Expert Evidence - Wednesday 15th June 2022 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:27 [Music] yes a strange yes good afternoon Mr chairman could we please call Professor Terrero thank

00:00:41 you good afternoon again Professor Terrero welcome back um I think it's right that we ask you to affirm again I'm sorry but uh the words are there on the screen would you read them out please yes I do solemnly sincerely and

00:00:53 please yes I do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much please sit down

00:01:00 down make yourself comfortable

00:01:04 there yes when you're ready for script yes thank you yes good afternoon Professor Terrero I'm going to be asking you the questions today and into tomorrow um please if you don't understand any of my questions just ask

00:01:16 understand any of my questions just ask me to the repeat it or I'll put the point in a different way please try and keep your voice up and also try not to speak too fast because the transcribers taking a live note of your evidence okay

00:01:27 taking a live note of your evidence okay um so you gave us a Pres presentation last Thursday on the 9th of June based on a report that you'd provided if we could go to that that's

00:01:44 j706 so this is your Phase 2 GRL Tower inquiry adequacy of the current testing regime report dated the 4th of January 2022 and I asked you to confirm the uh

00:01:56 2022 and I asked you to confirm the uh the truthfulness and the opinions in that report last week the a further report that you provided to the inquiry that you'll be asked questions about at the end of your evidence tomorrow Mr keny is going to ask you those questions

00:02:08 keny is going to ask you those questions um and I just want to bring that up that's jto

00:02:28 705 yes so there we have an earlier report that you wrote uh it's dated the 15th of August 2021 it's Phase 2 GRL Tower London fire brigade and complex building fires further considerations on

00:02:40 building fires further considerations on the presumption of technical competency uh and those questions tomorrow will be about the water supply to the tower um now just in terms of this report is that

00:02:51 now just in terms of this report is that your signature there that we see on the front yes have you read that report recently yes have you provided that report in the same way that you would have have provided the report to an English Court yes and can you confirm

00:03:03 English Court yes and can you confirm that the facts and matters set out in the report are true to the best of your knowledge and belief yes they are and can you confirm that the opinion the opinions you provide in that report are honestly uh held professional opinions

00:03:14 honestly uh held professional opinions yes they are thank you now you've given evidence before including about your background and your experience and expertise uh but I just want to recap over some of that because some of that's

00:03:26 over some of that because some of that's going to be quite pertinent to some of the topics we're going to cover today so if we go to section 1.2 of your testing report this is on page four of jto

00:03:49 706 so here we've got a a prey of your expertise in this section of your report and I just want to update and um flesh that out so it's right isn't it you're

00:04:01 that out so it's right isn't it you're currently professor of civil engineering and head of Department of Civil environmental and geomatic Engineering at the University College London is that correct that's correct and before that

00:04:12 correct that's correct and before that between 2017 and 2019 you were at the University of Maryland in in the USA is that right and at that university did you hold the John elban chair at the

00:04:23 you hold the John elban chair at the department of fire protection engineering yes I did and were you also the director of the center for disaster resilience yes I was and then earlier to that between 2012 and 2017 did you hold

00:04:36 that between 2012 and 2017 did you hold the role of Professor of civil engineering and head of the school of civil engineering at the University of Queensland in Australia yes I did and before that you held leadership

00:04:47 before that you held leadership positions including at the EO poly technique Federal in Luzan Switzerland is that right yes in 2012 and also a number of positions between 2004 and 2011 at the University of Edinburgh yes

00:05:00 2011 at the University of Edinburgh yes I did uh including you were the BR trust Royal Academy engineer chair in fire safety engineering between 2004 and 2011 yes thank you now as to your formal

00:05:13 yes thank you now as to your formal qualifications you initially trained as a mechanical engineer in Peru is that right yes and you were awarded a master of science and a PhD by the University of California Berkeley in mechanical

00:05:24 of California Berkeley in mechanical engineering with a speciality in fire safety yes and you are a chartered engineer through the engineering Council division of the institution of fire engineers in the UK yes and you're also

00:05:38 engineers in the UK yes and you're also a registered professional engineer in Queensland Australia yes a full member of the Society of fire protection engineers in the US yes and you were a fellow of a number of bodies including

00:05:50 fellow of a number of bodies including the Royal Academy of engineering and a fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh is that correct that's correct and we can see you've also been awarded a number of Cades and prizes as you go on

00:06:01 number of Cades and prizes as you go on to explain in paragraph 1.2.3 at the bottom of that page just to pick up on a couple of these there are a number of prizes in 2008 you awarded the Arthur B GES medal by the Society of

00:06:15 Arthur B GES medal by the Society of fire protection engineers in the USA is that correct that's correct and in 2011 you were awarded the David rasbash medal at the for the institution of fire engineers in recognition for eminent

00:06:26 engineers in recognition for eminent achievement in the education engineering and science of fire safety yes I did and you're also the author of more than 500 technical documents in all aspects of fire safety of which more than 200 are

00:06:38 fire safety of which more than 200 are peer-reviewed scientific journal Publications yes that's correct and is it right to say that you've been the editor for a number of scientific journals as well yes and in 2010 to 2016

00:06:50 journals as well yes and in 2010 to 2016 were you the Editor in Chief of the fire safety Journal yes I was and is that the most respected journal in the field of fire safety internationally yes and

00:07:01 fire safety internationally yes and you've also been involved in a number of high-profile fire investigations including an independent investigation into the World Trade Center building collapses is that correct that's correct

00:07:12 collapses is that correct that's correct if we look at your report at page six I want to go to paragraph 1.2.7 there you also set out your extensive experience in the Education

00:07:23 extensive experience in the Education and Training of fire Engineers fire investigators and the fire service is that right that's correct so you tell us that you've been involved in that for more than 20 years and you've developed training programs on Far investigation

00:07:35 training programs on Far investigation Etc in a number of different jurisdictions is that correct that's correct and that includes if we look down the

00:07:44 down the paragraph about six lines up from the end you've designed fire engineering fire safety courses uh at the University of Queensland is that correct yes that's correct yes and I'm going to come back to

00:07:54 to that now moving on to some substantive topics I want to start start today with some questions about how other jurisdictions have addressed the risks

00:08:05 jurisdictions have addressed the risks posed by external facade systems because we've heard a lot about the domestic regime including over the last two days with Professor Bisby but I I want to try

00:08:16 with Professor Bisby but I I want to try and

00:08:17 and contextualize uh the UK position with what we see internationally and obviously you're well placed given your expertise particularly in the US and Australia to provide that so that that's

00:08:28 Australia to provide that so that that's where we're going to go first and then I'm going to come back to some more detailed questions about the UK's testing regime or the the regime in England and Wales before addressing some of the conclusions that you've drawn in

00:08:39 of the conclusions that you've drawn in your report so that's the broad structure I'm going to follow okay now you set out some analysis of the response of other jurisdictions to the fire safety design of external walls in

00:08:50 fire safety design of external walls in your report at Annex A3 that begins at page 210 of this report so if we just go to that to orientate ourselves

00:09:04 so there under the heading changes in regulation and practice uh you begin a section which looks more broadly at other jurisdictions and their responses now to start with you you tell us that

00:09:15 now to start with you you tell us that some countries had banned the use of combustible materials in external Fires at facades prior to the greml tower fire is that right uh yes I mean it is not

00:09:27 is that right uh yes I mean it is not that they have banned them but they were never allowed yes and so a good example is Hong Kong for example where it has never been allowed in high-rise buildings to have combustible materials yes and um you also say that in some

00:09:39 yes and um you also say that in some cases uh regulations were strengthened after the grall fire which effectively make it impossible to use combustible materials is that correct yes that's correct and you give the example of Hong

00:09:50 correct and you give the example of Hong Kong you also give the example of France Germany and China of states that have adopted a basically no tolerance approach to non to combustible materials is that correct yes that's correct

00:10:01 is that correct yes that's correct yes um and then later in your evidence just to be clear we'll come back to your views on the efficacy of banning materials I I will return to that topic later but you've then in your report you

00:10:14 later but you've then in your report you provided more detail on three main jurisdictions the US the UAE or Dubai in particular and Australia is that correct that's correct and and is that because those are the three most interesting

00:10:26 those are the three most interesting other jurisdictions to look at in terms of where the where this jurisdiction might go in the future yes they cover a range of different approaches uh and uh

00:10:37 range of different approaches uh and uh that that it was I think important to highlight those three because they cover a full range of approaches yes so let's start first with the United States and their response to this problem now is it

00:10:50 their response to this problem now is it right that the United States doesn't have a unified regulation as to fire safety design and it is left to each individual State yes in principle each individual state will have its own

00:11:02 individual state will have its own regulations they generally all coincide uh in many of the key aspects but but at the end the regulatory framework is a state regulatory framework yes and you

00:11:14 state regulatory framework yes and you go on to explain that nonetheless the National Fire Protection Association known as the NFPA is a body which exercises huge influence in the way that fire safety is implemented across the US

00:11:26 fire safety is implemented across the US is that correct that is correct and you tell us that this organization has extraordinary confidence in their current approach to external facade fire topology now can you just help us with

00:11:38 topology now can you just help us with what you mean by that when you say that organization's got extraordinary confidence in their current approach to this problem what do you mean by that yeah as as as as opposed to the United Kingdom where you have uh the

00:11:49 Kingdom where you have uh the prevailance of functionality requirements functional requirements in in the United States uh you do have the option for performance-based design but the primary means of delivering fire

00:12:01 the primary means of delivering fire safety is through a very strong and strict uh prescriptive regime and the National Fire Protection Association like the international building code on or ICC um they are effectively

00:12:14 or ICC um they are effectively prescriptive codes with an option of minor departures now given that uh that the codes are are very very prescriptive and that uh the rules are set as rules

00:12:26 and that uh the rules are set as rules uh the process by which they achieve uh the objectives is deemed to be uh an unalterable and unchangeable process and uh and which is generally confirmed by

00:12:41 uh and which is generally confirmed by historical data that uh NFPA for example collects on a on a regular basis that uh enables them to um affirm that they have not really had any major inance and

00:12:53 not really had any major inance and therefore uh talk with great confidence that their set of rules uh is is and sufficient to try to manage this particular problem yes thank you um now

00:13:04 particular problem yes thank you um now the

00:13:05 the NFPA have helpfully provided a statement for the inquiry about their experiences in the USA and that can be found if we just bring that up at USA

00:13:20 61 so there we have a submission that the inquiry received from the National Fire Protection Association uh to the inquiry uh about the system of regulation in in the US

00:13:33 the system of regulation in in the US now um the first point that you note in your report about this submission is the heavy Reliance placed on a particular test and that's called the NFPA 285 test

00:13:45 test and that's called the NFPA 285 test is that right yes that's correct and if we go to page six of this submission I want to look at section three so under section three in the second paragraph

00:13:56 section three in the second paragraph down it says this as mentioned the combustibility of facade systems in the US is controlled by facade system assemblies with combustible components passing the rigorous fire test

00:14:08 passing the rigorous fire test procedures of NFPA 285 this test protocol is similar to BS 8414 and is mandated for use predominantly on high-rise buildings where a combustible component may make

00:14:21 where a combustible component may make up part of the building's exterior wall assembly and then they go on having a rigorous test is not enough to control the fire risk it's important to ensure that what is specified as well as installed is the same as what's tested

00:14:33 installed is the same as what's tested and and it goes on um now just to be clear so the NFP NFPA 285 that's a large scale fire test isn't it yes it's a

00:14:44 scale fire test isn't it yes it's a large scale fire there is very similar as they indicate to BSA 414 yes so you agree with what's said here that it's similar uh in design to an 8414 yes

00:14:56 similar uh in design to an 8414 yes test and uh just to be clear later in your evidence we will come back to some of the detailed criticisms you make of the 8414 test but um we'll keep with this for the moment now if we could go

00:15:07 this for the moment now if we could go to page um 229 of your

00:15:12 report so back to jto R 706 at 229 I just want to read it what you say from paragraph b127 onwards you say this um broadly the

00:15:25 onwards you say this um broadly the context in which an NFPA 285 test is required by the IBC or NFPA 5000 is when the project wishes to include combustible components in a wall

00:15:36 combustible components in a wall assembly that's otherwise required by code to be non-combustible it can be inferred from this that a pass in the test is deemed to be equal to non-combustible behavior in actuality a

00:15:47 non-combustible behavior in actuality a pass in that test equates to a limited amount of fars spread over a period of 30 minutes and therefore this equivalency has the same weaknesses described above in relation to the failure criteria for being s

00:15:59 failure criteria for being s 8414 and you go on in the next paragraph b128 having distilled the project characteristics and place the design in a classification system the context of

00:16:10 a classification system the context of the end use application of the external wall Ensemble is lost and is entirely removed from the past fail classification system of the test the aforementioned imprecise equivalency

00:16:21 aforementioned imprecise equivalency limited fir spread equals non-combustible is made independently of the end use scenario and does not consider the Nuance performance required of individual fire safety strategies through the building

00:16:32 through the building classification and then I just want to read one more paragraph here b129 it is therefore possible that an external wall system that meets the pass criteria of NFPA 285 may be appropriate for some end

00:16:44 NFPA 285 may be appropriate for some end use scenarios but not others while in the UK system the onus is openly placed on the designer and engineer to interpret the test results and observations in the context of the endu scenario as stated previously in the US

00:16:57 scenario as stated previously in the US system no such assess is mandated so I think effectively what you're saying is the test provides an answer it doesn't expect interpretation and either that answer is you can use it

00:17:09 and either that answer is you can use it or you can't is that right yes and and and I think that that is contextualized by the structure uh of NFPA codes or IBC or ICC codes uh so what you have in the

00:17:20 or ICC codes uh so what you have in the United States is that you're going to have a set of rules and therefore there is no variability in how the fire safety problem will be resolved so you start by

00:17:31 problem will be resolved so you start by classifying the building and if you classify the building as a residential building there is only one solution to the problem and therefore because there is only one solution to the problem uh if uh you introduce combustible

00:17:44 if uh you introduce combustible materials is taken by NFPA 5000 which is a performance-based design uh element of the code and therefore they require that test as a substitute that basically is a

00:17:55 test as a substitute that basically is a final piece of the puzzle that gets fit in otherwise completely rigid uh solution to the problem yes thank you um and if we go over the page and look at

00:18:07 and if we go over the page and look at b138

00:18:09 b138 um you you say this you say NFPA 285 was conceived as an acceptance test and therefore does not require interpretation by confident professional this is compatible with the US

00:18:20 this is compatible with the US regulatory framework but is inconsistent with the approach towards fire regulation adopted currently in the UK so just to be clear you just explain why that's compatible with the US

00:18:31 that's compatible with the US framework but but just help us why would that be so inconsistent with the approach towards fire regulation that we have here because when you have the functional requirements uh you're going to have multiple solutions that in

00:18:44 to have multiple solutions that in principle could be deemed as meeting uh the functional requirements and it will be the designer uh or any of the Professionals in the process that will determine what is the path to compliance

00:18:55 determine what is the path to compliance now uh if if you have a a complicated situation that has multiple variables and you are incorporating that into a system that allows multiple Solutions

00:19:08 system that allows multiple Solutions the possibility of making a mistake is enormous but if you have a system that is completely rigid that only has one solution you could actually work this in into that solution so that it actually

00:19:20 into that solution so that it actually meets the requirement of that specific solution because it's the only one that you're going to have yes I understand and and then you go on b139 otherwise

00:19:31 and and then you go on b139 otherwise NFPA has very similar limitations to those already described for BS 8414 it does not provide any additional information that cannot be obtained from BS 8414 and the testing protocols used

00:19:43 BS 8414 and the testing protocols used cannot provide further data in support of building design so effectively it you would say it's a poor test in terms of providing you with a a range of information that you might need to make

00:19:55 information that you might need to make a holistic assessment of external wall performance is that fair yeah absolutely but but nevertheless as as we discussed when I gave my presentation there is a certain tail that gets cut by the test

00:20:07 certain tail that gets cut by the test now that tail because the provisions uh within NFPA for example do not include a stapled strategy you know many times a highr building will be required to have sprinklers you know you have similar

00:20:19 sprinklers you know you have similar levels of compartmentation you might end up having the need for two stairs uh plus pressurization and all sorts of other things that are required by the North American code cutting the tail

00:20:31 North American code cutting the tail might end up being a lot more effective that when you just simply cut the tail and uh and nevertheless give complete Freedom you know to design multiple solutions that could not that might not

00:20:42 solutions that could not that might not have all those redundancies of robustness that uh that the prescribed an FBA solution has yes thank you um that's helpful and I was going to come

00:20:53 that's helpful and I was going to come on to that so is it right that in the US um they don't have a presumption of of stay put that underpins all this no uh the the the system in the United States

00:21:05 the the the system in the United States uh is effectively A system that will require some form of evocation at at all

00:21:14 levels and when you mean some form of equation do you mean that they adopt a phased evacuation strategy it could be phased evacuation it could be total evacuation there there there are uh sort

00:21:26 evacuation there there there are uh sort of different options that you might have depend depending on the type of building that you have and uh but but you will always proceed to evacuate people at a certain

00:21:37 certain rate

00:21:39 rate yes and and has stap put ever been an underlying assumption in the US system as far as you know uh not in the way in which we uh see it in in in in the UK uh

00:21:53 which we uh see it in in in in the UK uh you you can you can argue that there's an element of stay put in the sense that some people will wait uh for others to evacuate so you have the staged evacuation process that can

00:22:04 the staged evacuation process that can be a very very long process so for some people yes there is an element of stay put but essentially uh you have a rate of ESS that is introduced into the into the code yes and I think what you're

00:22:16 the code yes and I think what you're saying is the provisions other Provisions in the building for example Provisions for sprinklers all support that Central uh fire safety strategy is that absolutely yeah yeah

00:22:30 and and would you describe the NFPA test 285 test as a rigorous fire test procedure that's how it's described in the submission to the inquiry would you describe it as rigorous

00:22:42 describe it as rigorous no can you explain why yes I mean I think that uh the the NFPA test uh as I indicated in my report uh suffers from fundamentally the same problems uh that

00:22:54 fundamentally the same problems uh that BS 8414 has uh which is is intended to be a scenario test where as a start the scenario is not well characterized then the measurements that you have are very

00:23:07 the measurements that you have are very minimal and therefore the information that you can extract uh is very limited and um and the test follows a protocol that effectively addresses one set of

00:23:19 that effectively addresses one set of conditions and uh and leaves an enormous amount of uh variability when it comes to the interaction between that set of conditions and the facade system that you're trying to to assess so in in in

00:23:32 you're trying to to assess so in in in in that sense it is it is very much an equivalent you know to b s 8414 is just simply slightly different yeah and in fact I think elsewhere in your report you refer to a study

00:23:44 your report you refer to a study conducted by FM Global which compared the NFPA 285 with another standard the ANSI the American national standards Institute the FM

00:23:55 Institute the FM 4880

00:23:56 4880 standard um and you say that the authors of that FM Global study concluded that materials can pass the NFPA 285 test but can fail that other test is that correct

00:24:07 can fail that other test is that correct yes the FM Global standard um recognizes that the range of heat fluxes that you can have uh from a fire a fire that is being projected in a window uh can reach

00:24:19 being projected in a window uh can reach much higher levels than what the NFPA 285 test can produce and therefore they created a scheme by which those higher heat flux could be reproduced and by

00:24:30 heat flux could be reproduced and by doing so uh they found many materials that would have passed NFPA 285 but were not de satisfactory according to the FM Global test

00:24:42 Global test yes so that that test that ANS FM 4880 test creates thermal conditions that are more relevant to an external fire scenario is that correct yes that's what

00:24:53 scenario is that correct yes that's what they were attempting to cover a a broader range of conditions than the very narrow range range that NFPA 285 covers and by creating a broader range they go to a much higher uh heat insult

00:25:07 they go to a much higher uh heat insult uh for for the facade system yes and so I think in essence what you're telling us is that in your opinion the NFPA 285 test is not the best way to be assessing

00:25:19 test is not the best way to be assessing external facade fire performance is that correct yes as we as we have said uh numer as I've said numerous times uh a test is a test a test provid you with information but as a criteria that

00:25:31 information but as a criteria that serves for acceptance the only thing it does is it cuts a tail and uh and it it doesn't really provide you with a robust methodology uh for um for acceptance

00:25:44 methodology uh for um for acceptance yeah and when you use the phrase cuts a tail I think what you mean is it it excludes the worst performing systems but you're then left with systems which which could be potentially

00:25:55 systems which which could be potentially very bad but nevertheless are capable of passing the test test yes so the only thing that you can say at the end when you apply those test is that if it fails the test is absolutely terrible yes and

00:26:07 the test is absolutely terrible yes and I think what you said earlier was that there were other elements of the US code which might ensure higher standards of fire safety like the use of sprinklers phased evacuation Etc two staircases is

00:26:18 phased evacuation Etc two staircases is that right is that another presumption so two staircases is very common in in in in the United States it's uh it's it's part of most building codes and uh and so so yes I mean what what the North

00:26:30 and so so yes I mean what what the North American system has as I said before it has a lot of provisions and uh it's a very extensive code but also it has a very narrow range of applications so there's no variability on the solution

00:26:41 there's no variability on the solution so so you know exactly what the solution is going to be and that solution generally incorporates a very large number of Provisions that you will normally not see in the United Kingdom whether those Provisions are necessarily

00:26:54 whether those Provisions are necessarily useful or appropriate that's a different story but the reality is that they have a much greater number of Provisions yes thank you that's helpful has there been any criticism of the regime in the US in

00:27:06 any criticism of the regime in the US in terms of it's how rigorous it is how inflexible it is is it the subject of criticism uh I think I think uh prescriptive requirements of that nature are always uh a subject of of criticism

00:27:19 are always uh a subject of of criticism but the approach that uh that people have taken in North America is a constant revision of the code that is driven by practice you know whether you're a manufacturer

00:27:30 you know whether you're a manufacturer you're a fire engineer you know or you are a building developer uh they have an approach that they call the consensus approach by which NFPA committees meet on a regular basis and they are making

00:27:42 on a regular basis and they are making the code evolve in such a way that they enable the use of new technologies or they improve things on on on a regular basis so so their approach has not been

00:27:53 basis so so their approach has not been to give freedom to the practice but has actually been of incorpor ating the practice in the constant Redevelopment of the code and by doing so uh they're giving a voice to every stakeholder uh

00:28:06 giving a voice to every stakeholder uh to participate in the in in the changes uh of the code so it's it's it's really a very very different approach but um there is always a natural criticism you

00:28:18 there is always a natural criticism you know to the rigidity of a prescriptive code and this is the reason why they Incorporated NFPA 5000 which effectively gives you uh an opening you know towards

00:28:29 gives you uh an opening you know towards um delivering a performance-based design that allows a competent professional to uh come up with an alternative Solutions now the reality is that what you will

00:28:40 now the reality is that what you will get in the United States is a 99.99% prescriptive solution with maybe a couple of very minor variants that's what NFPA tends to offer yes and and how

00:28:52 what NFPA tends to offer yes and and how successful has the NFPA been in in managing to innovate the code to keep pace with say modern construction methods uh I think they have been um it

00:29:04 methods uh I think they have been um it it it really depends on who the judge is because because the the the reality is because it's developed a culture of participation uh most of the

00:29:15 participation uh most of the stakeholders will be involved in in areas of the code that pertain their own business now that is good and bad and uh because obviously certain participants

00:29:26 because obviously certain participants are going to be constantly lobbying for changes in the code that benefit them but uh but I think in essence because the culture has been one of

00:29:37 the culture has been one of participation uh in the United States there's an enormous confidence on the fact that the code actually delivers uh the the the the necessary um safety

00:29:50 the the the the necessary um safety while uh taken into account cost taking into account uh the evolution of technology and so forth and and as you saw from the submission from NFPA Point

00:30:01 saw from the submission from NFPA Point number one was the statistics it is constantly validated by improved statistics of Life loss and property uh loss so so they're constantly uh

00:30:12 loss so so they're constantly uh validating that approach by uh by collecting the statistics and showing how improvements are going are being introduced yes I see so would you describe the code as a a very

00:30:24 describe the code as a a very conservative code even though it evolves yes I would yes and that's just accepted as as the way it is in in in the US that they have this quite conservative approach to

00:30:36 this quite conservative approach to their prescriptive rules and regulations yes I mean you know obviously coming from a European perspective or an Australian perspective I will say it is very conservative I mean clearly they will not think of it as a conservative

00:30:49 will not think of it as a conservative uh as a conservative code because it is embedded in the culture it is the culture uh that that that uh the evolution of fire safety has had for 100

00:31:00 evolution of fire safety has had for 100 years in the United States can you this is probably an impossible question to ask and fill free not to answer it but um can you pinpoint what it is that's led to that type of culture there in in

00:31:13 led to that type of culture there in in North America and and perhaps a different culture that we see for example here in terms of margins of safety and and conservativeness in the way that rules and regulations are

00:31:24 way that rules and regulations are drafted yeah I mean I think this is something that obviously it is to some extent

00:31:29 extent a speculation but uh but the reality is that there's a number of things um that that characterize for example the European market uh that were not the

00:31:40 European market uh that were not the case in in the United States and uh and for example in in Europe there's been always a need for some uh higher level of freedom because of the existing stock of buildings so there's a lot of

00:31:51 of buildings so there's a lot of historical buildings the cities have evolved uh you know from a very um significant existing body of buildings and therefore a lot of these very

00:32:03 and therefore a lot of these very Draconian Solutions like putting sprinklers everywhere uh were not possible within the context of the building stock in in in in Europe and therefore there was always a need to try to be uh different then of course in the

00:32:16 to be uh different then of course in the post-war years um there was an enormous amount of reconstruction that had to be done and it had to be done very fast and therefore having uh sort of expensive or rigid Solutions uh you know were was

00:32:29 rigid Solutions uh you know were was probably not um acceptable or or even viable so there's a number of of reasons that I think uh have led uh Europe to evolve in a in in in in in

00:32:42 uh Europe to evolve in a in in in in in a different way and and I think in many ways uh because the United Kingdom used to be um the Bastion of of knowledge in

00:32:53 to be um the Bastion of of knowledge in fire safety uh there was um a sense of confid confidence that also allowed a lot of freedom and uh because there was a perception that we really understood the problem quite quite well and uh so

00:33:07 the problem quite quite well and uh so so as say it's a number of variables but I think in general they're more contextual than anything yes that's very helpful thank you if we return to the NFPA submission to the inquiry I just want to pick up where we left off this

00:33:19 want to pick up where we left off this is at

00:33:20 is at USA

00:33:21 USA uh

00:33:23 uh 61 page six section three

00:33:39 yes so we were reading the second paragraph uh under section three and I want to pick it up six lines down now um and it says this having a rigorous test is not enough to control the fire risk

00:33:51 is not enough to control the fire risk it is important to ensure that what is specified as well as installed is the same as what was tested this can be one of the weakest points in fire safety as it requires a high skill level

00:34:03 safety as it requires a high skill level of designers installers and inspects especially for complex exterior wall systems it is often Minor Details that can make a big difference in fire performance making it especially

00:34:15 performance making it especially important to be vigilant through all steps of the construction installation and inspection process now can we take it from this that the US system does recognize the need for the tested system

00:34:28 need for the tested system to be consistent with that which is specified and installed yes and and it goes actually Beyond in the sense that in the United States uh most of the trades are

00:34:39 States uh most of the trades are involved in the process including uh the profession of fire protection engineering as they call it they're all uh they all require very very rigid and specific certifications so everybody in

00:34:52 specific certifications so everybody in the process is certified so from The Authority having jurisdiction to the installer

00:34:58 installer uh they will have some sort of accreditation that enables them to do the job because they recognize that given that they have a very rigid set of solutions that th those Solutions need to be implemented uh in a very strict

00:35:11 to be implemented uh in a very strict manner yes so is is this right that it's recognized that somebody's got to exercise some judgment and expertise to determine whether the results of that test are going to apply to the facade or

00:35:24 test are going to apply to the facade or the building in question no it's it's not it's not the results of the test it is the whole implementation of uh the the different provisions of the code so a a a

00:35:36 provisions of the code so a a a sprinkler installer for example has to be certified uh an individual who um installs fire proofing or cavity barriers will have to have a certification and those are required for

00:35:48 certification and those are required for them to be able to exercise the activity and the same way the fire protection engineer is a professional engineer who has to be certified in every every state

00:35:59 has to be certified in every every state now the the the people who conduct the test laboratory again is certified and uh and and therefore the certificate that the laboratory produces is a certificate from an institution

00:36:10 is a certificate from an institution that is recognized and uh and generally regularly monitored you know to have um the the skills and competencies to deliver the test appropriately I see so

00:36:21 deliver the test appropriately I see so I think what you're saying is at all stages of the process everybody has to have achieved certain competency standards yes and be certified as such yes yeah and and you make the point

00:36:33 yes yeah and and you make the point relying on the NFPA submission that in the US uh it's also important that the enforcement professionals have those skills and that expertise is that right yes so there will be what the North

00:36:44 yes so there will be what the North Americans will call the authority having jurisdiction and the authority having jurisdiction will have an equivalent certification to the engineering designer for example so does that mean

00:36:55 designer for example so does that mean that they have to understand these external wall performance U matters as well as the fire engineer who's signed it off for use on a building well it this is what

00:37:07 use on a building well it this is what what what is very interesting about the North American system is that because you operate in a very prescriptive environment uh the the professional certification is very much related to

00:37:19 certification is very much related to your capacity of interpreting the code so so in many ways if you are a fire protection engineer for example and you have a profession professional engineering accreditation um you will

00:37:30 engineering accreditation um you will have some fundamental knowledge about fire safety but most of the information that you are required to have and you're required to take an exam and and so

00:37:41 required to take an exam and and so forth relates to your capacity to understand and apply correctly the code yeah which is pretty much the Hallmark of a of a prescriptive system yes I see

00:37:52 of a of a prescriptive system yes I see so the expertise comes in the knowledge and understanding of the code AS oppos to the knowledge of understanding of the the principles and the and the physics behind some of what's in the code is

00:38:03 behind some of what's in the code is that exactly which basically means that you have reduced the owness on on the professional because half of the solution has all already been resolved

00:38:14 solution has all already been resolved by the code and your job is to be able to interpret it appropriately you know as opposed to having to create the whole Solution on your own which requires a professional of a much much higher level of Competency and a very different

00:38:26 of Competency and a very different professional mindset also yes I see yes that's

00:38:31 that's helpful and then um if we look uh at the bottom

00:38:37 bottom paragraph I think this um is going to reinforce some of the points you've been making it it states there in the majority of cases and jurisdictions those involved in the design construction and inspection processes

00:38:49 construction and inspection processes are typically required to carry some form of certification licensing or similar credential that shows that they have achieved some level of Competency in the area in which they work individual jurisdictions are typically charged with determining the level of

00:39:00 charged with determining the level of accreditation or certification required for those involved in the design construction enforcement processes construction of a highrise building would require the services of a registered design professional and RDP

00:39:11 registered design professional and RDP multiple rdps are likely to be on the design team including a and then over the

00:39:19 page including a licensed architect and licensed Engineers including in the disciplines of structural Fire Protection and electrical amongst others in the US the primary engineering

00:39:30 in the US the primary engineering credential to be attained is the professional engineer license so that's the the accreditation of all of those involved in the system yeah exactly and the the ultimate level the highest level

00:39:41 the the ultimate level the highest level is a professional engineer and each state will have to accredit you so if I wanted to exercise in California I would have to have a state of California professional engineering license and if I want to exercise in New York I will

00:39:52 I want to exercise in New York I will have to get one from the state of New York yes and in your opinion how successful of those ACC creditation and certification requirements been and ensuring that there's the level of Competency needed in the way you've just

00:40:03 Competency needed in the way you've just described it so as so as to interpret the code and the requirements of the code uh I I think they're very successful yeah now if we go back to the

00:40:15 successful yeah now if we go back to the NFPA submission uh again page seven second paragraph down it says as can be seen from above the US are faced with many of the same challenges as the UK when it comes to fire safety of high-rise buildings both countries have

00:40:26 high-rise buildings both countries have responded to the challenge through regulated requirements including use of facade fire testing some of the biggest differences may be found in the enforcement of the requirements

00:40:37 requirements um so is that a fair distinction that you would draw between the system here in the system there yes because effectively the moment that you have a combustible material in your system you

00:40:50 combustible material in your system you have no choice you have to conduct a

00:40:54 test thank you now I now want to turn to uh Dubai in particular um now the panel has heard on several occasions about cladding fires in tower blocks in Dubai

00:41:06 cladding fires in tower blocks in Dubai and elsewhere in the UAE and Dubai civil defense has prepared a submission to the inquiry to assist the panel if we could just go to that that's at

00:41:25 dcd701 and and this submission came in the form of a witness statement uh from an individual called Mr Terren Ronald Johnson and he's a Dubai civil defense

00:41:37 Johnson and he's a Dubai civil defense officer and this statement you can take it from me is dated the 1st of May 2020 so uh it's dated from then you can see that actually on page eight uh if we wish to now just tracing uh back uh and

00:41:52 wish to now just tracing uh back uh and thinking about the UAE more broadly for a moment is it right that before 2011 11 there were no explicit requirements for the fire performance of facade systems

00:42:03 the fire performance of facade systems in the UAE regulations that's correct but is it right that in 2011 there came to be something called the UAE Fire and Life Safety Code of practice is that

00:42:14 Life Safety Code of practice is that right yes that's correct and is it right that but even then in 2011 that had no explicit limitations on external wall assemblies and no explicit reaction to fire requirements for buildings

00:42:26 fire requirements for buildings separated by more than 3 MERS that is correct then is this right after 2012 the Fire and Life Safety Code of practice adopted some standards for external for fire performance of walls

00:42:40 external for fire performance of walls such as in certain circumstances Euro class A1 and the NFPA 285 large scale fire test is that your understanding that is correct so from 2012 they begin

00:42:52 that is correct so from 2012 they begin to introduce standards into their code by reference to tests not domestic test test in the UAE but tests from the US or Europe is that correct that's correct yeah and is it right that part of

00:43:05 yeah and is it right that part of Dubai's Approach at this time around 2013 was to ban non-fire rated assemblies for mid-rise and high-rise buildings yes that's correct then in

00:43:17 correct then in 2018 the UAE produced an updated UAE Fire and Life Safety Code of practice is that right that is correct yeah and do you understand that that 2018 code was

00:43:28 you understand that that 2018 code was in direct response to the GRL Tower fire yes it was in many ways because it's the first time that you have uh a set of rules are truly enforcable right so prior to that it was

00:43:40 enforcable right so prior to that it was all optional was it mostly yes I see yeah and we can take it from this submission this dubby civil defense submission that that was accompanied by a 10-point plan and we can go to the

00:43:52 a 10-point plan and we can go to the list of those points in this submission if we go to page five

00:44:03 so there we can see they say um just above the bullet points so a 10-point action plan to tackle facade fires whilst we worked on a more permanent solution in the release of the 2018

00:44:15 solution in the release of the 2018 code um and then the 10-point plan was as follows and if we just read the first three points it was that the core of the facade material shall be tested in naked flame form so I think that's saying you

00:44:27 flame form so I think that's saying you had got to do tests on the core of any composite panel is that right yes that's correct facade panel as a product must be tested and then facade system as well as assembly shall be tested or listed as

00:44:39 as assembly shall be tested or listed as per test requirements of the code is that right that's correct so they're introducing certain prescriptive testing requirements yes at that point and then if we go I don't want to go through all

00:44:50 if we go I don't want to go through all of these bullets but if we go down for bullets and and pick it up with Consultants three bullets from the end it says says Consultants shall have competent and qualified facade Specialists inhouse or shall hire Civil

00:45:03 Specialists inhouse or shall hire Civil Defense House of expertees who have experience and expertise in facade consultancy for facade design system selection and supervision of facade contractor then the next bullet facade

00:45:15 contractor then the next bullet facade contractor shall be approved by civil defense with valid civil defense license and then facade installation shall be inspected throughout installation process and certified by consultant or

00:45:28 process and certified by consultant or civil defense approved House of expertise do you see that

00:45:35 yes um and you make the point in your report that thinking back to the first three bullet points the tests that are referred to there are very similar to those that are used in the UK and the US

00:45:47 those that are used in the UK and the US is that right that's correct um but um is it right that what's different is that certification of products requires both tests and

00:45:58 of products requires both tests and adjudication by a group called The House of expertise is that right that is correct and is it right that the house of expertise has a great deal of oversight when dealing with design

00:46:10 oversight when dealing with design installation and certification of buildings yes as as as as opposed to the system in the United States where what you have is a rigorous process of certification uh here what you have is a

00:46:22 certification uh here what you have is a group of individuals are anointed as experts and those individual ual have the power of adjudication and uh and therefore the actual quality of the product depends on the quality of the

00:46:33 product depends on the quality of the House of

00:46:34 House of expertise yes I see and and every building has to go through that house of expertise checking process is that right yes in in in it's a choice of the House

00:46:46 yes in in in it's a choice of the House of expertise if they want to look at the building or not I see so they probably only going to look at the most complex buildings is that right the ones that they deem that requires their attention

00:46:57 they deem that requires their attention yes I see and is it right that this house of expertise is a group of Fire and Life safety consultant companies that advise the Dubai civil defense Authority is that right that is correct

00:47:09 Authority is that right that is correct and uh is it your understanding that they are selected by the debbi civil defense Authority that is correct and is there any published criteria for their selection not that I know is there any

00:47:20 selection not that I know is there any list of required competencies for their appointment not there enough so would you say there's a lack of transparency about who those experts are and what criteria they've been appointed yeah I

00:47:32 criteria they've been appointed yeah I think I think using the word transparency is probably not not appropriate I think it is more um the fact that uh it is not clear what expertise do you need to be able to

00:47:44 expertise do you need to be able to appoint an expert and uh and and therefore it really depends uh on on the individuals so the the owners is entirely on the on the

00:47:55 the owners is entirely on the on the individuals yeah yes I see um now if we could look at page 213 of your report uh JT 706 page

00:48:09 213 and I want to look at what you say at paragraph a32 at the top there this is where you're dealing with uh the UA system you say like in many other countries

00:48:21 say like in many other countries enforcement and inspection of facade systems has been strengthened and changes to the Reg regory framework have been aligned have aligned the UAE to existing International regulations

00:48:32 existing International regulations particularly Europe the UK and the USA nevertheless the changes are in general minor and what is different in the approach taken by the UAE as described

00:48:43 approach taken by the UAE as described above is the full confidence in the civil defense Authority as the competent Authority in charge of M making all critical decisions so that reinforces the point youve just made you've put the

00:48:54 the point youve just made you've put the onus on determining the acceptability of external walls on this single body who's advising the civil defense Authority exactly that's correct now is that a

00:49:06 exactly that's correct now is that a model that you consider to be adequate and robust just standing back and looking at it objectively well I mean I think that it's it's a very limited model in the

00:49:17 it's it's a very limited model in the sense that that you really require um a a very significant scrutiny of those individuals because what you get afterwards is is the whole chain so

00:49:29 get afterwards is is the whole chain so if you make a mistake on who you're going to appoint in in place um in of of this group of people then you will make propagate that mistake undetected you

00:49:41 propagate that mistake undetected you know all the way to to the end so so while it could work if you get the right people in place and you have mechanisms to get the right people in place there

00:49:52 to get the right people in place there is no redundancies or robustness to the system yes I see now Dubai civil defense have also provided information about another change that occurred in its 2018 code if

00:50:06 change that occurred in its 2018 code if we can go back to their submission this is

00:50:10 is dcd701 at page

00:50:16 three and I want to look at paragraph 6.6 it's the penultimate paragraph on that page at the bottom it says here the uae's diversity and mixed population demographic is also

00:50:29 and mixed population demographic is also understood to have been one of the main reasons for the decision to adopt the policy of confirming a fire and evacuating a building rather than the stay put policy widely implemented

00:50:42 stay put policy widely implemented elsewhere so in other words is this right that in the 2018 Dubai code which is really the first code that actually grappled with external War performance

00:50:54 grappled with external War performance they've abandoned any Reliance on a stay put fire safety strategy is that correct yes that that that is correct they um they would have favored uh an

00:51:05 um they would have favored uh an evacuation strategy as supposed to stay put earlier on but it was not enforcable as I say until 2018 and um and in many ways I think uh when you have when you

00:51:16 ways I think uh when you have when you read this type of submissions uh you need to understand that that the places that they're describing as elsewhere uh generally are a function of the fact

00:51:27 generally are a function of the fact that uh in the region either you're very influenced by North America or you're very influenced by Britain so you will have a number of the Emirates and other places where you will have the same

00:51:38 places where you will have the same policies as as in the UK in other words stay put will be considered uh seriously and uh and you will have uh other places where they will follow the North American approach and uh so so we need

00:51:50 American approach and uh so so we need to look at this quite carefully in that context yes I was going to ask you about that so in that last sentence when they said rather than the stut policy widely implemented elsewhere I think what

00:52:01 implemented elsewhere I think what you're saying is you don't read that as saying stut policy is widely implemented elsewhere globally but widely implemented elsewhere in that particular region yes and in particular in places that they will follow the British model

00:52:14 that they will follow the British model as uh as as as the approach to fire safety yes so I think you're saying that there are a Pockets within the UAE that have just simply followed our regulatory

00:52:25 have just simply followed our regulatory system is that correct yes yeah but they've now abandoned the stut policy and instead they are favoring well mandating a an evacuation strategy

00:52:39 well mandating a an evacuation strategy is that correct yes which is much more aligned with NFPA so Dubai is move mov slowly you know towards a North American approach yes and is that primarily a

00:52:51 approach yes and is that primarily a phased evacuation uh strategy or does it differ building to building could you get some building where it's a full evacuation from the get-go well the it it it depends on how the building is classified but yes most high rises will

00:53:04 classified but yes most high rises will have a phased evacuation strategy yeah and just to be absolutely clear H how will that work I mean in a in a high-rise building you know typically how many floors are you evacuating in a

00:53:15 how many floors are you evacuating in a phase way so so so the typical approach to it is that um in particularly in a residential building in that context that um normally if uh you will not

00:53:27 that um normally if uh you will not consider the alarm in the unit because the reality is that that would lead to many false alarms and so we do not want to consider alarm in the unit but uh but the moment that either the the fire is

00:53:41 the moment that either the the fire is verified in some cases or that you will have a detection system in the lobby so the moment that a Lobby one lobby is compromized you know that will

00:53:52 compromized you know that will immediately start a sequence uh of evacuation now in in some countries you will have um the the floor of the fire will evacuate and the floor above the floor Below in some countries it will be

00:54:05 floor Below in some countries it will be the floor of the fire two floors above one below and then it Cascades so every two minutes you get two more two more two more coming in or three more depending on on the rules but basically

00:54:17 depending on on the rules but basically that will be the the the process so you will have an alarm system that allows you to minimize nuisance alarms but at the same time allow s you to provide

00:54:28 the same time allow s you to provide warning to people so that they can start the process of evacuation and then you will do it at a staged Way by taking a number of floors at a time yeah and thinking about the position currently

00:54:41 thinking about the position currently globally how common would you say that phased evacuation approach is uh I will say if you if you take uh high-rise buildings in general um I

00:54:54 high-rise buildings in general um I would say

00:54:56 would say most countries will have a provision for stage

00:54:59 stage evacuation uh for for highrise buildings in in countries like the UK that provision will exist for Office Buildings but not for residential but uh

00:55:11 Buildings but not for residential but uh I think to a great majority you will have a provision for stage of equation also in residential buildings around the world yes so to what extent um is the

00:55:24 world yes so to what extent um is the this jurisdiction an outlier at the moment in retaining a stay put strategy I think I think the UK is an outlier in the sense of its rigidity um

00:55:35 outlier in the sense of its rigidity um so there is no alternative uh in in in in in that sense it is it is truly an outlier uh and the even in in countries where they

00:55:47 and the even in in countries where they have

00:55:48 have retained

00:55:50 retained um a significant number of uh of situations in which put is acceptable they will still have a provision that in

00:56:01 they will still have a provision that in case it's not um you can move into a plan

00:56:05 plan B yes so do you mean that they would for example have the technology within the building to have a communal alarm that can switch to a phased evacuation

00:56:18 can switch to a phased evacuation strategy if that becomes necessary yeah it could be a technological solution or it could be uh Provisions in regards to the training of the fire brigade that uh that will be trained under

00:56:29 that uh that will be trained under certain circumstances you know to initiate um uh an an an evacuation process I mean obviously uh the inclusion of some level of technology is always incredibly helpful because even

00:56:42 always incredibly helpful because even if it's going to be driven by the fire service um it enables communication with the occupiers in in in in in in a very effective way so um so so yeah I mean I

00:56:53 effective way so um so so yeah I mean I think I think we're I would say the the UK is truly an outlier is in the absence of alternative Provisions yes and and it sounds from what you're saying and it would follow from the number of jurisdictions that

00:57:06 from the number of jurisdictions that have had a phased approach as its primary approach for some time that the technology is there and is readily available to enable that is that correct

00:57:17 available to enable that is that correct yes I think that that you will find uh in many sectors that people will argue a number of reasons why uh we should not have um a provision for ESS and uh but

00:57:30 have um a provision for ESS and uh but at the end um all those uh reasons in many ways uh fall apart I mean people will argue for example that uh that if

00:57:42 will argue for example that uh that if you have too many alarms uh people become numb and they will not pay any attention so you will hear those arguments very commonly here in in in in the UK but you have means by which you

00:57:54 the UK but you have means by which you can as I explained if if you actually put the alarm in the lobby um that will immediately reduce the nuisance alarms uh to to a very very uh low uh level if

00:58:07 uh to to a very very uh low uh level if you give the fire service the prerogative of being able to start this process you know not by having detection but by actually just having a mechanism

00:58:18 but by actually just having a mechanism a technological mechanism of communication again you're eliminating all these excuses and I think I I think this is this is a matter that really deserves a very rigorous analysis

00:58:31 deserves a very rigorous analysis because I still haven't found any reason why a state put strategy is beneficial or necessary uh there is no technical reason for that and uh and even the

00:58:44 reason for that and uh and even the argument that there is a danger uh by detonating a full evacuation of of of a building I I don't believe that uh that there is enough

00:58:55 believe that uh that there is enough information that points in that direction um when you know 90% of the world does it on a regular basis and uh and we don't see that danger manifest

00:59:06 and we don't see that danger manifest itself um at all so so I think I think this is a matter that really requires a very thorough um analysis because I I have not crossed a real solid argument

00:59:20 have not crossed a real solid argument that uh that enables me to say that uh this is a very very good reason why State put should remain yes and and I mean I think you told us about uh Dubai that in practice they'd

00:59:32 about uh Dubai that in practice they'd been preferring a phased evacuation approach anyway but they couldn't mandate it um but but subject to that has there been any um or have you

00:59:43 has there been any um or have you received any feedback about how it's gone there going from a stay put strategy to a phased evacuation formally well I mean I think as I say it's something that has happened in a

00:59:54 it's something that has happened in a natural way and it has also also happened as a function of the growth of the city so it's very difficult to assess uh you know whether that transformation has been effective or

01:00:06 transformation has been effective or ineffective in the sense that as uh buildings became taller more complex and increase massively in number in Dubai um mostly because the developers or the

01:00:19 mostly because the developers or the owners of the occupiers of the building wanted to have a higher standard than what what Dubai acquired they were generally trying to follow either say

01:00:30 generally trying to follow either say the north most generally North American approach so so in many ways uh you know people will Benchmark the solution against the NFPA solution and so it has

01:00:41 against the NFPA solution and so it has been a natural progression that has happened with the evolution of the country right and I mean in your report and we'll come back to it later you said that um measuring the

01:00:54 later you said that um measuring the rate of vertic Flames spread is a a much easier thing to do if if what you're then looking to to is a phased evacuation strategy have they uh changed

01:01:06 evacuation strategy have they uh changed their testing system in any way which enables them to measure that rate and therefore support that strategy no I think I think that that that the legislation in Dubai as I say

01:01:17 that the legislation in Dubai as I say is very much a peac meal and is mostly predicated on copying an approach that has been that has has been followed by others so so in principle there has been

01:01:30 others so so in principle there has been no Innovative uh approach towards improving their testing practices they have retained NFPA 285 or BSA 414 in both cases there is no real tangible

01:01:44 both cases there is no real tangible assessment of the rate of spread and its evolution in time so so that information is missing but again comparing it back to the North American model if you implement so many

01:01:56 implement so many redundancies and you put so much fat into the system the tendency is that the system has at the end a better performance and uh and if you on top of

01:02:07 performance and uh and if you on top of that reduce the uncertainty in the implementation of the solution by making sure that there's only one path to the solution by having a rigid prescriptive approach um you find yourself in a

01:02:19 approach um you find yourself in a situation that uh that in some of the major fires in in Dubai you had extraordinary fast uh rates of spread as you saw from my phase one report

01:02:31 you saw from my phase one report nevertheless uh people uh had the capacity to move straight into a stair that was protected by multiple levels of redundancy and and and they did that so

01:02:42 redundancy and and and they did that so fast that they didn't enter into conflict with the fire service and and so forth so so in many ways um it is almost uh I I would say um um not a

01:02:55 almost uh I I would say um um not a purposely

01:02:56 purposely built solution to the problem but one that just simply works because you throw a lot of things to it yes so would you say that the 2018 um code in Dubai effectively is trying to mirror

01:03:09 Dubai effectively is trying to mirror what we see in the US yes in terms of the number of extra safety Provisions so does that mean two staircases yes sprinklers yes yes so all

01:03:20 staircases yes sprinklers yes yes so all of that is mandated exactly I see yeah and even to the point that many times what you will get is uh in in the contractual Provisions it will say you

01:03:31 contractual Provisions it will say you have to design according to nfba yes that's that's what you will get in many buildings in the Emirates and have they allowed for an alternative approach outside of that prescriptive

01:03:42 approach outside of that prescriptive system um well I mean as I say it many many times that that sort of prescriptive mimicking of the North American approach is a contractual

01:03:53 American approach is a contractual agreement that is driven by the needs of the developer and uh but because otherwise the alternative is is to follow the very skeletal uh building

01:04:05 follow the very skeletal uh building code that Dubai has that is extremely uh basic and uh and as you saw with the 10 points I mean this is that's the level at which the code the local code is developed nevertheless the regular

01:04:17 developed nevertheless the regular practice is to immediately mirror you know what what uh what North America does and as I say in many cases also what Britain does yes I understand thank

01:04:29 what Britain does yes I understand thank you now in your report you you identify the outlier to to the general Trend that we've seen internationally as Australia and I want to spend a bit more time on

01:04:40 and I want to spend a bit more time on Australia um now like the United States Australia is a federal government system comprised of states of and territories isn't it yes and it's right isn't it that there is some overarching

01:04:51 that there is some overarching legislation such as the National Construction code is that right the NCC yes that's correct uh but is it right that then each of the states and territories has its own legislation for Building Development approval inspection

01:05:03 Building Development approval inspection and certification yes and also uh professional registration yes and is it right that each of the states has adopted different ways of dealing with

01:05:15 adopted different ways of dealing with this this the fire safety and building construction in terms of those elements yes and um you mentioned several important studies of the con construction industry that were carried

01:05:27 construction industry that were carried out in

01:05:28 out in Australia um you mentioned the Lambert report commissioned by the New South Wales government in uh published in October 2015 you mentioned the sherold and Weir report commissioned shortly

01:05:39 and Weir report commissioned shortly after the GRL Tower fire and published in February 2018 and you also mentioned the Warren Center reports which had been planned uh from 2012 but were officially launched

01:05:51 from 2012 but were officially launched in July 2018 and some of the studies from the Warren Center were published in January 2019 and some in January 2020 so those are the different reports you've referred to um generically in terms of

01:06:04 referred to um generically in terms of studies in Australia and I just want to go to what you say at page 213 of your report uh

01:06:13 report uh j706 page

01:06:17 213 so if we look at uh there the first paragraph under the Australian response so A3

01:06:26 so A3 14 you say this you say the lacrosse building fire that occurred in Melbourne on the 25th of November 2014 was the first external F facade fire of

01:06:37 first external F facade fire of significant magnitude to occur in Australia this fire came together with several other failures that encouraged the Australian state and federal governments to undergo a series of studies on the state of the construction

01:06:48 studies on the state of the construction industry the three main studies are the Lambert report the sherard and wear report and the Warren Center reports the Warren Center reports were a collaboration between the Australian state governments and the fire safety

01:07:00 state governments and the fire safety engineering industry at large while the Lambert report was commissioned before the gral fire the Sher golden wear report was commissioned in August 17 immediately after and then you say the Warren Center reports have been in

01:07:11 Warren Center reports have been in planning although it was the since 2012 although it was the impetus given by the grel tower fire tragedy that allowed the study to

01:07:19 study to materialized um and then at the the next paragraph a315 you say while focusing on the Australian Construction industry these three reports present a deep introspection into professional practice

01:07:31 introspection into professional practice in the construction sector that is applicable globally these three reports have already had a profound impact in Australian construction and I worthy of detailed

01:07:43 detailed scrutiny um so does this tell us that uh in Australia they've been considering fire safety design in a a pretty deep way for for some time and even before

01:07:55 way for for some time and even before the the Grandfield Tower fire yes Australia has a number of particularities I mean the first one is that in a way is the birthplace of functional requirements for fire safety

01:08:07 functional requirements for fire safety uh there was an earlier Warren Center report that uh that that uh migrated Australia into the introduction uh of uh functional requirements and therefore as as a

01:08:19 requirements and therefore as as a result of that uh they have a fairly long history of applying in one way or another another one functional requirements they still have a prescriptive alternative and a very

01:08:30 prescriptive alternative and a very significant part of the design Still Remains prescriptive but they've had a long tradition of trying to apply functional requirements to the um to the

01:08:41 functional requirements to the um to the design of buildings so as a function of that uh obviously there has been um a significant um amount of effort in trying to understand the benefit of the

01:08:52 trying to understand the benefit of the introduction of those functional requirements but in parallel there's been a recognition that uh the the quality of engineering started deteriorating and um and as a result

01:09:06 deteriorating and um and as a result there were a number of failures that were observed in numerous areas not only uh fire safety there were structural failures uh moisture Ingress failures

01:09:17 failures uh moisture Ingress failures all sorts of failures that had um the Australian Market very much sensitized you know to this idea that something is not working now then there was the

01:09:29 not working now then there was the lacrosse building fire and the lacrosse building fire was a very strong wakeup call and um and there there were no casualties in in in the lacrosse fire nevertheless uh the the fire propagated

01:09:41 nevertheless uh the the fire propagated all the way to the to the top of the building and um and it was in in a sector of the docklands in in Melbourne that was considered to be um representative of uh of uh you know the

01:09:55 representative of uh of uh you know the sort of higher quality uh Construction in in in Australia and therefore that detonated a much deeper introspection now nothing had really been achieved after the lacrosse fire other than the

01:10:07 after the lacrosse fire other than the fact that there was a lot of discussion around professional circles that there was something wrong uh and um and and it was when Granville uh happened that um

01:10:19 was when Granville uh happened that um that fire entered the picture with the other forms of failures uh you know as as being essential uh in the analysis of of the state of the industry yes so

01:10:32 of the state of the industry yes so would you agree with this that Australia are are ahead of the curve and ahead of us in terms of appreciating that if you're going to have functional performance requirements as your base

01:10:43 performance requirements as your base system what you need underpinning that is an awful lot of other pillars which are going to support that functional based approach yes there was

01:10:55 functional based approach yes there was there was a recognition of that um now clearly there there before Grandville uh while there was a recognition that there were elements

01:11:06 recognition that there were elements that were missing it was not fully clear what those elements were and how you actually put them in place I see yes

01:11:17 actually put them in place I see yes that's helpful and and I just want to ask you about the the Warren Center reports in a little more detail so so these um sit across all the Australian States and territories don't they

01:11:28 States and territories don't they they're not a state it's not a state specific thing the Warren Center reports no uh so what the Warren Center is part of the University of Sydney so the work was started in New South Wales but it

01:11:39 was started in New South Wales but it was for example partially funded by the Victorian government and uh it was led by somebody from Queensland so it was a it was pretty much a federal uh effort

01:11:51 it was pretty much a federal uh effort yes thank you and and if we go if we look at page uh 1 193 of your report paragraph

01:12:03 a228 you you say this you say the issue of Competency and its role in the adequate implementation of fire safety in the built environment is comprehensively addressed by the Warren

01:12:14 comprehensively addressed by the Warren Center project the Warren Center project focuses on the Australian context and was conceived before the lacrosse building and GRL Tower fires but finally emerged as a response to these events and this project delivered the following

01:12:26 and this project delivered the following nine reports so we've got the first report regulation control and accreditation report second education report third methods report fourth roles

01:12:37 report third methods report fourth roles report fifth competencies report sixth professional development report seventh accrediation and Regulatory reform report eighth final report and Ninth comparison of the fire safety

01:12:49 comparison of the fire safety engineering FSE guidance documents and assessment criteria report so it was released in a number of separate reports yes and and then you say this below that

01:13:00 yes and and then you say this below that you say

01:13:02 you say a229 you say the Warren Center reports analyze the relationships between regulation competency and adequacy in the context of fire safety engineering design and finishes by delivering a

01:13:14 design and finishes by delivering a pragmatic plan on a transition from the current state of fire safety engineering and design for Australia it is my strong opinion that these documents are directly applicable to the reality of

01:13:25 directly applicable to the reality of the situation in the UK and the process followed for their development is a very good example of coherent government industry and academic collaboration

01:13:36 industry and academic collaboration towards the delivery of a common and pragmatic plan of improvement now you you you say it's your strong opinion it feels like in that section of your report you're really urging this inquiry to look very

01:13:48 really urging this inquiry to look very closely at those Warren Center reports is that is that fair yes that that's that's really fair I think that um if if I can allow myself to give you an example um at some point uh Mr milet uh

01:14:03 example um at some point uh Mr milet uh gave a a question uh to Professor Bisby in regards to what is the necessary level of Competency and uh and as um

01:14:14 level of Competency and uh and as um it's and it was very difficult you know for Professor Bisby to be able to answer that question correctly and uh and he answered it more from the perspective of uh of what do we need to guarantee as a

01:14:26 uh of what do we need to guarantee as a framework to make sure that the people are competent as opposed to what is the level of Competency that is necessary I think that was the recognition um that occurred in

01:14:38 recognition um that occurred in Australia that after this many years of practice with functional requirements that um any simplistic approach towards competency uh was um was inappropriate

01:14:52 competency uh was um was inappropriate you cannot Define competency by answering that question or you cannot Define the necessary competency by sitting in a committee and in two weeks come up with a definition of Competency

01:15:04 come up with a definition of Competency fire safety engineering is an incredibly complex discipline that that is massively

01:15:11 massively multi-disciplinary and therefore the definition of who a fire safety engineer is is an incredibly complex process but it's not only that it is not only the definition of who a fire safety engineer

01:15:22 definition of who a fire safety engineer is but basically what is the competency that all the other disciplines that work with the fire engineer uh have to acquire to be able to have an appropriate relationship between the

01:15:34 appropriate relationship between the fire safety engineer and the architect or the fire safety engineer and the structural engineer so how much does a structural engineer need to know to avoid dismissing the competency of a

01:15:45 avoid dismissing the competency of a fire engineer there's a there's a relationship of power that also has to be taken into account there's so many layers to the definition of competency that it was really required to develop

01:15:57 that it was really required to develop these nine reports to make clear what are the next steps and that was as as you pointed the dates it was almost two years of work of a very large number of

01:16:08 years of work of a very large number of people to try to establish all these relationships how they pertain accreditation how they compare to other International standards you have to look in from many many many angles and you

01:16:20 in from many many many angles and you have to start asking yourself questions like for example what is the difference of a fire protection engineer that operates in a North American prescriptive environment with a fire

01:16:31 prescriptive environment with a fire safety engineer that actually works in an environment where functional requirements are the expectation so these are two completely different professionals with to completely different set of of knowledge that

01:16:43 different set of of knowledge that actually have to be certified in completely different ways and uh and and none of this questions are questions that uh that can be easily answered so I think uh it will be full is you know to

01:16:56 think uh it will be full is you know to ignore U that body of work because while it is not fully translatable uh to the to the British system um clearly there is an enormous amount of background work

01:17:08 is an enormous amount of background work that can help understand the intricacies and complexities of Competency yes thank you Mr chairman I'm a mid topic but I think this is as good a moment as any for afternoon break yes yes all right

01:17:20 for afternoon break yes yes all right well then we'll take our break for the afternoon there Professor Terrero we'll uh stop now we'll come back at 20 to 4 please and then we'll carry on thank you thank you very much oh I perhaps I ought

01:17:31 thank you very much oh I perhaps I ought to remind you though I said this to you on many previous occasions please don't discuss your evidence once we out the room no I won't thank you thank you very

01:17:44 much thank you 20 to4 M thank

01:17:53 you

01:18:23 e

01:18:53 e

01:19:23 e

01:19:53 e

01:20:23 e

01:20:53 e

01:21:23 e

01:21:53 e

01:22:23 e

01:22:53 e

01:23:23 e

01:23:53 e

01:24:23 e

01:24:53 e

01:25:23 e

01:25:53 e

01:26:23 e

01:26:53 e

01:27:23 e

01:27:53 e

01:28:23 e

01:28:53 e

01:29:23 e

01:29:53 e

01:30:22 e

01:30:52 e

01:31:22 e

01:31:52 e

01:32:22 e

01:32:52 e

01:33:22 e

01:33:52 e

01:34:22 e

01:34:52 e e

01:35:25 would you ask Professor Terrero to come back in

01:35:37 please all right Professor ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes M yes thank you when we broke off we were discussing the Warren Center reports in Australia um now just a quick question

01:35:49 Australia um now just a quick question these reports are publicly available on the University of Sydney's website aren't yes um and if we can go to the final report that's a inq 30

01:36:08 14934 this is their their final report a report eight of the series and if we go within it to page eight what we see is a summary of the previous reports and the

01:36:19 summary of the previous reports and the recommendations in the series and I it's a huge body of work so we can't we can't deal with every element of it but I just want to highlight some of the the parts of it so

01:36:30 highlight some of the the parts of it so if we look on the on the right hand page but in the left column we can see there's a heading at the bottom education report report two and this says uh the research on fire safety Engineers education

01:36:43 fire safety Engineers education provision and accreditation by professional bodies such as by the I across Australia showed some very substantial limitations of the three traditional university courses teaching fire safety

01:36:55 university courses teaching fire safety engineering only one course at the University of Queensland is currently accredited by the engineers Australia the appropriate education of fire safety Engineers requires a well- defined and modernized curriculum based on a

01:37:07 modernized curriculum based on a pedagogy that will generate fire safety Engineers with comp the competencies and attributes required for future practice um and they say currently such pedagogy or a modern curriculum has not

01:37:20 pedagogy or a modern curriculum has not been fully developed for Australia or into internationally is that correct yes they identified that that kind of modern curriculum for a fire safety engineer

01:37:32 curriculum for a fire safety engineer wasn't just not available in Australia but in fact wasn't available internationally is that correct that's correct and that would include at the University of Edinburgh or any of those institutions yes I think uh what you

01:37:43 institutions yes I think uh what you will find is that University of Queensland University of Edinburgh and the international Masters in fire safety engineering are probably as close as it gets and uh to try to develop

01:37:54 gets and uh to try to develop professionals that can operate within a functional requirements framework and uh nevertheless um there's a number of reasons why uh those programs have not

01:38:05 reasons why uh those programs have not been able to evolve to fully what the Warren Center report recommends as the appropriate pedagogy and appropriate curriculum and and and in headline points what are those key reasons why

01:38:17 points what are those key reasons why they haven't been able to evolve to fulfill their full potential I I I think I think in general is um is mostly associated to the lack of recognition

01:38:28 associated to the lack of recognition for the need and uh I think what you find in all these programs is are all very small and they're all struggling to try to keep up uh a reasonable um I

01:38:41 try to keep up uh a reasonable um I would say number of students so that they become viable and uh and I think in in in in in essence it represents the conflict between organizations that

01:38:53 conflict between organizations that aiming at delivering the appropriate level of education and a practice that doesn't consider that necessary and uh and because that's the case and you don't really need this education to be

01:39:04 don't really need this education to be able to practice then obviously that results in a in a very limited um Market you know for for these individuals now obviously people that are graduating

01:39:17 obviously people that are graduating from University of Edinburgh for example they will be immediately taken by the practice because people recognize that they're at the higher level of of of Competency nevertheless they can still

01:39:28 Competency nevertheless they can still fill their ranks you know with uh with people from multiple other backgrounds without necessarily recognizing the value of this particular level of knowledge yes I understand and is that

01:39:40 knowledge yes I understand and is that one of the reasons one of the things we see in the Warren Center reports is an emphasis on promoting fire safety engineer as an attractive career path actually trying to make it more attractive for candidates um is that is

01:39:53 attractive for candidates um is that is that one of the the the learning points that came out of that work yes I think I think that uh that you fire safety engineering tends to be seen very much as a specialty and uh and therefore um

01:40:06 as a specialty and uh and therefore um it it it is difficult you know to recruit 17 year olds uh into in into this type of programs and uh people at that age tend to prefer broader

01:40:18 that age tend to prefer broader disciplines and um but even in these broader disciplines like this like civil engineering or architecture or mechanical engineering there is no provision for uh providing some level of

01:40:30 provision for uh providing some level of Competency in that space so that for example an architect can um discharge their duties as an architect correctly because they will have to know some level uh of of fire safety so I think I

01:40:43 level uh of of fire safety so I think I think it it is a combination of both I think um and and yes of course the waren center emphasizes that as one of the reasons but I think also if if this professionals were very heavily demanded

01:40:56 professionals were very heavily demanded by by the construction industry then that will be a a true motivation uh for people to enter uh this this these degrees yes thank you and just I want to

01:41:09 degrees yes thank you and just I want to carry on just reading from that column where I picked up there's a sentence beginning just before the halfway point on that right hand column that begins current curricula it says current

01:41:20 current curricula it says current curricular focus on the knowledge base that underpins the profession and nor many other professional attributes current curricular have undergone very little development over the past 25 years the accreditation of degrees as

01:41:31 years the accreditation of degrees as satisfying the requirements for first stage of the accreditation process or the review of competencies through an alternative route to registration by the if or EA can hardly be consistent or robust given these

01:41:43 robust given these shortcomings and then it goes on the key recommendation from this report was a call for development of new and improved best practice competencies

01:41:54 and improved best practice competencies which could then be matched by updated University education courses for fire safety engineering so you see that there and then if we go on to page nine on the

01:42:05 and then if we go on to page nine on the following

01:42:08 page on the left hand side um Ro there's a heading rolles report for report four and this said this report has developed

01:42:19 and this said this report has developed new roles for design fire safety Engineers those undertaking peer review and those fire safety Engineers working in the fire authorities the proposed roles reflect the recommendations of the sherold wear building confidence report

01:42:32 sherold wear building confidence report and the hackit report the report calls for design fire safety Engineers to be involved from concept design through to Handover involvement in construction inspections and

01:42:43 inspections and commissioning and it says the report obviates the need for projects to develop a holistic fire safety strategy a complete package of fire safety measures and a suitable manual for use

01:42:54 measures and a suitable manual for use by building managers and occupants now just pausing there that last sentence the report also obviates the need for projects to develop a holistic fire safety strategy a complete

01:43:05 holistic fire safety strategy a complete package of fire safety measures and a suitable manual for use by building managers and occupants can you explain what that means why does the report obviate that um well I mean I think that

01:43:18 obviate that um well I mean I think that uh that

01:43:20 uh that the if if if you want to take advantage of uh of a functional requirement framework uh the first step is that the fire safety engineer becomes truly a

01:43:31 fire safety engineer becomes truly a designer so it's an individual who has to juggle a number of different um options and uh and will have many of the attributes uh of the designer so uh you

01:43:44 attributes uh of the designer so uh you know AR Architects for example are very well versed in this type of Concepts and they have specific pedagogies that enable them to develop those attributes obviously there's going to be skills

01:43:55 obviously there's going to be skills that pertain to the discipline itself that of course are also going to be part of the curriculum but at the end what you're looking for and this is I guess the the philosophy behind this statement

01:44:08 the the philosophy behind this statement is that you are uh aiming at developing a holistic fire safety strategy and providing the complete package of information that comes with it and that

01:44:20 information that comes with it and that complete package of information that comes with it is going to also be directed towards other professionals or the the the building owners or occupants that they have to have the appropriate

01:44:32 that they have to have the appropriate level of information that enables them either to discharge their own duties but also to be able to uh safely occupy uh this this building so so in many ways um

01:44:46 this this building so so in many ways um what the the the report sees this as a self-evident truth that all these things need to being there if you really want to deliver uh an an an appropriate fire

01:44:57 to deliver uh an an an appropriate fire safety strategy within the context of a functional requirements framework right I see thank you um and then we've got um still on this page but on the right hand

01:45:08 still on this page but on the right hand side there's the competencies report report

01:45:13 five if we just go to the right hand side of this

01:45:19 page so and there it says the development of competencies for fire safety Engineers has been informed by the roles report and the future roles of fire safety Engineers as proposed in this research the competencies have

01:45:32 this research the competencies have examined the knowledge skills and personal professional attributes needed by a fire safety engineer in the future they've been based on the competency framework of the international engineering Alliance the Washington Accord requirements and the general

01:45:44 Accord requirements and the general framework utilized by Engineers Australia the proposals address competencies to be gained through stage one academic training and Stage two supervised professional experience

01:45:55 supervised professional experience milestones and the report lists indicators of attainment to assist in competency assessments for accreditation by professional bodies such as the EA and the if so is this right in summary

01:46:08 and the if so is this right in summary it's addressing competency at all stages of the process both academic stage but then also as a practitioner what the competencies are that you would need yes

01:46:19 competencies are that you would need yes engineering practice or design practice um is not not only about uh the education that you receive you know it is about being able to demonstrate that you can exercise the practice

01:46:31 you can exercise the practice appropriately and this is what the supervised practice stage uh in in in introduces in the in the certification process of a professional so you you enter the

01:46:44 professional so you you enter the discipline demonstrating that you have acquired all the necessary skills and attributes then you have to demonstrate that you can practice and that's where you're supervised and you normally will

01:46:55 you're supervised and you normally will assign a period of two to three years or something like that and and then eventually uh that's what brings you to full certification where you can actually operate as a professional

01:47:06 actually operate as a professional independently yes I see so it's very much a staged process of getting someone to be the finished article yes yes and then in terms of professional development on the right hand side we

01:47:17 development on the right hand side we can see that report six says this report examines the research findings and recommendations on professional development of fire safety Engineers from all the earlier research and reports it assembles a comprehensive set of recommendations with supporting

01:47:29 of recommendations with supporting evidence in relation to competencies education and career Pathways as well as professional development more broadly the recommendations on education for fire safety Engineers specifically address the competencies and attributes

01:47:41 address the competencies and attributes required for professional practice to create a level of professionalism which will be attractive to and encourage greater numbers of Engineers to consider a career in fire safety engineering

01:47:53 um now let's also go to the executive summary on page four

01:48:04 um so here what we have um is some key recommendations um in fact it begins there and if we go to page five what we

01:48:15 there and if we go to page five what we see is a series of bullet point recommendations on the left hand side of the page and I just want to highlight or go through a few of those with you um so

01:48:26 go through a few of those with you um so if we look at the left hand column of the left hand page perhaps if we could blow that up it says in order create to create a full and proper profession of fire safety engineering and meet all of the

01:48:37 engineering and meet all of the recommendations of the share gold weer building confidence report this final report of the Warren Center project recommends fire safety Engineers need to be given the professional responsibility and accountability for their overall

01:48:48 and accountability for their overall design and implementation of the fire safety strategy Professor Bisby earlier was talking about you've got to know who's making the decisions and does this

01:48:59 who's making the decisions and does this framework or the recommendations in this framework allow more certainty in terms of who's taking responsibility for certain fire safety design decisions AB absolutely that that is the purpose uh

01:49:11 absolutely that that is the purpose uh of um of of that bullet point in if uh something that people uh do not recognize is that when uh currently for example in the United Kingdom when a fire safety engineer

01:49:23 fire safety engineer um enters the the design process 90% of the decisions would have already been made for them and even then when they come in and they start

01:49:34 when they come in and they start interacting there's other uh participants in the design process that will still take or impose uh decisions on them which on the one hand takes away

01:49:47 on them which on the one hand takes away the responsibility of the design and takes away the responsibility of the outcome but on the other hand also gives the fire safety engineer an excuse to hide behind uh the decisions that are

01:49:59 hide behind uh the decisions that are being made by others in in such a way that they actually relinquish that responsibility entirely so it creates both problems so the fire safety engineer has to be responsible for the

01:50:11 engineer has to be responsible for the fire safety strategy and the demonstration of the outcomes of the fire safety strategy and only when you give the fire safety engineering that full responsibility they will take an appropriate seat at the table with the

01:50:22 appropriate seat at the table with the rest the designers yes and that yes and that's introduced via legislation that's the recommendation isn't it yes yeah and then in the fourth bullet point um it's at the bottom of that leftand column it

01:50:34 at the bottom of that leftand column it begins in being it says uh in being responsible and accountable fire safety Engineers should be engaged from concept design to practical completion and Handover and as such they should be

01:50:45 Handover and as such they should be responsible for the building fire safety design process and specification of the fire safety strategy preconstruction and if we go

01:50:56 down verification that the fire safety design meets the uh that's the National Construction code performance requirements at the building approval permit stage and that the fire safety

01:51:07 permit stage and that the fire safety design as constructed and commissioned as part of the project the Practical completion issuance of the occupancy certificate and owner manager Handover is as

01:51:16 is as intended um and then it goes on at the bottom the fifth bullet point the overall process of regulatory control of building approval should recognize that there are other designed participants who are active and who

01:51:28 participants who are active and who contribute to the overall fire safety of a building including practitioners who undertake detailed design installation and maintenance of sprinkler systems fire alarms fire hydrants and other fire safety measures however fire safety

01:51:39 safety measures however fire safety Engineers should have complete oversight over all aspects of fire safety and how all the fire safety measures interact with one another as part of the fire safety strategy so it's encouraging not

01:51:51 safety strategy so it's encouraging not to have a kind of compartmentation of of individuals or companies that are having responsibility for their bit of fire safety but that you have a fire safety engineer that is responsible for the

01:52:02 engineer that is responsible for the whole package yes yes that's that's exactly what what it is encouraged and uh and I think this is something that generally tends to be a very controversial statement because the

01:52:13 controversial statement because the argument will be that many other professions will request the same type type of control and being involved from the beginning the conceptual design you know all the way to the Handover now I

01:52:25 know all the way to the Handover now I think um one of the one of the key things that that those who make those statements uh do not recognize is to what extent fire safety is ubiquitous in

01:52:36 what extent fire safety is ubiquitous in every component of building the sign you know from the decisions on the structural Behavior you know layout uh facade systems Services fire safety

01:52:47 facade systems Services fire safety engineering is fundamentally everywhere and it only parallels the involvement of the architect uh no other discipline has such a broad range of uh influence in

01:52:59 such a broad range of uh influence in the ultimate design of a building and therefore the fire safety engineer is an individual who should actually have a seat at the table from day one so that all the provisions are carried in the

01:53:11 all the provisions are carried in the most appropriate way and uh making sure again because of his own expertise and the fact that this is a complex discipline that requires a set of skills that is very unique you know because of

01:53:22 that is very unique you know because of that they also have to have a responsibility to verify and the Conformity of all these uh systems that are being put in place yes thank you and then if we look at the last two

01:53:34 you and then if we look at the last two bullet points in this column um looking down at at the bottom of that

01:53:42 of that column we can see the last two bullets so that the penultimate one States the state and territory licensing registration schemes should require fire safety engineering is to meet the

01:53:53 safety engineering is to meet the assessment body professional accreditation requirements have the necessary professional Indemnity insurance and be subject to practice reviews and penalties for an adequate practice of these schemes now pausing

01:54:05 practice of these schemes now pausing there um so so that's very different to the system we have here currently in the UK isn't it yes I mean we have nothing like that um in terms of professional uh

01:54:17 like that um in terms of professional uh body accreditation requirements subject to practice reviews and penalties for an adequate practice of the schemes yeah I mean that that that that is something that that currently doesn't

01:54:29 is something that that currently doesn't exist in in in in the UK uh within the context of engineering practice uh nevertheless in in in other professional

01:54:41 nevertheless in in in other professional areas uh there will be no doubt that these are the prerequisite for professional practice yes um and then at the bottom of that page it says last butet state and territory licensing

01:54:53 butet state and territory licensing should protect the name fire safety engineer and ensure fire safety Engineering Services are only undertaken by licens fire safety engineers and I think you've confirmed that the US have

01:55:04 think you've confirmed that the US have had that uh approach for a long time um what about um for example the UAE are they licensing now in the UAE no there's

01:55:15 they licensing now in the UAE no there's there's very few places in the world where that is the case uh the US is is probably the most prominent uh of of all examples and uh but nevertheless uh

01:55:26 examples and uh but nevertheless uh professional Monopoly is again one of the fundamental Columns of professional practice and uh so again you know within the context of fire safety engineering that might sound as a very strange

01:55:38 that might sound as a very strange proposition but within the context of professional practice in in many other areas uh that would just simply be a given that uh that professional Monopoly

01:55:49 given that uh that professional Monopoly um is is is expected only a doct can practice as a as a doctor and only a lawyer can practice as a lawyer yes and and then on the right hand side of page

01:56:03 and then on the right hand side of page five

01:56:05 five um if I could look at the that page and go to the top so it states there in the leftand column these recommendations for Prof professional practice of fire safety Engineers can

01:56:17 practice of fire safety Engineers can only be implemented if underpinned by another series of recommendations relating to competent education and professional body accreditation including a clear and adequate definition of Competency should

01:56:29 adequate definition of Competency should be adopted that's a consensus agreement by the profession and the governments a robust pedagogy for University education of fire safety Engineers should be adopted new University uh courses is the

01:56:41 adopted new University uh courses is the next uh bullet point should be developed and

01:56:45 and accredited uh next column at the top clear processes for the assessment and accreditation of university courses um a framework for the development of career Pathways and the profession of fire

01:56:57 Pathways and the profession of fire safety engineering should be promoted as an attractive career so those are the other key

01:57:02 other key recommendations so it really is a very holistic approach that's being recommended isn't it yes um so it's not relying on any one sector to ensure the

01:57:13 relying on any one sector to ensure the competency it's raising the competency levels of everybody from start to finish yes it's a full recognition of fire safety engineering as a profession yeah that's what this uh report Advocates

01:57:24 that's what this uh report Advocates yeah and if we can look on page 15 there's an important um warning here on page 15 Under The Heading General on the right hand side of the page it says

01:57:36 right hand side of the page it says there it's essential to emphasize that the list of recommendations does not represent a set of optional actions from which government professional bodies and educational institutions can pick and choose the success of the overall

01:57:48 choose the success of the overall framework depends on a concerted advancement in all aspects neglect of any of these recommendations can render the Integrity of the process flawed so I think that what that's saying is where

01:57:59 think that what that's saying is where effectively where you've got a functional performance system as your basic system um you don't just need some of these pillars to uphold that you need all of those pillars and all of those

01:58:11 all of those pillars and all of those need to be in good order before you can guarantee that you've got a system that's delivering the right levels of fire safety is that what you're saying yes absolutely sorry not what you're saying what this report is saying yeah

01:58:23 saying what this report is saying yeah no I mean it's uh it that that that is a really interesting point because it stems from a realization this was this is not just an abstract concept um when Australia implemented functional

01:58:35 Australia implemented functional requirements they they made an attempt to put everything in place and it was a similar Warren Center report at the time now if you look at the original Warren Center report and uh and you look at all

01:58:47 Center report and uh and you look at all the things that they implemented the one aspect that they failed to implement appropriately was all aspects Associated to competency and the recognition of Competency and uh

01:58:58 and the recognition of Competency and uh so 30 or 40 years later uh they recognize that a lot of the flaws of the application of dys functional requirement was from the fact that they

01:59:10 requirement was from the fact that they missed the opportunity of creating that final aspect uh of of of of of the chain and it became the weakest link and therefore uh this recommendation is is a

01:59:22 therefore uh this recommendation is is a very important one because it basically tells you that you really have to cover all the bases if you want to have an appropriate functional requirement system yes thank

01:59:33 you and um you'll have the opportunity in due course um to to propose recommendations that you think the the chairman and the panel should be considering and I don't

01:59:44 panel should be considering and I don't want to straight too much more into that at this stage but is it your opinion that this work is directly relevant to the UK position now in terms of where it's at and where it might go yeah

01:59:57 it's at and where it might go yeah absolutely because uh if if you read this work uh I would say in in well well as I say there there is an application towards the Australian reality it is

02:00:09 towards the Australian reality it is based on exhaustive work that covers an international basis so so it is not only looking at the Australian regulatory system it's looking at the British at the American is comparing the different

02:00:21 the American is comparing the different types of professionals the different types of practices so in a way it's it's almost all the groundwork that needs to be read before you start thinking you know how you implement a competency

02:00:32 know how you implement a competency framework for the UK and this is why I believe this report is very important yes and and within the fire safety Community how were these series of reports received were they received positively have they had their its crit

02:00:44 positively have they had their its crit have they had critics well I mean I think there is uh that's a very very complicated question to answer because um I think that the there are certain

02:00:56 um I think that the there are certain sectors of the fire safety engineering community that very rapidly identified that this is a difficult path but it's a path that we need to follow and therefore the effort uh that is

02:01:08 therefore the effort uh that is necessary to be able to uh deliver a correct competency framework is something that needs to start now and uh so you will have uh a group of people who are very very ProActive at uh at

02:01:22 who are very very ProActive at uh at engaging with this type of recommendations and trying to make sure that people hear this type of comments now obviously there's another very significant sector of the of of of the

02:01:35 significant sector of the of of of the of the professional practice if you want to call it that way that uh that obviously feels that this is a a serious challenge to their position in the

02:01:46 challenge to their position in the practice um the if if you were to implement this type of a framework it is very likely that a very large fraction of the current practice will be displaced you know and as such uh that

02:01:59 displaced you know and as such uh that becomes a very difficult uh proposition now obviously the report has a whole section where it describes the need to provide the opportunity for upgrade so

02:02:11 provide the opportunity for upgrade so the need to create the professional um continuing professional development all the mechanisms to give the greatest opportunity to people so that they can lift their level and be able to practice

02:02:22 lift their level and be able to practice within the context of this framework but obviously uh that can be seen as a true threat and uh and and the best way I think uh to try to avoid that threat uh

02:02:37 think uh to try to avoid that threat uh is through indifference so you will have a very large sector uh of the practice who has fundamentally decided to ignore this work and they have come up with a

02:02:48 this work and they have come up with a number of very um ineffective substitutes to the groundwork uh because I think one of the key uh benefits of this report is the effort and uh and the

02:03:01 this report is the effort and uh and the intellectual investment that went in developing this uh this report so there's a very significant sector of the practice that has um pushed an

02:03:13 practice that has um pushed an alternative and that alternative is let's get together in a committee and within six weeks make a decision of our competency future and uh and I can guarantee you that that approach is not

02:03:24 guarantee you that that approach is not going to work because that approach doesn't look into the complexity of the discipline doesn't look into the complexity of the relationships between this industry and all the other

02:03:35 this industry and all the other Industries that's around them and really doesn't look um carefully enough how you actually change a mindset so that the the practicing um individuals are

02:03:49 the practicing um individuals are capable of embracing the functional requirements framework as opposed to continuously trying to revert back to in reinterpret everything in a prescriptive

02:04:00 reinterpret everything in a prescriptive way so there's a whole sector of of this report that compares so the mindset of the prescriptive engineer that will prevail for example in a North American model you know with the mindset that you

02:04:11 model you know with the mindset that you should have if you want to operate in a functional requirements framework and looks carefully into the the British hybrid you know which basically is a functional requirements for framework

02:04:22 functional requirements for framework that people are interpreting as a prescriptive set of regulations so all these things are explored in great detail in the report and related to the education that needs to be provided to those individuals who are going to enter

02:04:34 those individuals who are going to enter the practice and and I think uh we have to be quite clear about that that that that that information is is very fundamental is embedded in higher education pedagogy and therefore um

02:04:47 education pedagogy and therefore um needs to be considered as in in as carefully as possible and uh and so so yeah so as I say um there's the two sides there's sort of the indifference

02:04:58 sides there's sort of the indifference and then there is the other side which is The Advocates yeah thank you now in your report you then look in detail at the responses of three particular Australian States uh Queensland New

02:05:11 Australian States uh Queensland New South Wales and Victoria um now can you explain if these Warren Center reports were coordinated uh cross State pieces of work um why was it then

02:05:24 State pieces of work um why was it then the individual states developed their own responses was that simply due to particular local conditions within those States uh yes in in in some ways I think

02:05:36 States uh yes in in in some ways I think I think the states were willing and interested in participating in the Warren Center report nevertheless the one thing that had to be recognized it was a sense of there was a sense of

02:05:47 was a sense of there was a sense of imminence uh that was behind the actions that government government had to take um there there was a very clear identification of a very large number of

02:06:00 identification of a very large number of buildings that uh had very complex cling systems many of them uh highly combustible like in GRL Tower and therefore there was an enormous pressure

02:06:11 therefore there was an enormous pressure to take action so uh Victoria and New South Wales opted very rapidly for taking the DraStic action of going straight in to trying to ban things in

02:06:24 straight in to trying to ban things in one way or another now from my perspective uh they approach this in a in in a in in in in a in an erroneous way you know very similar uh to what uh

02:06:37 way you know very similar uh to what uh has happened in in in the UK that we Implement a pseudo ban which is not really a ban but it is you're Banning certain things but allowing others that

02:06:49 certain things but allowing others that actually are not that clearly correct so just to give you an example the the the state of Victoria made the decision that they will ban all

02:07:02 made the decision that they will ban all acms that um that had an infill product that contained less than 30% um inert so basically whether it was

02:07:13 30% um inert so basically whether it was polyethylene or any other polymer uh it had to be mixed with a percentage of uh inert that didn't make it non combustible to some

02:07:24 combustible to some extent they they set up an arbitrary threshold and that arbitrary threshold didn't take into account the physics of the problem so all of a sudden you are

02:07:35 the problem so all of a sudden you are putting a ban but that ban is really not a ban and uh and therefore you can still Design Systems that are dangerous that are complicated that don't perform appropriately nevertheless you've eliminated some of them but you still

02:07:47 eliminated some of them but you still are uh are messing around with with the rest so so this was done very rapidly and it was done fundamentally under political pressure now the state of Queensland took a much different

02:08:00 Queensland took a much different approach and the reason why they took a much different approach and uh was because the the University of Queensland had developed a very strong relationship with the fire service they had been providing for years training to to the

02:08:13 providing for years training to to the fire service and um and they had engaged in a process by which there was a a lot of a very strong symbiotic relationship between uh the queens and fire brigades

02:08:25 between uh the queens and fire brigades and the university and that had landed them years before Grandville in in a situation that was quite interesting uh so this was a building that was entirely cladded uh with polyethylene filed um

02:08:38 cladded uh with polyethylene filed um aluminum composite panels and um and and the the the fire service decided to put a recourse to stop uh this building and

02:08:49 a recourse to stop uh this building and uh and worked hand in hand with the university to try to go to the um the the in in in Australia they have a it's it's it's like

02:09:00 it's it's like a appeal panel in the construction industry when you get into a stalemate between the authorities you can bring your case to this appeal panel and they will find make a final decision of

02:09:12 will find make a final decision of whether this building can proceed for approval or not and U so one of the very very interesting things that I think sensitized the quenson fire service uh you know to this issue was the fact

02:09:24 uh you know to this issue was the fact that um that they Enlisted the university and they worked together in putting a case forward to stop this building and uh and and they lost the case on completely arbitrary grounds you

02:09:37 case on completely arbitrary grounds you know and they immediately internalized this and recognized you know how uh unfair let's put it that way the system was so when uh when Grandville happened

02:09:48 was so when uh when Grandville happened and immediately governments decided that they had to take action uh the Queensland fire service worked very closely with the Queensland government to try to find a better alternative and

02:10:01 to try to find a better alternative and what they proposed was the idea of developing the tools and the knowledge base or the the database that will um

02:10:13 base or the the database that will um enable them to address this problem in a technical way they and and and that required for them to to be able to not only have the tools and the database but

02:10:25 only have the tools and the database but also to uplift the level of practice so that people will understand how to use this information correctly so they worked hand inhand in developing a whole sequence of CPD uh modules that um that

02:10:39 sequence of CPD uh modules that um that basically were enabling professionals to use the knowledge that was being developed so that they could address the problem correctly yes now so so focusing and and you you give quite a lot of

02:10:50 and and you you give quite a lot of attention in your report to the Queensland system um and um if we could bring up their submission to the inquiry that's at qldd 702 so we've had submissions and I'll

02:11:03 702 so we've had submissions and I'll take you to each one of them from New South Wales from Victoria and from Queensland and this is the Queensland government submission to the inquiry um we can see at the front it's

02:11:14 inquiry um we can see at the front it's by the non-conforming building products audit task force now just briefly what was that task force so the the state government put together a task force that included members from

02:11:26 a task force that included members from the Queenston fire service uh to to address the problem so it was their response to Granville so it included people from uh areas in the construction

02:11:38 people from uh areas in the construction industry and um as I say the fire service and um so a number of stakeholders came in into this task force that was going to advise the minister yeah and it it all also had

02:11:49 minister yeah and it it all also had representation from the Department of housing and public works so from from the Queensland government itself yes yes and that was established almost immediately after the grenal tower fire is that correct yes almost

02:12:01 is that correct yes almost immediately um if we look at page 19 of the Queensland

02:12:12 submission so this submission sets out in detail their their response um following Grille and we can see that a heading in Gold there Queensland response building approval

02:12:25 Queensland response building approval process and under that we can see the heading building surveyors and it tells us um that building surveyors in Queensland must be licensed at building certifiers and are the decision makers

02:12:37 certifiers and are the decision makers for building approval compliance they have responsibility for determining determining that compliance with the National Construction code and necessary legislation has been

02:12:48 legislation has been achieved um and then in the second paragraph

02:12:56 down we can see sorry no then under the title fire engineers at the bottom of that page we can see it says um in the second

02:13:07 can see it says um in the second paragraph bottom of the page like building surveyance fire Engineers must demonstrate a base competence maintain ongoing professional development and registration and are legislatively obliged to compli with a code of

02:13:18 obliged to compli with a code of practice they must be involved if the building design proposal includes a fire safety related performance-based assessment and then over the

02:13:29 page at the top of the page it says as with building surveyors this framework enables practitioners to act as a group of self-determined and autonomous professionals the role and duties of

02:13:40 professionals the role and duties of Engineers are outlined within the professionals Engineers act 2002 and overseen by the Board of Professional Engineers of Queensland not all Australian states have a comparable

02:13:51 Australian states have a comparable framework for industry professionals so um is it right that Queensland appear to have tried to implement a lot of the recommendations from the Warren Center

02:14:03 from the Warren Center reports uh yes but they predated obviously the the Warren Center report so they were implemented in in I would say sort of a previous generation approach and and I think uh while they

02:14:15 approach and and I think uh while they they were very strong behind the idea of professional accreditation I think there was a bit of a confusion of how that is properly implemented and um and and I

02:14:27 properly implemented and um and and I think this became quite evident uh through the response uh to to granvel that that there was a need to try to supplement the way in which this framework was implemented the framework

02:14:39 framework was implemented the framework was not the problem it was the way in which it was being implemented yes thank you and and Queensland required Engineers to be registered they're called the registered professional engineer Queensland is that right and

02:14:50 engineer Queensland is that right and indeed you are one of those yes um and um they're also they are certified in collaboration with the UK's institution of fire Engineers is that right yes

02:15:01 of fire Engineers is that right yes which was in essence the problem because that's where the confusion got created because uh we

02:15:13 the what what what the process effectively did was it delegated to if the pro process of accreditation but because if does not have that structure

02:15:26 because if does not have that structure in the UK the way in which they were implementing it was not uh the standard that you would expect from a registered professional engineer I see so they were

02:15:37 professional engineer I see so they were implementing competency standards set by the if which which weren't really adequate yeah which which which in essence uh it is quite quite quite an interesting Nuance but I think if you if

02:15:48 interesting Nuance but I think if you if you look at the professional accreditation for any um discipline it always has two Pathways there is the pathway that you enter the professions through education and then demonstrating

02:16:00 through education and then demonstrating Your Capacity to practice which in principle should be the majority 99.99% people should go through that pathway and then there is the exception

02:16:11 pathway and then there is the exception route so the exception route is in some cases you might have people that have self-educated that have acquired the knowledge and the experience and then you create a process of scrutiny that

02:16:24 you create a process of scrutiny that enables those unique cases to be very very very carefully scrutinized and brought in into the profession through that alternative path now the problem

02:16:35 that alternative path now the problem that uh that the accreditation process followed by if has is that almost the Integrity of the people that were accredited through the that process came through the exceptional path and uh and

02:16:48 through the exceptional path and uh and nobody came through the appropriate or the traditional path and therefore uh the process didn't have the capacity to create the level of scrutiny that is

02:16:59 create the level of scrutiny that is necessary when you're allowing somebody that doesn't have the the basic uh education to be able to enter the profession and that has an effect of

02:17:10 profession and that has an effect of distorting completely uh the the the whole process so you might have the correct process but because they were applying the alternative path to the majority

02:17:21 majority then the process got distorted but because you would admit many people that were not properly scrutinized and then those people became the scrutineers and and then the the cycle

02:17:32 scrutineers and and then the the cycle you know go goes goes in that direction yeah so is it fair to say that the intention of this was was valid and was as per the Warren Center reports but

02:17:43 as per the Warren Center reports but then in terms of the way it got implemented it ended up being implemented in a way that wasn't successful exactly and uh and and and I think uh in in in in a way uh Grandfield

02:17:55 think uh in in in in a way uh Grandfield was a catalyzer for them to look at this carefully and recognize that they had a problem yes yes um but just just sticking with what the system how it

02:18:07 sticking with what the system how it should have worked just to be clear um from the Queensland submission we can see that if registered an engineer must undertake continuing professional development is that right yes and their

02:18:19 development is that right yes and their role is set out in leg legislation in in the Professional Engineers Act is that right yes and then there was oversight by a board of peers I other Professional Engineers that's how it was designed yes

02:18:31 Engineers that's how it was designed yes to work and that's very different to the other states in Australia isn't it yes that's different to other states in Australia but NE nevertheless going back to the application itself again even in

02:18:44 to the application itself again even in the continuous professional development you see the role of the scrutineer and the role of who delivers the professional development so if it's the practice educating the practice so if

02:18:55 practice educating the practice so if you don't have the correct PR practice as a starting point then obviously what you're going to transfer to the next generation is not going to be uh adequate and uh and I think that's

02:19:06 adequate and uh and I think that's that's the problem that had built up in Queensland that was to some extent unique because you had the correct framework but it was it was inappropriately implemented yes um and

02:19:18 inappropriately implemented yes um and then this task force set out a number of strategies is if we look at page 28 um and I just want to pick up on strategy 4 which is about education programs this is their their education

02:19:31 programs this is their their education strategy and you can see the heading continuing professional development of fire Engineers it says there the identified need for continuing professional development CPD for fire Engineers culminating in the establishment of a dedicated 5-day

02:19:44 establishment of a dedicated 5-day full-time course titled external fires spread risk in tool building design the course design saw the collaboration between the Queensland government and World leading academic institutions in

02:19:56 World leading academic institutions in Fire Safety Research and tertiary education the University of Queensland uh the University of Maryland and the University of Edinburgh so as part of the the CPD program there was

02:20:08 part of the the CPD program there was this five day full-time course is that right yes um and that was for uh fire Engineers so where in the system would those fire Engineers sit was that for

02:20:19 those fire Engineers sit was that for the fire engineer that would the person from inception through to practical completion who would have had to have done this 5-day course well um it this this was sort of the first step of what

02:20:30 this was sort of the first step of what was intended to be a long process so you the there was a crisis and the crisis related to the building envelope nevertheless that crisis was inscribed within a system that allowed for

02:20:42 within a system that allowed for functional requirements and therefore those people who were addressing the problem of the building envelope needed to really understand holistically how all that fit within the context of

02:20:54 how all that fit within the context of the fire safety strategy and um and and it it it it it also had to recognize that the regular practice in in

02:21:05 that the regular practice in in Queensland still was to a great extent prescriptive and uh with obviously the latitude of the functional requirements but it was in his Inception very much prescriptive and this is why you have

02:21:16 prescriptive and this is why you have that convergence between University of Edinburgh representing more a philosophy of functional requirements University of Maryland representing a philosophy of prescriptive design and everybody

02:21:27 prescriptive design and everybody getting together in providing a very intense short concise

02:21:34 concise uh course that will enable those who were taking the course to address the specific problem of the building envelope it was not intended to be a

02:21:45 envelope it was not intended to be a fire safety engineering degree in itself it was just intended to be um a course that enabled people to address this specific problem and therefore the entry

02:21:56 specific problem and therefore the entry requirements to be able to take the course was that the person had to demonstrate that they had practiced in the space that they had an engineering

02:22:07 the space that they had an engineering degree so we we you know in at in in that in that course there were many attendees that were not fire safety Engineers there were civil engineers or mechanical engineers who also wanted to

02:22:18 mechanical engineers who also wanted to understand how to uh solve that particular problem but it required an entry

02:22:24 entry qualification so that they were capable of assimilating this information to try to address a very specific problem yeah and and did you personally have some

02:22:36 and and did you personally have some involvement in designing that course yes so I I I I participated in in in at least two of the additions of it and uh including the first one so I was

02:22:47 including the first one so I was involved in in in the development uh of of this course yeah and and was it examined did this did the successful candidates um get some kind of um certification at the end of it yes so so

02:23:00 certification at the end of it yes so so it had a very rigorous examination and uh that include included a very a practical aspect which was they were given a particular building with a particular cladding problem and they had

02:23:12 particular cladding problem and they had to propose a fire safety strategy that enabled them you know to determine whether there was a need for replacement or the building needed to add other Provisions you know look at the problem

02:23:24 Provisions you know look at the problem in a holistic way and and um what was the rate of success in terms of people passing the course um the rate of success was approximately 40% 40% passed it yes yeah despite the

02:23:38 40% 40% passed it yes yeah despite the fact that the entry uh Point uh was very in principle very high they had to be they had to be Engineers with a fairly High uh level of experience yes and

02:23:49 High uh level of experience yes and what's the status of the course now does the course still exist no so basically the course run for um uh I think four or five times and uh I believe uh there was

02:24:01 five times and uh I believe uh there was well there were several other courses that were developed uh there was one for building certifiers you know there was another that was developed for um uh

02:24:12 another that was developed for um uh other professionals that that operated in the space but they were not in charge of the fire safety strategy and then eventually uh the queen and government decided one not to enforce the

02:24:25 decided one not to enforce the certification provided by the coures and two um they stop funding the program that enabled this to happen and and and what were the reasons for that why did

02:24:36 what were the reasons for that why did they decide not to enforce the certification provided by the course yeah it was an interesting process because um uh the the intention originally was that this course was

02:24:47 originally was that this course was going to enable a group of practitioners uh to deliver an appropriate solution to this very specific problem now uh as you might imagine the fact that the success rate was not very high uh very rapidly

02:25:01 rate was not very high uh very rapidly created um an strong opposition from the practice uh who deemed themselves still capable on of of doing uh this type of

02:25:12 capable on of of doing uh this type of work and so it threatened the practice and also uh I think while it did provide um a direct solution to the problem in

02:25:23 um a direct solution to the problem in the sense that you provided a professional that could actually go out and analyze a building and give you a solution to the building uh it also proved uh that many times those

02:25:36 proved uh that many times those Solutions uh were not necessarily uh agreeable from the side of cost and and and so forth so so little by little opposition started building to this and then of course

02:25:48 building to this and then of course there was also the pressure for government to make decisions and then eventually um they opted to move completely away uh from from this and uh

02:25:59 completely away uh from from this and uh and go straight back into the policy of instating a ban uh on certain types of products and basically mimicking what New South Wales and Victoria were doing yes thank you um I want to ask you more

02:26:12 yes thank you um I want to ask you more about the Queensland um strategy um including about testing of materials and the cladding material Library which you've touched on already but I think we'll have to do that tomorrow so I

02:26:24 we'll have to do that tomorrow so I think that would be wise Mr chairman yes that's enough for today I think all right thank you well we we've reached the time at which we usually stop I think we'll return to this interesting topic tomorrow thank you so we'll we'll

02:26:35 topic tomorrow thank you so we'll we'll break there we'll resume please at 10:00 tomorrow and as before please don't talk about your R to anyone while you're out of the room right thank you thank you very much we'll see you tomorrow

02:26:51 [Music] thank you very much Mr Grange 10:00 tomorrow thank you