and young's duties in relation to the project at grenfell and if we could uh go back to but quadruple zero double zero four zero

00:55:33 quadruple zero double zero four zero forward slash one and paragraph a2

00:55:44 thank you that you see set out there are the

00:55:47 the seven elements of butter and young's responsibilities on as part of the project

00:55:55 i'll give you just brief opportunity to refresh your memory of that paragraph

00:56:11 was that set of duties typical or similar to other duties and other contracts

00:56:19 contracts between butler and young and our bkc and the tmo

00:56:26 yes i would say so now we have been unable to find any written contract between butler and young and rb casey or the tmo do you remember whether there was in fact any written

00:56:37 whether there was in fact any written agreement entered into between the parties um i don't i did that letter that you just highlighted not just demonstrate that i don't know if we can go back to it

00:56:49 don't know if we can go back to it first of all can you remember seeing any written agreement between the parties no sir okay and if we just go back just so because you raised it we can go back to but

00:56:58 to but quadruple zero trouble zero five

00:57:07 all that is is a confirmation of instructions but can you remember ever seeing as a written contract as such

00:57:14 such uh no i can't um

00:57:20 can you remember ever seeing butter and young contracting on standard terms can you remember ever seeing a standard terms

00:57:26 terms document produced by butler and young at all

00:57:30 all i can't recall to be honest there's some reference in the documents to an entity called brody plant goddard what was their role in the project uh they were appointed as proxy project

00:57:42 uh they were appointed as proxy project proxy project manager say that proxy project managers by john rogers

00:57:47 rogers john rogers sort of retreated from project management of the project at about the time uh the site work started and brodie plant goddard um were appointed as as project managers

00:58:01 um were appointed as as project managers on on the kc tmo's behalf and uh if we go back to your first statement so it's b

00:58:07 so it's b ut quadruple zero double zero four zero four slash one thank you um effectively their involvement did not change

00:58:15 change alter or qualify uh the obligations set out there

00:58:19 out there no thank you now if we can now look at your own

00:58:23 your own uh individual duties and responsibilities as part of this project um you deal with this in your second statement which can be found at but quadruple zero double zero double five

00:58:35 quadruple zero double zero double five forward slash four

00:58:40 and we see there in the second sentence of paragraph five

00:58:47 that you took over day-to-day administration the project from november 2004 until its conclusion uh presumably in april 2007 is that right that's correct and if we can go back to your first

00:58:59 and if we can go back to your first statement which is but quadruple zero double zero four zero forward slash two and paragraph a three there again you set out the

00:59:10 three there again you set out the seven elements of your responsibilities at grenfell is that right yes indeed

00:59:16 now um could i now turn to a discussion of the scope of the proposed works and discussions with the tmo on that subject we've looked at briefly the project brief produced by the tmo in august 2002

00:59:28 brief produced by the tmo in august 2002 which you haven't seen until recently can we assume therefore that that brief did not form the basis of your discussions with the tmo

00:59:40 that's the scope of the works so i don't think i understand the question quite though if you hadn't seen that project brief right am i right and assuming it didn't form the basis

00:59:51 assuming it didn't form the basis of your discussions with the tmo as the proposed scope of the works um my discussions i don't know if mr moorhouse saw that that brief

01:00:02 that brief i'm just concerned with what you can speak to i i can't say that that yes i can only say that the

01:00:08 the that brief did not form part of a basis for my discussions and so the basis of your discussions were verbal conversations inevitably with uh mr

01:00:19 conversations inevitably with uh mr steppel and mr rogers to a lesser extent yes

01:00:22 yes and were um brody plant goddard involved in any discussions involving the scope of the works no sir they didn't appear until i say just about start site start just

01:00:34 i say just about start site start just before site start i think that the pre-start site meeting in november 2004

01:00:40 2004 was attended by prodi plant gold that was the first they believe that's the first meeting they attended now

01:00:50 can you now remember when you had your substantive discussions with mr steppel as to whether firefighting lift lifts should be installed at the tower or not i believe those

01:01:04 at the tower or not i believe those discussions took place in the after during or before the project brief meeting in

01:01:14 was that march 2003 i can't recall exact date

01:01:20 date but it would have been around terms the first half of 2003 yes certainly now if we can go to your first statement which conveniently is on the screen turn

01:01:31 which conveniently is on the screen turn to page four and paragraph a 12 dot c which is the bottom of the page you say this

01:01:41 my understanding is that it was considered at that time that due to structural and environmental constraints complete compliance of bs5508 would only be fully achieved

01:01:52 be fully achieved by the installation of completely new lifts in new buildings i believe these matters were discussed and agreed the kctima at an early stage and it's those discussions that you're referring to here are those you're

01:02:03 here are those you're referring yes indeed

01:02:14 how detailed were the discussions you had with mr steppel regarding compliance with the firefighting lift requirements

01:02:23 i can't really recall how detailed they became i can only really recall the outcome

01:02:30 outcome of those discussions which as i say prevented us from addressing the section c issue in the feasibility

01:02:41 the section c issue in the feasibility study that was produced now just following on from this can we go to a particular document which is a minute of a meeting that took place on the 8th of may 2003

01:02:53 the 8th of may 2003 and the minute can be found at but quadruple zero double zero one zero

01:03:01 we see their life refurbishment project briefing meeting in the town hall kensington town hall on thursday the 8th of may

01:03:09 of may we can see that you are present you're last in the list of attendees mr morehouse was there mr steppel was there and mr rogers was there as well

01:03:21 now first of all do you remember this meeting

01:03:25 meeting only by looking at it now can you help the panel was this the first meeting between butler and young uh and uh the client

01:03:36 uh and uh the client i have a feeling it was just um no it might have been the first one actually yes it might have been the first it's a project briefing meeting therefore yes it would be the first one it was another one in july

01:03:48 first one it was another one in july and so earlier on when you thought the meeting may have been in march 2003 refreshing your memory looking at this it's more likely to be in may yes i think that's that's correct now if we can just scroll down the minute but

01:03:59 can just scroll down the minute but staying on this page and it's section 2.0 deals with project objectives and scope of works and if we look at paragraph 2.2 it says

01:04:10 and if we look at paragraph 2.2 it says this and i quote the feasibility study would address the full requirements of the brief and the following issues in particular future serviceability of the list for a minimum of 20 years

01:04:21 minimum of 20 years minimum disruption to the residents of paramount importance compliance with current standards energy efficiency and facilities for persons with a wide range of disabilities

01:04:32 disabilities for possibility of enhancing car dimensions and lift speed now looking at that minute which refers to the full requirements of the brief

01:04:45 you're adamant are you that you had not seen the brief the written brief at any stage and certainly not at this meeting no certainly i hadn't but would you accept that compliance

01:04:57 but would you accept that compliance with current standards was a requirement set out clearly in this meeting as recorded in the minute yes i would

01:05:08 as recorded in the minute yes i would now the minutes do not document or record any discussion of what standards applied an extent to which

01:05:15 which they could be complied with do you remember any such discussion at this meeting um i don't i remember discussions but i can't

01:05:26 i remember discussions but i can't remember whether that was at this meeting

01:05:30 now mr moorhouse in his second statement and we don't need to go to it um refers to

01:05:37 to a meeting with david steppel and john rogers

01:05:40 rogers which presumably doesn't refer to you in which

01:05:44 which he stated that he said mr morehouse raised the issue of firefight fighting lifts at the meeting and was told that consideration of firefighting lifts

01:05:52 lifts was not to be part of the feasibility study

01:05:55 study now were you did that conversation take place at this meeting

01:06:02 meeting or to the best of your knowledge was there a later meeting uh only attended by morehouse steppel and rogers that could have been the case certainly

01:06:10 certainly can you help the panel one way uh i can't recall whether that was after this meeting before this meeting or on another date uh

01:06:19 uh i really can't recall that uh but you're clear that an early stage of the project mr steppel gave you an instruction that the fighting lifts were not to be considered davian moore has an instruction now if

01:06:30 davian moore has an instruction now if it

01:06:31 it that instruction were given at this meeting

01:06:36 that is something which uh common sense and commercial prudence suggests should have been recorded in the minutes would you accept that if it was at that meeting

01:06:45 meeting and would you take it from me that there's no record of any such instruction from in this minute yes you i can

01:06:56 can you remember ever being briefed by mr morehouse that mr steppel had given the instruction that firefighting lifts were not to be provided yes i can and can you remember

01:07:09 yes i can and can you remember first of all when he gave you that instruction i can't i i'm sorry i can't is that something

01:07:16 something that back in 2003 would have been written down either in the form of a file note or in a letter or anything like that what would patron young do certainly a file note would have been made i would have thought and that would

01:07:28 made i would have thought and that would have been standard practice yes it would

01:07:39 did you ever raise yourself at this meeting

01:07:43 meeting or thereafter whether installation of a firefighting lift should be considered or should have been considered by the tmo i didn't personally know do you know of

01:07:54 i didn't personally know do you know of anyone else who did i imagine to have the result resultant discussion and instruction and

01:08:05 resultant discussion and instruction and outcome that ian morehouse and david steppel had

01:08:12 that they must have discussed that but that's

01:08:15 that's i'm speculating

01:08:18 now um we can go to if needs be but in your first statement we asked you about in response to a question asking about any communications verbal or written regarding the installation of a firefighting lift

01:08:29 firefighting lift um you said the reference is a a12e iron i am unable to recall any such communications now can you help the panel as to why you

01:08:40 now can you help the panel as to why you can now remember an instruction given by mr steppel when you're asked specifically about this point

01:08:46 point by the inquiry well i referred in the earlier answer in that witness statement to the discussions at an early stage um when i was answering that question in

01:08:57 um when i was answering that question in the sense that i could not remember any discussion with any of those parties where it was proposed that the lifts be upgraded to firefighting

01:09:09 the lifts be upgraded to firefighting status that was what i meant by the answer

01:09:12 answer um i answered the wrong question but that's what i meant when the answer now if we could turn to mr hawkins report and if we go to rho quadruple zero treble zero three

01:09:23 quadruple zero treble zero three forward slash one two one and paragraph two five

01:09:27 two five nine

01:09:31 and mr harkins here is reviewing these initial discussions and what he says is as part of these discussions around the achievement of the goals in the brief i would have expected butlin young to have

01:09:42 would have expected butlin young to have drawn tmo's attention to the relevant british standards for firefighting lifts their applicability and the feasibility of achieving compliance with the standards

01:09:50 standards this includes advising timo that tall buildings should have a firefighting lift

01:09:55 lift um what would be your response to mr hawkins

01:09:59 hawkins statement of opinion though

01:10:23 my only answer that i can give to that is that

01:10:27 is that ian moore has must have discussed those very requirements for david steppel to have said what he

01:10:38 for david steppel to have said what he said

01:10:39 said but that is essentially speculation that is speculation but so is it fair to assume therefore you you cannot help us as to whether uh representative butler and young raise these matters certainly you

01:10:51 young raise these matters certainly you did not

01:10:52 did not certainly i did not thank you now um you stated that and it's a paragraph a12c of your first witness statement you stated that structural constraints were said to be a barrier to full compliance

01:11:03 said to be a barrier to full compliance with firefighting and lift requirements can you help us what did you mean what did you have in mind when you referred to structural constraints probably the trying to achieve the

01:11:14 probably the trying to achieve the two methods of water dispersal from the landings or from the pit i imagine they would they would cause considerable

01:11:26 considerable difficulties in trying to achieve did you seek or receive advice from a structural engineer about the nature and extent of any relevant structural constraints no did you ever advise the tmo to seek

01:11:40 no did you ever advise the tmo to seek the

01:11:41 the specialist advice of a structural engineer no sir

01:11:47 were any of the conversations between yourselves or any relevant structural engineers and the tmo documented uh no sir um could we go to apx

01:11:58 uh no sir um could we go to apx quadruple zero five four two four and this is a letter um from you to john

01:12:12 and this is a letter um from you to john rogers who as you said is the project manager

01:12:14 manager on project one and he notes rather you note under the heading structural engineers duty so it's the first substantive paragraph and you say this you're aware that during the course of the feasibility

01:12:25 during the course of the feasibility study it was evident that rbkc had no drawings or structural details of either the duplex lifts or the hydraulic lift and you did in fact issue a variation against the study

01:12:36 against the study for structural engineers duties in the sum of 1 300 pounds my email of 16th of june 2003 refers since the feasibility study the structural engineer has obviously been involved in determining the

01:12:47 involved in determining the specification requirements calculations and details for both projects

01:12:53 projects all contractors drawings are now approved and you go on now bearing that in mind if we could turn to an email which can be found at eight five tm00853 eight six five

01:13:13 now if that could be expanded this is an email from mr morehouse

01:13:22 and it refers to in the fourth paragraph down

01:13:27 down to needing structural advice to investigate the option of increasing lift car size and possibly increasing speed now looking those two documents together your letter of mr morehouse's email both suggest

01:13:41 of mr morehouse's email both suggest that structural advice was sought from engineer

01:13:43 engineer and that it was focused on the specific issue of increased lift car size is that right

01:13:47 right yes it was um is it therefore given your previous evidence it's safe to assume that the structural engineer's advice was not sought

01:13:56 sought as to the feasibility of installing a firefighting lift or at least such features of the firefighting lift that were reasonably practical that's correct now you also stated

01:14:08 that's correct now you also stated that environmental constraints were said to be a barrier to full compliance with the standard again can you help the panel what did you mean by environmental constraints in

01:14:20 you mean by environmental constraints in this context probably smoke dispersal um lobby pressurization that sort of issue now you stated that complete compliance

01:14:31 now you stated that complete compliance with bs558 would only be fully achieved by the installation of completely new lifts and new buildings now do you mean that at the time the considered view was that complete

01:14:42 considered view was that complete compliance with bs double five double eight was

01:14:44 eight was effectively impossible or not reasonably practicable not reasonably practicalized but it was possible

01:14:52 possible it may have been possible without doing a feasibility i wouldn't know

01:15:07 is it fair to say that neither structural nor structural constraints would have prevented partial compliance with firefighting left standards that's true to tell yes well that might

01:15:19 that's true to tell yes well that might depend on what parts you're going to comply with right well it might yes it depends what you could put in a hatch in the top of the lift car regardless of any structural

01:15:30 structural constraints how much yes there would be but that was in fact a another caveat for the practicality of of local authority

01:15:41 practicality of of local authority housing they were very very nervous about

01:15:44 about oh yes but i mean perhaps i was really picking up mr kenya because to ask whether you can implement some of the requirements depends on which ones you're talking about yes indeed

01:15:55 about yes indeed well let's probably it was a run up to the next question um which involved costing and um mr kallan in who was obviously from the tmo

01:16:05 tmo stated in the fifth line of paragraph 40 of his statement we don't need to go to it but the reference is tmo double zero eight double six zero two three forward slash five

01:16:16 three forward slash five now he estimated the cost of upgrading each lift to full firefighting standard to be ten thousand pounds per lift now from the pure position perspective of cost would you agree with

01:16:27 perspective of cost would you agree with that estimate no uh what would be your estimate of upgrading each of these lifts to full firefighting specification at grenfell in 2003 for i would i would

01:16:39 in 2003 for i would i would estimate from what i wrote in my um [Music]

01:16:43 [Music] second witness statement that that would be

01:16:47 be somewhere between 70 and 100 000 i would imagine that the 20 000 that robin was referring to would unlikely to

01:16:58 robin was referring to would unlikely to cover much more than the alternative main supply and just for clarity when you refer to 70 to 100 000 is that the cost of upgrading all lifts or

01:17:08 lifts or each individual lift that's for two lifts two lifts thank you now can we turn to the feasibility study itself which we may well be like the new topic

01:17:20 which we may well be like the new topic we are and i was about to ask given that i realized it was a new topic well that might be an appropriate juncture for a brexit i think it would yes thank very much well i think we warned you astralis we

01:17:31 well i think we warned you astralis we have a break during the morning and this looks as though it's a convenient time to have it yes we'll stop now we'll resume please at 25 to 12. and i have to ask you please not to discuss your evidence or anything

01:17:43 discuss your evidence or anything relating to it with anyone while you're out of the room all right thank you very much now would you like to go to the usher she'll look after you thank you thank you

01:18:03 thank you 25 to 12.

01:37:37 yes would you ask mr ellis to come back in please thank you

01:37:53 thank you sir all right mr ellis you're ready to carry on indeed thank you very much yes sir um could we turn to the feasibility study mr alice it can be found at but trouble zero

01:38:04 zero quadruple zero two excuse me

01:38:14 there we go we see the date in the bottom left-hand corner july 2003 so um two months after the first project meeting

01:38:21 meeting at kensington town hall um have you seen this document before yes sir and did you draft it or contribute to the drafting i cannot recall did you read the feasibility study at the time i.e

01:38:33 feasibility study at the time i.e summer 2003 yes i did if we go to page five

01:38:42 and we see at paragraph 1.2 it says the principal errors covered by the study are and they're identified but looking at number two says this compliance with current health

01:38:53 says this compliance with current health and safety at work requirements the recommendations of british standards and en 81-1 and then if we could stay in this document but go to page 12

01:39:05 document but go to page 12 and section 3.10

01:39:10 we see there scope is reiterated and it states this report has been principally concerned with establishing the relative merits of each of the three options with the

01:39:21 of each of the three options with the following particular considerations compliance with the health and safety at work act and bs7255 safe working on lifts to compliance with the requirements of relevant british standards and en 81 forward slash one

01:39:33 standards and en 81 forward slash one where appropriate um would you agree or at least take it from me that there's no reference excuse me in section 3.10 to bs5508-5

01:39:44 section 3.10 to bs5508-5 there is none no that's correct and equally there's no reference there to bsen 81-72 2003. also correct would you consider those to be significant omissions or in your view do

01:39:55 significant omissions or in your view do they reflect the instructions given uh by mr steppel uh to your mr morehouse they

01:40:00 they they reflect those uh instructions exactly

01:40:04 exactly even to the option appraisal which in a a one-liner um mentions fireman's control um there is no you can take it from me there is no reference

01:40:16 take it from me there is no reference in the feasibility report to an instruction from mr steppel that firefighting lifts were not to be considered um first of all do you find that omission surprising given the clarity of the

01:40:28 surprising given the clarity of the instruction that said have been provided no i think it was i think what would have happened had the instructions still been in place to

01:40:40 the instructions still been in place to complete the feasibility study of um upgrading i think i'm pretty sure that they would have thrown it back at us

01:40:49 us that we would have had that report rejected for not um dealing with that aspect and just flowing from that answer just to give you the opportunity to answer a criticism that's made of butler

01:41:01 answer a criticism that's made of butler and young by mr howkins could we go to his report which is rho trouble zero quadruple zero three forward slash one two two and paragraph two six one

01:41:14 now it says there we could amplify that paragraph 261. uh the report shouldn't he talk about the feasibility report here should have included

01:41:22 included an analysis of whether it was reasonably practical to bring the lifts up to full firefighting lyft standard and if not why not as part of this analysis i would have expected being what batman young to have provided tmo with one the cost

01:41:34 to have provided tmo with one the cost of bringing the lifts up to full firefighting lift standard two a warning of any potential structural electrical or plumbing constraints and relevant specialists from whom further advice may need to be sought eg a structural engineer three to

01:41:47 eg a structural engineer three to highlight the potential risks arising from not installing firefighting lifts overall i would have expected to see in the report an option of bringing the lifts up to full firefighting standard alongside other options

01:41:58 standard alongside other options and the benefits disadvantages of each including considerations such as cost length a program works need to count residents etc um what would be your response to that

01:42:09 um what would be your response to that statement of opinion just in the same way that the previous answer um

01:42:14 answer um the study which we may have carried out on that on those aspects that he highlights there uh were discounted before we even started the feasibility study

01:42:26 started the feasibility study thank you could we go to but quadruple zero

01:42:30 zero trouble zero six

01:42:37 now these are meetings of a lift refurbishment meeting held on the 9th of july the month of which is missing there on the title page

01:42:48 the title page which you attended is that right yes indeed

01:42:52 indeed and that that two-page minute contains uh no reference to any firefighting lift standards would you agree as far as i can remember it does not

01:43:04 as far as i can remember it does not now if we can go to tmo double zero eight six nine seven two zero forward slash one zero nine

01:43:21 thank you if that could be expanded now this is a memorandum 16th of december 2003 sent by john rogers

01:43:28 rogers to paul mccainish who was paul mccainish do you know i don't know i'm afraid now if we

01:43:36 if we look at the third paragraph there you may not have seen this before but mr rogers sets out there two options in the third paragraph for lift refurbishment the first is

01:43:47 for lift refurbishment the first is noted to be like for like replacement the second is referred to as an install larger faster lifts and increase the car entrance and width this would not provide a lift service to current standards but would improve

01:43:59 current standards but would improve reliability and significantly reduce waiting times the memo then goes on to refer to a feasibility report from the lift consultant and options 1 and 3b set out in the feasibility report

01:44:11 feasibility report the memo suggests that john rogers was aware that neither lift refurbishment would bring the lift service up to current standards had you been involved in any advice to

01:44:22 had you been involved in any advice to mr rogers

01:44:23 mr rogers that liftworks would not bring the lift service up to current standards i can't recall whether i did or not i he's either referring to the fact that

01:44:35 i he's either referring to the fact that um the current standard of five five double eight would not be uh will not be met or he's referring to the fact that um

01:44:48 the fact that um possibly the over travels and pit depths would be

01:44:53 would be not to british standard because of the increased speed i'm not sure what he he meant by that in that

01:45:00 that in that context thank you um could we now turn to the specification itself and could we turn to but quadruple zero double zero double four

01:45:16 quadruple zero double zero double four now so you can orientate yourself in time you'll see in the bottom left-hand corner the data the specification is april 2004. can you remember now who wrote that specification

01:45:28 specification um i i believe ian morehouse drafted the specification but i believe i also had a part in it was it reviewing it or were were you involved in some technical contribution

01:45:40 involved in some technical contribution i think i was involved i seem to remember being involved towards the end when

01:45:44 when a collection of information from architect mike flynn and the structural engineer jim bryce was being brought into review

01:45:58 was being brought into review uh if we can turn to page 20 within this document

01:46:05 and we see there paragraph 28.01 and if we look at the fifth paragraph which starts with the words should anything if that could be amplified

01:46:16 it says should anything be omitted from the specification

01:46:22 which is fitting and usually considered necessary for due in proper completion of the work the tenderer shall verbally bring this to the attention of the so prior to tender submission with confirmation and letter prior to submitting the tender return

01:46:36 prior to submitting the tender return can you help us what did the initials so indicate is it supervising officer supervising officer and were you the supervising officer uh well ian morehouse was a supervising officer in general terms but

01:46:48 officer in general terms but i became the supervising officer and insofar as you can remember the tmo never wrote to you saying why aren't you advising us about firefighting lifts no

01:47:03 did any tenderers bring the absence of firefighting lift features and specification to your attention no sir no not that i can remember to the best of your knowledge can you remember any

01:47:12 any mr morehouse uh saying that tenders had raised the question of firefighting left i can't recall any such uh um could i ask you to go stay in this document but go to page 22

01:47:25 document but go to page 22 and it's really towards the bottom of the page at paragraph 28.05 which is under the heading regulations and it says that it shall be understood that the equipment specified

01:47:36 that the equipment specified and that the characteristics of the site particularly dimensions and clearances may not fully comply with current british and european standards and these shall be qualified by the tender in the tender return

01:47:47 for those purposes would the reference to

01:47:51 to british and european standards have included those concerned with firefighting lifts um no not necessarily i believe that that was

01:48:01 that was referring to what i spoke about earlier was the dimensions and clearances largely because of the increased speed looking at the next paragraph in this

01:48:12 looking at the next paragraph in this section it says although it is recognized that the existing structural constraint shall prevent full compliance with harmonized european standards the requirement is for the lift installation to include include all of those items and features

01:48:25 include all of those items and features that do comply as far as is reasonably practicable now would you accept that the specification required the lift installation to comply as far as was reasonably practicable

01:48:36 as far as was reasonably practicable yeah with harmonized european standards yes i would and your evidence is that standards concerning firefighting lifts were excluded from the reference

01:48:48 were excluded from the reference to harmonize european standards yes indeed although that's not mentioned here is it no

01:48:56 now this part of paragraph 28.05 refers to quotes existing structural constraints close quotes preventing full compliance with standards

01:49:08 standards were the structural constraints contemplated there any different to the structural constraints you discussed earlier in your evidence uh in terms of sorry i don't quite understand that well

01:49:20 understand that well more simply what what are you talking about when you're talking about existing structural constraints here uh in in principally they're talking about the over travel at the top of the shaft

01:49:31 shaft the stopping distances and the pit depths

01:49:34 depths now if we can turn over the page to page 23 we come to 28.06 which concerned design standards you'll see halfway down the page and that section says this the equipment

01:49:46 and that section says this the equipment and installation shall conform to this specification and to the relevant british standards including codes of practice and in particular bs-5655 7255

01:49:57 bs-5655 7255 and en 81-1 where this specification differs from those standards and codes the provision of this specification shall prevail it goes on to say reference to british standards and code practice practice

01:50:08 standards and code practice practice shall mean the addition current three months prior to the date for return of tenders a certificate of compliance with the relevant british standards shall be provided to the supervising officer on request

01:50:20 officer on request and then it goes on so it shall be understood that the existing characteristics particularly dimensions and clearances may not comply with current british standards and these shall be qualified in the tender return

01:50:32 tender return can you remember now was a certificate of compliance with relevant british standards ever provided to the supervising officer um not that i can recall would you necessarily have seen that would have

01:50:43 necessarily have seen that would have been something really for mr morehouse rather than you um i really can't say i don't i haven't i didn't see that i can't remember seeing such a a document could we turn over the page

01:50:54 a document could we turn over the page to page 24.

01:50:58 now we see here in paragraph 28.04 related documentation and references and it says this tender documentation shall be read in conjunction with and its requirements are in addition to

01:51:10 are in addition to the general conditions of contract and need drawings and other documents issued with it and listed in this invitation to tender

01:51:16 tender and the set up below now what's set up below

01:51:20 below in somewhat torrential form is a series of british standards and indeed references to various bodies such as the london fire brigade would you accept that by 2004 some of

01:51:32 would you accept that by 2004 some of the legislation in this list had in fact been repealed for example the factories act 1961 yes i would um could we look at we can go to the bottom of the page and

01:51:44 we can go to the bottom of the page and the fourth entry up from the bottom now there's a reference

01:51:52 there to double five double eight five precautions and design construction use of building it doesn't specify which part and which year the addition of that standard that's been referred to

01:52:04 of that standard that's been referred to would you accept therefore that the reference to bs double five double eight is unclear in that respect it is unclear albeit the only component or element

01:52:15 only component or element of the specification that would need to comply with five five double a would be the control which was specified in 2a

01:52:27 control which was specified in 2a 70 i think and that does um as far as i'm aware comply with 5588 because the um

01:52:38 because the um embedded software that the contractor provides in his control panel will be suitable for firefighting lifts and therefore that's why we changed our

01:52:51 and therefore that's why we changed our claws to reflect that the fact that the control that was being provided was compliant with five five double eight i suppose the issue that immediately rises out of that

01:53:03 issue that immediately rises out of that answer

01:53:03 answer is that that narrow reading is not reflected here is it in the reference in the broad reference to bs508 no to be fair

01:53:12 fair and so absent any qualification um the broad reference to bs double double five double eight implies that firefighting lift standards should have been considered would you accept that

01:53:24 accept that no i don't think so only only in what was uh

01:53:27 was uh actually specified in the did you say that the um specification takes preference and the specification um defined it so

01:53:38 um defined it so uh it was only referring to having to comply with that standard as far as the clause that was relevant was concerned if that doesn't sound too

01:53:49 was concerned if that doesn't sound too silly

01:53:50 silly would uh would you accept that there's no reference there to european standard bsen

01:53:54 bsen 8172 2003. no there's not

01:54:00 was that specifically considered and rejected or did you not consider it because of the instruction given by mr steppel that would be true yes which one of those options the second one

01:54:14 can you explain to the panel the purpose in uh simply identifying bodies such as the london fire brigade the london electricity board the idea of the list of standards was

01:54:25 the idea of the list of standards was that it was all encompassing and whatever

01:54:28 whatever elements in the specification unless directed otherwise would comply with those

01:54:35 those with those standards but simply referring to say the london fire brigade and london electricity board isn't really a direction towards standards is it not really simply identifying two separate bodies

01:54:49 so what purpose was served by identifying those two entities for example

01:54:54 example i think the idea of putting particularly the fire brigade in that the um the contractor would need to have some discourse with the five goats about what they were

01:55:05 the five goats about what they were doing

01:55:08 similarly with the electricity board if they were depending what they were doing with the main supplies there may be a requirement to actually get certain things verified in terms of electrical

01:55:20 things verified in terms of electrical supply

01:55:22 supply would it be fair to say that the list of statute regulations code

01:55:29 code etc has the feel of being cut and paced from previous uh specifications would that be a fair or an unfair observation that would be a fair observation i'd say

01:55:40 that would be a fair observation i'd say so it wasn't drafted specifically with grenfell in mind no in the main do you remember any specific discussions with the tmo regarding the substance of the specification

01:55:59 i can't recall i i mean there were exchanges with uh robin kalan about the specification and were those detailed exchanges

01:56:11 detailed exchanges yes he he wrote a couple of i can't remember what it was he did write a couple of

01:56:14 couple of uh comments i can't remember what they were there and is it fair to say that he did not raise the question of firefighting lifts no he did not

01:56:29 uh can you remember discussing the specification with janice ray

01:56:35 no i cannot just see whether um the email jogs your memory tmo double zero

01:56:43 zero treble 7.

01:56:56 treble 7. there we go just in the it's her email the top half of that page 30th of may 2004

01:57:03 2004 i probably i recognize i'm asking you about events 15 years ago um it's just looking at um that email can you remember was that the sum total of your discussions with janice ray regarding

01:57:14 janice ray regarding the specification for the liftworks

01:57:43 yes i must admit i uh even now can't remember that don't worry if you're not able to assist us any further mysterious don't worry um can we now turn to the specific the

01:57:54 um can we now turn to the specific the specific features of a firefighting lift it really flows from um the chairman's uh intervention before the morning break and looking at each element of the firefighting lift

01:58:05 firefighting lift now in the in your second statement the inquiry you comment and we don't need to go to it but it's a paragraph 12 and the sixth bullet point there

01:58:13 there and could be found at b ut quadruple zero double zero double five forward slash five you say this that local authorities were generally concerned about trap doors in lifts in terms of safety and security

01:58:25 in lifts in terms of safety and security of the building this was particularly relevant to bs5508-5

01:58:29 bs5508-5 which required that a trapdoor be open from within the lift creating a potentially hazardous situation in terms of misuse

01:58:37 did you have cause to advise the tmo that trapdoors were a safety feature and were therefore important

01:58:46 having again harking back to the original discussions that ian had with with uh david steppel and john rogers the

01:58:57 david steppel and john rogers the detail was then missing from the feasibility study the specification and everything else that followed so whether we

01:59:11 would have said anything i can't remember but i doubt it whether we said anything about the uh the trap door in the roof now one thing that mr howkins says and

01:59:22 now one thing that mr howkins says and we don't need to go to it but the reference is paragraph 303 of his report rho quadruple zero trouble zero three forward slash 136. he said that the provision of an emergency trapdoor would have been

01:59:34 emergency trapdoor would have been straightforward and at little additional cost at the point when the lift cars were replaced with larger versions in project one do you agree with that yes that would have been a simple task to to include or incorporate a

01:59:47 task to to include or incorporate a trapdoor into that um but as we see from even more recent statements from janice ray and others that they still don't approve of having trap doors

01:59:59 don't approve of having trap doors in their lifts um and that i would supply

02:00:03 supply i would fairly guesstimate that was true of

02:00:07 of pretty much all the local authorities certainly in london that they are considered more of a hazard than they are a safety requirement and when mr hawkins refers to little

02:00:18 and when mr hawkins refers to little additional costs i know it's difficult given 15 odd years or past if not more um can you give the panel a rough and ready idea of the cost of installing a trapdoor

02:00:28 trapdoor in one lift um would have been at the time

02:00:32 time i doubt it would have been i doubt if it would have been a thousand um per lift in a very approximate yeah very approximately it might have been a thousand pounds of lift

02:00:44 been a thousand pounds of lift the en 8172 was slightly more onerous in that they start talking about it and slightly more hazardous and they start talking about uh steps to get up to this trap at the back

02:00:56 steps to get up to this trap at the back of the lift car so um it would become even more of a concern

02:01:01 concern to the authorities now water protection is another feature of a firefighting lift

02:01:06 lift um what would have been the um advantages and the disadvantages of providing water protection in these lifts

02:01:15 lifts at grenfell in 2003 for the the one the protecting the protecting of of car top electoral equipment and such like

02:01:29 electoral equipment and such like by by protection of uh ramps and tins stuff like that would have been relatively simple and not huge cost again probably 500 pounds i don't know a lift

02:01:40 pounds i don't know a lift 500 pounds per left yeah but that's that's the primary or secondary whichever you like to call it means there has to be another means of of deflecting water these either pit

02:01:51 of deflecting water these either pit sumps or landing drainage or whatever so water protection of itself was a feasible measure that could have been incorporated one one element was possible now secondary

02:02:03 one element was possible now secondary power supply is another feature of a firefighting lift um what would have been

02:02:09 have been was it feasible to provide a secondary power supply i don't know to be honest but i i certainly don't know what it would have cost but i imagine it was

02:02:20 would have cost but i imagine it was it would have been considerable can we go back just for a moment to the water protection yeah um what i hadn't understood you to be suggesting is you can provide some sort of

02:02:31 sort of cover if you like uh over the top of the lift to protect the lift car from water flowing from above is that right yes there are um ipo3 protection as they

02:02:43 yes there are um ipo3 protection as they call

02:02:44 call apa 54 protection to uh car and landing compo electrical components is one is say one method of

02:02:55 is one is say one method of of protecting but it has there have to be

02:02:58 be my understanding was that have to be too different

02:03:01 different well you then went on to mention something about a sump and it led me and you seem to be a little more doubtful as to whether you could provide that aspect of protection which made me

02:03:14 that aspect of protection which made me wonder

02:03:15 wonder what happens if you have the protection over the lift the water's got to go somewhere yes yeah so can you just explain where does the water go and what steps do you have to take to deal with it that the water

02:03:28 deal with it that the water glancing on water poorly if water were to pour down the lift shaft it would end up in the pit having maybe deflected from some of the equipment on top by this other protection we just talked

02:03:39 this other protection we just talked about but that's where they would end up and then you have to provide for that to be drained away yeah yes indeed and is that a difficult thing to do

02:03:50 thing to do it's difficult to say how difficult it might be

02:03:54 and it's difficult to say what other landing uh action you would take to to deflect water

02:04:03 water yeah right thank you very much was it feasible to have installed a fire service communication system yes and can you give the panel an idea of

02:04:13 of how costly it would have been to have done so

02:04:18 not a huge amount i'd say

02:04:21 maybe again two maybe two thousand pounds of lift fire resistance landing doors um how feasible were they to have installed uh

02:04:31 uh they were there the landing doors were two hour fire assessed as i remember

02:04:43 that's one of the

02:04:46 things the reason i asked the question was if the specification itself we can go to it if that helps if we go to but trouble zero trouble zero double four forward slash five five and look at section two eight

02:04:59 five five and look at section two eight point six

02:05:00 point six one

02:05:03 this may well be my lay eye not picking up a point mr os i apologize in advance if i'm missing something

02:05:10 and we see at the bottom of the page there the specification starts the current landing doors it goes over the page there are some 16 individual features that are identified

02:05:21 features that are identified none of which is prescribing that the doors be of a certain fire resistant quality

02:05:29 for how long now was that something that was an assumption or that such doors would be provided so that it doesn't need setting out or it was um probably my if you like

02:05:44 concerns over how we would achieve the fire assessment fire rated doors or fire rated entrances which were provided by prop brook with a

02:05:55 which were provided by prop brook with a small frame 50 mil trim to

02:06:00 trim to obtain the natural fire certification of that door

02:06:04 that door you would have to butt the full depth architraves against these small frame trims which is something that we didn't want to do because we considered it a pinch

02:06:15 to do because we considered it a pinch point or an attack point as well as being possibly not so aesthetically pleasing so the full depth architraves were wrapped around

02:06:25 around the

02:06:28 small frame trims of the fire rated entrance

02:06:32 entrance and then we required to get a letter of assessment from warrington fire which i remember chasing apex for and eventually finding

02:06:43 chasing apex for and eventually finding that they sent me a copy or gave me a copy i can't remember but that's that was um if you like the development that we did with the

02:06:54 development that we did with the successful contractor and so although it's not mentioned the specification it's something that was installed because of the concerns you entertained about fire resistance yeah thank you um can i now turn

02:07:05 can i now turn onto this question of the fire control switch itself and if we can stay in this document the specification but go on to page 60 and clause 28.70

02:07:18 now this deals with as you can see fireman's

02:07:21 fireman's fine man's control is set out there now am i right that the switch was to be installed on the ground floor of the tower

02:07:27 tower yes and can you explain um for the panel and those listening how one fire control switch operated two lifts ah well yes

02:07:38 two lifts ah well yes okay what happens if this is from best of my memory when you operate the key um two things happen

02:07:50 um two things happen first both lifts return to the fire service access level and the indicators then start to reflect the fact

02:08:01 the fact that the lifts are under fire control so the indicators will scroll lift under fire control intersperse with the

02:08:09 the floor nomenclature once you get the lifts down they are on the on the fire surface access level which is the ground floor

02:08:20 which is the ground floor in this case the firefighter can take control of a lift either lift they're shared shafts so it's that they should both

02:08:31 should both operate they can then operate the lift as a fireman's lift in fact it is as i said that is actually more or less well it is it's firefighting control

02:08:43 well it is it's firefighting control that is the control that is five five double a compliant the idea being that if the other lift is the only one that turns up

02:08:55 turns up because the other one is the malfunctioned then you could use that one if one once the firemen have taken one away the other one will remain inactive but

02:09:07 the other one will remain inactive but until you get one down at the ground floor

02:09:11 floor then either could be the farmers left now just following on from that can you help us

02:09:16 help us as to what difference if any there is between on the one hand the fireman's control switch as defined in this specification and on the other hand the fire control switch which is described in the

02:09:28 switch which is described in the relevant standards yes the the fireman's control switch was operated by the tmo and other local authority standards

02:09:38 standards which was the express drop key and following on from that express drop key am i right an understanding that a fire control switch is operated with a euro key which has a triangular design

02:09:49 has a triangular design uh that's what the standard calls for um you that's the the british or the n standard um the problem is

02:10:00 or the n standard um the problem is with um a triangle key is that it's too easily obtainable or it's

02:10:06 it's very very available to any miscreant that wants to mess about with the lift and also the miscreants number one weapon

02:10:14 weapon not number one weapon but one of their weapons is the famous tuba super glue and it has been known for those to be the sockets of the triangle key to be smeared with super glue and jam solid

02:10:27 smeared with super glue and jam solid which you couldn't do with it with the job key

02:10:30 job key very easily one of the bit of evidence that came out in um phase one was that um one of the uh firefighters who attended the fire said that he'd ordered his own

02:10:41 said that he'd ordered his own express key directly from ebay and he'd done that about three times in his career

02:10:46 career was there any real difference therefore between the competing availability of the two different types of keys that could be used to operate a fireman's control switch

02:10:56 switch um sorry i'm not quite sure the question there you asking if there's a well they both seem to be as readily available as the other is my point yeah the the genuine um

02:11:09 is my point yeah the the genuine um express shot keys should be purchased normally from a company or were purchased normally from a company called lcl

02:11:15 lcl which was the express lifts um parts company if you like yeah it was the spares company um only when i read

02:11:26 when i read the report of roger howkins did i realize that people were buying them from ebay and they could possibly have been of an incorrect dimension but but that's

02:11:37 of an incorrect dimension but but that's not something about which you were aware in 2004

02:11:40 in 2004 certainly not

02:11:52 certainly not um could we uh now turn to a separate topic which is the automatic fire recall system

02:11:59 system now when i'm using this phrase what i'm referring to is a system which when a fire is detected would automatically recall the lifts to a particular floor

02:12:10 a particular floor now first of all is that a fair and accurate definition to apply for our discussion yes it is now before the lift works do you know if there was an automatic fire recall system in place at grenfell

02:12:21 system in place at grenfell i i do not know i don't believe so now the specification doesn't make any provision for an automatic fire recall system

02:12:31 system do you remember whether there were any discussions about whether to have one or not

02:12:34 not not before the contract started it was raised at

02:12:39 raised at one of the um periodic site meetings i had

02:12:43 had the monthly site meetings now following on from that answer if we go to an email which can be found at tmo double zero eight six three two seven six

02:12:54 eight six three two seven six forward slash two

02:13:00 and we see there on the bottom of the page the initial email is one from janice ray uh 13th of july uh 2005. center 11 33

02:13:12 uh 13th of july uh 2005. center 11 33 and she suggests that you were asked if automatic fire recoil system was installed as part of the lift works is that what you're thinking about yes when it was raised after some way into the contract now do

02:13:25 after some way into the contract now do you remember this particular exchange

02:13:29 hazely yes we scroll up we have your response which is immediately above her email sent at 13 the same day and center the 14 25 in the afternoon

02:13:40 and center the 14 25 in the afternoon uh and you say that no such system was installed

02:13:44 installed and you suggested if a system were required you may be able to install it

02:13:50 now i won't take you through all of them but if you want to refresh your memory the next three emails in the chain going forward

02:13:57 forward there's some discussion about the costs um followed by a final email which we find at the top of page one if we can go to

02:14:07 that's from janice ray on the 13th of september 2000 2005 so um two months or so after well exactly two months after the first email

02:14:18 exactly two months after the first email confirming that the costs have been agreed and the system is to be installed was that the sum total of the exchange that you remember regarding installation of the automatic fire recall system i think there were some other emails

02:14:32 i think there were some other emails that came later confirming it had been tested

02:14:36 tested i instructed uh by a variation order expressed to this express apex to provide a box and

02:14:50 a box and set the vault free contacts on the wall of the lift machine room for the fire alarm contractor to connect to as i said in the earlier email all the

02:15:01 as i said in the earlier email all the modern control panels have that embedded in their software just like the uh pharma fireman's control or firefighting control protocol thank you and can you remember what type of automatic uh fire record system was installed no i

02:15:15 uh fire record system was installed no i can't it was i it was actually completed by the fire alarm

02:15:20 alarm contractor after we completed our live works on site so i i've made the i've got apex to main to provide the provision if you like the the box with the

02:15:31 the box with the vault free contact but the i don't believe the fire alarm contractor connected up till i don't know february march

02:15:41 2006 can you help us as to how the automatic fire recall system interacted if at all with the manual fire control switch um

02:15:53 it would if the if the automatic fire alarm recall operated both lists would do exactly what they would do when you operate the firemen switch that is they

02:16:04 operate the firemen switch that is they would dive to the fire service access level

02:16:07 level if that was the selected level and the doors would open and they would remain inoperative the list would remain inoperative if the

02:16:18 the list would remain inoperative if the fire

02:16:21 officer then operated the fireman's control switch the lift one of the lists would become operating for him would go on to find service

02:16:33 for him would go on to find service the indicators would scroll that and he would have a lift available to him can you remember why the system was installed in the first place what was the tmo's reasoning for asking for it

02:16:44 the tmo's reasoning for asking for it i cannot recall to be absolutely no i can't recall what i mean it's probably a quite a sensible thing to do but i can't recall who why it well janice raised it didn't she it was janice that raised it

02:16:56 she it was janice that raised it can you help us as to why the system was eventually disconnected oh that i can't i'm afraid thank you um can i now turn to a separate topic which is the relationship between apex and butler and young now apex were

02:17:08 apex and butler and young now apex were appointed as the lift contractors is that right yes they were and um we've got email correspondence from january 2004 which suggests that ian morehouse approached warren jenchner at apex to inform him

02:17:19 warren jenchner at apex to inform him about the project and encourage him to tender um do you know whether that was done frequently or regularly um i think if

02:17:31 i think what happened there is that they the

02:17:34 the the tmo raised a no jack notice of the project and i think ian was just making sure that the various contractors that we would like to tender

02:17:46 contractors that we would like to tender were aware of it and had apex and butter and young done a lot of work together in the past

02:17:51 the past certainly some yeah some work and can i take it that mr morehouse was keen that apex bid because in his view he could rely upon them um they were one of

02:18:02 they were one of several uh contractors we we favored um we thought would do a good job i mean jackson lives axis elevators guideline lifts um stannah

02:18:16 guideline lifts um stannah um and others and titan lives generalists there were a number that were issue like on our approved

02:18:24 approved not exactly list but bunch if you like had butter and young and apex work together previously on a high-rise residential building project involving this

02:18:35 can i now turn to contracts and roles and responsibilities and if we go to apx quadruple zero five six one nine now this is the contract uh between apex

02:18:50 and butter and young it's 116 pages long sorry can i interrupt there there's no contract between apex and butler none no the the the apex were appointed

02:19:01 none no the the the apex were appointed we weighed the recommendations for contract award after our tender analysis but the contract award would have been made by the tmo

02:19:09 the tmo the contract was between kc tmo and apex sorry allowing for that change this is a contract regarding um actually let's put it slightly

02:19:20 actually let's put it slightly differently if we scroll further into this document um although it's entitled contract documentation it appears to replicate the specification itself now would that be the normal way in

02:19:31 now would that be the normal way in which the lift contractor was told what it needed to do by butler and young yes it would

02:19:37 it would and can you help us as to what the appropriate division of responsibilities was between apex on the one hand and butler and young on the other

02:19:48 and butler and young on the other was it apex did the work and butter and young supervised it that's about the strength of it yes i think apex would design and draw the scheme um we would monitor the drawing process

02:20:01 um we would monitor the drawing process and the

02:20:02 and the and the um procurement process and uh they would carry out the site works

02:20:10 works once the drawings and everything else and the and the procurement was approved now apex were appointed in october 2004. yes

02:20:17 yes the specification had been finalized in april 2004. yes did apex have have any role in the design of the lifts um only the design of uh

02:20:30 um only the design of uh component uh coordination in that sense but the design if you like was

02:20:37 was was the spec that we wrote but they had to do

02:20:40 to do they had to coordinate the control panel the machine that you talked about earlier and and various other and the door operator and all these other components so it was their design that coordinated and drew

02:20:52 their design that coordinated and drew all that did apex is during past that process or indeed any time during their involvement raise any concerns as to whether the lifts ought to have been fire fighting lifts yeah certainly not now in his first

02:21:04 yeah certainly not now in his first statement

02:21:05 statement warren jenchner who was i think the managing director of apex lifts certainly states this and the references at apx

02:21:11 at apx quadruple zero eight double seven four forward slash five

02:21:18 and he says the preparation of the contract so it's the fourth paragraph down and therefore the specification of the work was the responsibility of butter and young on the instruction of their client once completed and

02:21:29 their client once completed and disseminated to apex there would be no scope for apex to enter into any discussions regarding changes to the proposed work design issues and suggestion for alternative plans now in a supplementary statement

02:21:40 statement which we found at apx quadruple zero eight seven eight three forward slash two mr jensen clarified that once apex had been awarded the contract and attended pre-start

02:21:50 pre-start site meetings any issues could have been raised at that point he maintained his view that sorry i'm

02:21:57 i'm i'm losing you there so if you just listen if if you just listen to me okay sorry so mr jenshner had set out the preparation of the contract and the specification was the responsibility of butler and young

02:22:09 butler and young and he went on say once complete and disseminate to apex there would be no scope for apex to enter into discussions let's stop there so i'll move on to another thing he said in the supplementary statement which we

02:22:20 in the supplementary statement which we don't need to go to he clarified that once

02:22:23 once apex had been awarded the contract and attended pre-start site meetings any issues could have been raised but he maintained his view that issues of compliance with standards were for butler and young to consider

02:22:34 butler and young to consider now do you agree that once the specification had been prepared and apex had been

02:22:40 had been awarded the lift contractor contract they could have raised any issues with button young regarding the specification at pre-start site meetings yes they could do you agree that despite

02:22:51 yes they could do you agree that despite this the issue of compliance with standards was primarily a matter for butter and young and not for apex to consider primarily it was for banana yes

02:23:02 i suppose put different slightly differently um did you ever have any experience of lift contractors saying to you we do not think that this proposed specifications complies with relevant standards

02:23:14 relevant standards i've had them disagree with methodology in the past i've had contractors tendering saying we think we've got a better way of doing it um we would like to use this method or

02:23:25 um we would like to use this method or that method that does happen but and i don't think i can remember um being told by it or written to by a tendering contractor saying that they

02:23:37 a tendering contractor saying that they didn't consider a particular element to be non-compliant and certainly apex never did too no so now can i turn to the separate topic

02:23:45 topic of completion of the lifts project now the first lift was completed in august 2005

02:23:51 2005 and the second lift was completed in february 2006. um to what extent did the final lifts as constructed and installed differ from the specification

02:24:04 i can't think of any way they did

02:24:09 now if we can go to apx quadruple zero eight six nine two forward slash sixty two

02:24:16 two sorry apx quadruple zero eight six nine two forward slash six five

02:24:26 now if that could be amplified slightly because it is somewhat difficult to see um is that this test certificate for lift h091

02:24:36 lift h091 yes right that's the first one yeah now if we go to apx quadruple zero eight six nine two forward slash eight zero

02:24:51 now that could be amplified um if you need to scroll down please do shout but that form indicates that the lift was not a firefighting lift is that right

02:25:01 right um if you can de-amplify it please where are we we're looking at little b yeah

02:25:12 that's correct and the form also says the emergency operation system had been demonstrated to you is that is that a correct reading uh i'm sorry where are we i mean if we look further down all right a g

02:25:24 if we look further down all right a g sorry i should have given g confirmed the emergency operation system functioned correctly yes indeed you said yes

02:25:30 yes and that been demonstrated to you yes indeed now how would the system have been tested for these purposes um what i i tended to do during a witness test i i had to be very if you like

02:25:43 i i had to be very if you like methodical mainly because my memory wasn't much better now than than what it was now it is now it i would do i would tend to ask for if you if you want me to

02:25:55 tend to ask for if you if you want me to go online

02:25:56 go online this could take a few minutes if you don't mind well it's i suppose putting it differently your recollection was it was demonstrated to you

02:26:05 you oh yes i mean the safety gear full load uh

02:26:08 uh over speed and very and and lots of other

02:26:11 other elements of the of the gear and if there had been any problems or defects identified during the course of that demonstration it would have been recorded on the form we're looking at at the moment uh yes uh do you recall any

02:26:24 uh yes uh do you recall any uh defects for example in relation or problems with the operation of the fire control switch no not at all um after this demonstration being carried out did butler and young carry out any

02:26:36 did butler and young carry out any further tests on the completed lifts no one witness test was normally what we did

02:26:43 did and a lot of i mean it's it's more it's a lot more than what that that statement says it's a it's a whole day's work but you don't recall any problems with the fire control switches no i tested

02:26:54 the fire control switches no i tested all the functions all the indicators that every floor floor by floor floor all the and i remember funnily enough i do remember testing the peekaboo system on the farmer's control

02:27:05 farmer's control either both at the end of both or at the end and the second one i can't remember which to be honest but it was probably both and when you peek-a-boo

02:27:16 peek-a-boo that is as in the child phrase the children's phrase peek-a-boo yes it's the uh the way the five-five double-a compliant control works in that you when you arrive at the floor the doors do not open

02:27:28 doors do not open as they used to on the old farmer's lift they stay shut you operate the door open push they will open only as long as you've got pressure on that door open switch so that the firefighter can see that

02:27:39 so that the firefighter can see that there is

02:27:40 there is no flame or smoke or other hazards outside

02:27:44 outside and if there are he can let that push go and the doors will shut again and he can go to another floor it will only stay open the door once he has held his finger on the door open button and the

02:27:55 finger on the door open button and the door is fully open thank you now paragraph seven of your second witness statement if we can go to it is but

02:28:02 it is but quadruple zero double zero five five forward slash four uh you said this in my experience there were always budgetary considerations when local

02:28:14 budgetary considerations when local authority refurbishments were being considered which of course had an influence on the scheme eventually selected did budgetary considerations affect the degree of compliance with the relevant standards here um

02:28:28 standards here um i can't really answer that yes they they would have done there would have been budgetary considerations in terms of um upgrading the list to firefighting control if that's what

02:28:39 firefighting control if that's what you're asking but the focus of our deliberations and our scheme was to improve the services the

02:28:52 to improve the services the the size the speed the facilities the facilities for disabled

02:28:59 disabled all those things were the focus of the scheme

02:29:02 scheme at that time put more crudely and bluntly

02:29:05 bluntly uh did mr steppel ever say words the effect of we're not installing a firefighting lift because it's too expensive

02:29:13 expensive uh i don't recall what this conversation was fully with ian that was the conversation they had and so whether he mentioned cost or not i don't i can't say now just staying in your uh

02:29:25 i can't say now just staying in your uh second statement here and looking at paragraph eight you said this the scheme selected and undertaken at grenfell tower incorporate enhancements the usual type of local authority residential refurbishment what do you

02:29:37 residential refurbishment what do you mean there by the phrase the usual type of local authority residential refurbishment well the ones i'd been involved in previously involved

02:29:46 involved literally a straightforward refurbishment where the car size stayed the same the basic parameters of the lift stayed the same it was just an upgrade of control with equipment drive equipment

02:29:58 control with equipment drive equipment door equipment but the the spec if you like for the lift the

02:30:04 lift the the one paid spec for the lift wouldn't be any different this was a totally different animal because it was uh say increasing they they had a buggy problem um which was

02:30:15 um which was frequent towards the end of my working career buggies are not push chairs like we remember so they are

02:30:21 they are life support systems and what they found in grenfell tower was with small eight person lives one mother with a buggy and a child

02:30:32 one mother with a buggy and a child would feel the lift and so that when the lift was on its way down hopefully to collect other people it couldn't collect other people and it but it made the stop because it can't trigger the load

02:30:43 because it can't trigger the load weighing bypass because it's not heavy enough we've only got three people small people in the lift so um there was a lot of wasted time which added to the the cloth of wear that was on the on

02:30:55 the cloth of wear that was on the on both lifts because the list was stopping to collect people on the way down that it couldn't do and then these people who couldn't get in the lift were calling the other lift and somebody made the remark i think

02:31:06 and somebody made the remark i think that the

02:31:07 that the 18 years of the lift service was equivalent to 30 years in any other situation so that was um the the reasons why that was put forward that the car size would be

02:31:18 put forward that the car size would be enhanced the entrance size would be heart

02:31:20 heart enhanced and and that would help wheelchair users as well um and all the other facilities for the disabled the the bells and whistles the indication

02:31:31 the bells and whistles the indication uh the sounds uh and acknowledgements that

02:31:34 that uh that people with disabilities expect nowadays

02:31:37 nowadays mr ellis thank you very much i'm sir i've come to the end of my prepared questions

02:31:41 questions right might i have um ten minutes to see if there's anything i always ask which i didn't to see are there any uh further relevant suggested questions well mr ellis when council gets the end of his questions we

02:31:53 council gets the end of his questions we always have a break because sometimes turns out that there are questions that have been omitted a door to be put to you and and there are other people following these proceedings from elsewhere who may have

02:32:04 have questions they want to suggest so we'll stop now

02:32:07 stop now if i say 22 do you think that will give you long enough uh yes well if you're not you can i can if you need more time again today we'll resume at 20 to 1. if

02:32:18 again today we'll resume at 20 to 1. if we need more time well it might be a bit longer but anyway we'll resume as soon as we can and see if there are more questions for you when you come back okay all right thank you sir and now please

02:32:29 all right thank you sir and now please go to the ashram and don't talk to anyone about your evidence when you're out of the room please thank you

02:32:42 thank you all right mr well i'm going to say 20 to 1 but it's a short 10 minutes so if you need more time that will be right i'm grateful thank you

02:45:54 hmm would you ask us to alice to come back in please

02:46:07 my mistress who we'll here see if there any more questions for you shall we yes mr clear there are no further questions mr ellis uh just leaves me to say

02:46:16 say thank you very much for attending to give evidence today thank you sir and i'd like to thank you very much mr ellis on behalf of all three of us on the panel

02:46:25 the panel it's quite um quite a serious request to ask people to remember what they were doing

02:46:31 doing what 10 years ago or more 15 years i think it's 16 17 years most of it yes so um thank you for wrecking your brains giving us the benefit of your recollection it was tricky i have to say

02:46:43 recollection it was tricky i have to say well it's been very useful for us to hear from you and we're very grateful to you for coming to give your evidence thank you so much thank you very much and now of course you're free to go thank you miss kenny thank you

02:47:01 yes mr cleo now we have another witness but

02:47:04 but perhaps it would be better to start him at two o'clock would it it would yes good well in that case we'll break now and we'll resume at two o'clock thank you very much