Expert witness Colin Todd's evidence on fire risk assessment standards, PAS 79, cladding risks, Carl Stokes's qualifications and practices, and the application of fire safety regulations to high-rise residential buildings.
00:00:25 um
00:00:32 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr colin todd one of the expert witnesses instructed by the inquiry
00:00:43 the inquiry if we do ask mr todd to come in please
00:00:54 good morning mr todd good morning
00:01:01 all right all ready to continue i hope yes sir thank you very much yes mr military yes mr german good morning and good morning members of the panel mr todd good morning to you good morning sir now yesterday we were at the very
00:01:12 sir now yesterday we were at the very end of the day looking at the 6th of april 2017 letter from uh assistant commissioner dan dailey to yes london boroughs you'll recall that yes sir i want to go back to that subject briefly
00:01:24 want to go back to that subject briefly if i may and ask you to look at an email lfb401174
00:01:34 now can we look at the second email on that page the lower part of the screen it's from nicholas coombe of london fire lfb yeah 7th of december 2016.
00:01:45 lfb yeah 7th of december 2016. it looks as if you've recognized this email yes i'll read it in colin this is to you colin my turn for a favor i know we've spoken about this before you said that in the next update
00:01:57 before you said that in the next update of past 79 you would put in a section on assisting external cladding systems i'm trying to put something together to write to london boroughs about doing this when reviewing the fra and one that
00:02:09 this when reviewing the fra and one that if you had a form of words that would appear in the new past 79 that i could direct lift from yes now but we'll come to see your response in just a moment but before we do do you recall the conversation
00:02:20 do do you recall the conversation between you and nicholas coombe yes i recall her very well sir what did occasion did so
00:02:28 nick who is a good friend as well as as a professional colleague contacted me uh on one occasion and said that london were becoming concerned
00:02:42 that london were becoming concerned about the potential fire risk of cladding and what did i think about that in relation to uh paz 79
00:02:53 uh paz 79 and so what i said to him was that we were in no rush to revise past 79 because as you may remember sir that there were some
00:03:04 remember sir that there were some as i think i said yesterday complaints would be too strong a term but some moans particularly from uh small sole traders that they bought the 2012 version and they couldn't see much
00:03:15 version and they couldn't see much difference from the 20 2007 so we're in no rush to to revise it with just one or two minor changes so what we did was we kept a list
00:03:26 did was we kept a list of things that we would like to include in the new version and so i said to nick i'll put that on the list of things to cover when we come to a revise it and
00:03:38 cover when we come to a revise it and that's what he's referring to in the the first and uh second sentences but then
00:03:45 but then it appears that uh he had decided to um
00:03:50 um draw the issue of cladding to the attention of the fire safety teams within the london boroughs and so he wondered if i'd already
00:04:02 and so he wondered if i'd already thought of the exact wording that would possibly go in a new path 79 so that he could actually use them uh as it were in
00:04:13 could actually use them uh as it were in advance to advice's fire safety teams right um when he says that he's putting something together to write to london boroughs did you understand him to mean the fire safety teams in uh the lfb
00:04:25 the fire safety teams in uh the lfb branches of those london boroughs or the london boroughs themselves yes i think i think i spoke to him as well after his email and i don't when he said he does say the london borough's right
00:04:36 he does say the london borough's right enough as though it's the the local authorities is that wrong but well yeah it does look like that but my recollection of the conversation was
00:04:47 recollection of the conversation was that he wanted to tell the the inspecting officers in the boroughs
00:04:52 boroughs uh and i think he may he may just have meant uh the teams because the teams are the fire safety teams are organized by boros so borough commanders yes exactly so sometimes we we
00:05:05 yes exactly so sometimes we we we don't always say london fire brigade we always just talk about london and we know what we mean and sometimes we talk about the the borough teams and we know what we mean uh so looking at it afresh
00:05:17 what we mean uh so looking at it afresh um that could be the local authorities but that that's not the that was not how i took it and i don't think that's what we discussed but that could be wrong right now you um you said it in your
00:05:29 right now you um you said it in your last answer or two ago that you that the occasion of this was london becoming concerned or lfb becoming concerned about the fire risk of cladding what had caused uh the lfb to become
00:05:42 what had caused uh the lfb to become concerned about the fire risk of cladding such that they raised it with you my best recollection would be
00:05:51 would be i don't know if mr coomb is giving evidence to the inquiry but my best recollection was that they'd had one or two external fires and they were concerned about um
00:06:03 and they were concerned about um some external fires skips and the like uh affecting uh cladding but the date of this is december 2016 the shepherd's court happened on the 19th of august 2016. that's true but having said
00:06:16 august 2016. that's true but having said that that that was spandrel panels and nick would have nick would have known that that wasn't really cladding but but i it wasn't i don't recall him referring to shepherd's court put it that way
00:06:27 to shepherd's court put it that way right and i do recall that the impression i was left with was that they had one or two minor fires that uh had the potential to involve cladding
00:06:39 had the potential to involve cladding and so he wanted to to do something a bit sooner rather than later and wait for past 79 that's that's my best recollection sir yes thank you did you tell him as he records here that in the
00:06:51 tell him as he records here that in the next update of past 79 you were intending to insert a section on external cutting systems yeah section would be too strong a term but all i had done was put it on our list as i explained sir yes uh and it was down as
00:07:03 explained sir yes uh and it was down as a a point to to to raise now it looks from this email that you had already made that decision what did what has prompted you to intend uh to insert a piece or put it on your list the call
00:07:15 piece or put it on your list the call from nick right a telephone call from nick uh saying could could i be could i do something in past 79 and as i explained sir i i said we'd put her on the list that was that's that's his his
00:07:28 the list that was that's that's his his uh
00:07:29 uh reference to speaking about it before i see so this is this is this is a reference to a past conversation yes in which you told him you were already intending no no no not already intended what i told him was
00:07:41 what i told him was yes he he he triggered it i mean the credits goes to london fire brigade he asked me if i could do it in the in past 79 i said yes but not at
00:07:52 in the in past 79 i said yes but not at the moment but what i'll do is put it on the list for you i see that's clear now if we go into your response at the top email you say uh you see you see that you responded two weeks later yeah 21st of december
00:08:03 two weeks later yeah 21st of december 2016. yes and i'll just let's just read this together it says nick i spoke to brian martin and steve dawes about this steve dawes is uh as a todd person isn't
00:08:14 steve dawes is uh as a todd person isn't he he's our technical director yes i spoke to brian martin and steve dawes about this and we've come up with a proposal we're in a building in excess of 18 meters in height there's good reason to suspect that external cladding
00:08:25 reason to suspect that external cladding could readily support rapid vertical fire spread this should be raised in the fire risk assessment as a matter for further investigation similarly where damage to such cladding exposes insulation that is likely to be
00:08:36 insulation that is likely to be combustible this should be raised as a matter for action uh in in any of the above circumstances at least as an interim measure it should be ensured that there is no reasonably
00:08:47 be ensured that there is no reasonably foreseeable likelihood of the presence of combustible materials for example stored rubbish in close proximity to the cladding if you intend to promulgate this amongst london's finest please give
00:08:58 this amongst london's finest please give me a heads up so that we can stress the importance of it to our fire risk assessors equally tell the finest that it is not in past 79 so absence of comments on this in an fra does not warrant a prohibition notice tell them
00:09:10 warrant a prohibition notice tell them to think educate and inform yes uh now just just briefly on that in the second paragraph they're london's finest is that a reference to the lfb it's a reference to
00:09:22 reference to the lfb it's a reference to their inspecting officers who um i always flippantly describe to nick as london's finest as opposed to the chief executives of london oh absolutely yes nick nick would understand that
00:09:35 nick nick would understand that we always are flippantly referred to to the the inspecting officers of london firing aid as london's finest and uh in the second line you say are fire risk assessors who's the hour
00:09:47 are fire risk assessors who's the hour uh
00:09:49 uh our own our own company and and through the the fia i see it was it was uh it was really a flippant comment between friends i wasn't i wasn't terribly concerned and and uh they wouldn't they
00:10:00 concerned and and uh they wouldn't they obviously wouldn't issue a prohibition notice that was a flippant hyperbole uh because um i always flippantly say that they they overreact and and will issue a
00:10:11 they they overreact and and will issue a prohibition notice for a cardboard box and a corridor uh obviously they don't and that that was really just a flippant comment right now focusing on the first paragraph a little bit more closely you say
00:10:22 say there is um you say that uh
00:10:25 that uh where
00:10:27 where in a building in excess of 18 meters in height there is good reason to suspect that external cladding could readily support rapid vertical fire spread this should be raised in the fire risk
00:10:38 should be raised in the fire risk assessment now when you wrote that were you assuming were you assuming that the reasonably competent fire risk assessor would know enough about cladding or cladding systems to have quotes good reason to
00:10:50 systems to have quotes good reason to suspect that it could readily support external fire fire spread
00:10:56 there may be circumstances where they they might have that reason uh but particularly um i i know i said similarly for damage but
00:11:07 i i know i said similarly for damage but we
00:11:08 we to to explain it in a little more detail if it would have helped me of help sir um
00:11:14 um we were slightly at a loss to know what we could say about it that would be of much use to fire risk assessors uh both both nick and myself so i remember going upstairs
00:11:26 and myself so i remember going upstairs speaking to our technical director and his view was well they won't know so uh what are you actually going to say and i i said why don't we have a
00:11:37 and i i said why don't we have a conference call with brian martin at who i think it's no secret is also a personal friend uh and let's see if we can put our heads together and come up
00:11:48 can put our heads together and come up with something a bit hand waving that we could keep in mind uh for for the future past 79 and we we i i stuck that email uh on the path 79 file uh
00:12:01 path 79 file uh and without really having given an awful lot of thought to the detail as to what we would ultimately say what we'd spoken about was um if for example and this
00:12:12 about was um if for example and this this would be a very good example you had a polystyrene uh insulation uh rendered uh with with some sort of rendering it
00:12:23 uh with with some sort of rendering it often gets damaged where a vehicle has backed into it or or whatever damage mechanically might be caused so then you've got exposed combustible materials and that would be something
00:12:35 materials and that would be something that was very visually obvious to to fire risk assessors and i think you saw that sir in the competence standard uh yesterday that uh
00:12:46 yesterday that uh signs of visual signs of of physical damage would be something that a fire risk assessor ought to to be aware of uh but we had nothing probably more in mind
00:12:58 but we had nothing probably more in mind uh in terms of the first sentence as to
00:13:02 as to what specifically they might look for so we kind of filed that way for think about it on on another day um forgive me but the words in the first line yes at the end of the first line uh
00:13:15 line yes at the end of the first line uh follow a colon which comes after the words we have come up with a proposal and then what follows after the colon proposal colon yes am i writing think that that was the form of words which
00:13:27 that that was the form of words which with which you were content which should be disseminated yes we are a commander yes absolutely so coming back to the question um given that form of words at that time
00:13:38 that time were you making an assumption that
00:13:40 that the reasonably competent uh the reasonably competent fire risk assessor would know enough about cladding to have quotes good reason to suspect that external cladding could readily support
00:13:52 external cladding could readily support rapid vertical fire spread i think we took the view we'd probably have to give them some further detailed guidance because uh in many cases they wouldn't really
00:14:02 really you can't tell visually which is why we we run our hands as to what we could usefully say and why uh i i involved uh two two colleagues to see if we could come up with anything
00:14:14 to see if we could come up with anything without that uh further detailed guidance i'll come back to that in just a second but without it at that time late
00:14:21 late 2060 what were the basic indications in a cladding system that any competent fire risk assessor would recognize as a candidate for rapid vertical fire spread yes that's a very
00:14:33 vertical fire spread yes that's a very good question sir um uh i'm not sure i have a commensurately good answer uh and i'm not sure that we'd we we'd thought through the the detail of it um
00:14:47 thought through the the detail of it um in in in that sort of analytical detail uh what would they look for well visual damage is an obvious point but i i know you're going to say that's that's more the second sentence
00:14:59 that's more the second sentence um
00:15:00 um it's it
00:15:01 it's it it's very difficult uh to be honest uh i don't think we had anything specific in mind uh because we knew how difficult it was
00:15:11 it was thank you and by further investigation yes as you say matter for further investigation did you mean further investigation by the fire risk assessor or further investigation by the responsible person no further
00:15:22 responsible person no further investigation by someone who had competence in in that area which the fire risk assessor wouldn't yes i see and that remains the philosophy today so would how would it work the the the fire risk assessor would say uh this needs
00:15:34 risk assessor would say uh this needs further investigation the the responsible person would engage especially the specialist would report and then the fire risk assessor would assess based on that report that would be the the formality of it and yes and
00:15:45 be the the formality of it and yes and we're really only today getting round to that with the publication of pas double nine eight zero uh and its interface with pas 79 where we're now telling risk
00:15:56 with pas 79 where we're now telling risk assessors that you need to get someone who has particular competence and external wall construction and the intention is that they would carry out an appraisal to this new pass double
00:16:08 an appraisal to this new pass double nine eight zero but that wouldn't be the typical fire risk assessor that does that
00:16:13 that yes thank you um now can i turn to it completely differently before before we leave this document just help me if you would with onesie certainly sir um we see yet again the reference to buildings in excess of
00:16:25 the reference to buildings in excess of 18 meters in height to the layman it appears an illogical point to make here because i mean let's take a building of
00:16:36 take a building of 10 meters in height sorry 10 stories in height let's say it's 30 meters or yes the potential um cladding fires are just as important
00:16:47 cladding fires are just as important aren't they yes it says in excess of 18 meters but why limit it to why why not 50 meters you mean well any no height no height restrict no height restriction and that
00:16:58 restrict no height restriction and that was to
00:16:59 was to bear mind that we'd had the conversation with brian martin that was to parallel this with
00:17:05 this with approved document b and the guidance under the building regulations which you may have already heard evidence sir has this 18 meter cutoff the the 18 meter cutoff has
00:17:17 cutoff the the 18 meter cutoff has has that been explained to you its background so well a certain amount has and i i don't i'm not inviting you to go into that at least at this stage it's very quick well it may be but that's okay my point is why put in any height i mean
00:17:30 my point is why put in any height i mean only only because then the fire risk assessors point of view surely what the responsible person needs to know is is the external wall at risk of going up in flames yes yes that's
00:17:42 of going up in flames yes yes that's correct but approved document b would have imposed much more stringent recommendations for buildings over 80 meters arbitrary
00:17:54 meters arbitrary though that height might be and it is arbitrary now sir it wasn't at one time but it is arbitrary now and so um under under approved document b uh technically although people will
00:18:05 uh technically although people will dispute this and they will say you should go back to the functional requirement but the practicality is that designers would not be particularly concerned in relation to the far performance of external wall
00:18:18 performance of external wall construction uh build it in in buildings less than 18 meters so it would it would be a a disconnect a mismatch if someone builds a new building and they have
00:18:30 builds a new building and they have cladding which might not have as good performance in terms of fire
00:18:37 as it would have if the building was over 18 meters and then along comes the risk assessor and says oh i don't like the look of that but it's just been built in accordance with the guidance under building regulations
00:18:48 regulations do you see that point sir i do see the point but i would have thought that the responsible person might need to know if there was a risk of fire yes that that's true but it was generally held that the risk
00:19:00 but it was generally held that the risk you probably know sir it's this is very current within the last few days that the the government position is slightly modifying on on that in relation to buildings under 18 meters but what
00:19:11 buildings under 18 meters but what people need to understand is nothing happens at 17.999 meters that that that changes things such that if it's 18.001 meters
00:19:22 18.001 meters is is different it's just a an arbitrary uh limit based on historical considerations yeah all right well thank you very much i've disrupted mr miller
00:19:34 you very much i've disrupted mr miller was that enough of yeah that's plenty thank you very much
00:19:51 and i want to look at the fra action plans um that we have um can we start with past 79 please it's cta 703 page 59
00:20:02 with past 79 please it's cta 703 page 59 and i want within that page please to look at clause 19 little roman 2 on the left hand side
00:20:10 you can see it the formulation of an action plan is the title and on the left hand side at the top of the column it says
00:20:17 says under little roman 2 in formulating an action plan for premises in which the fire risk has been assessed as unacceptably high the analytical approach to fire risk assessment permits backtracking
00:20:29 assessment permits backtracking to determine whether in effect the problem arises from inadequate fire prevention i.e inadequate means for control or elimination of fire hazards inadequate fire protection eg
00:20:40 inadequate fire protection eg unsatisfactory means of escape or fire warning systems shortcomings in fire safety management or and we'll come back to that or a combination of these
00:20:51 combination of these now um looking at page 73 of your report your main report if you can go to that please just to remind um remind ourselves it's cta 506011
00:21:01 506011 cta 6011 page 73. um if you go to paragraph 7.41 which we looked at yesterday yes um you can see that you set out the matters there to be
00:21:12 set out the matters there to be considered by the fire risk assessor with regard to management of fire safety yeah as you say and that that requires detailed and sustained interrogation doesn't it of
00:21:24 sustained interrogation doesn't it of the responsible person the client detailed and sustained it it needs a discussion it needs a discussion yes none of those bullet points would would be evident to the fire risk assessor unless he talked to a
00:21:36 fire risk assessor unless he talked to a person that is correct yes um and that's also the case isn't it in relation to the policies structures arrangements uh translated into action in each building yes yes
00:21:47 yes yes how in practice would a fire risk assessor go about the task of having that discussion okay so if you've never been to the building before and never dealt with the client before
00:21:59 and never dealt with the client before you would want to sit down with a representative of the responsible person bear in mind the responsible person will be a buddy corporate normally you sit down and talk to them about
00:22:13 you sit down and talk to them about all of these things you might ask to see some samples of records
00:22:20 records but
00:22:21 but you would you would basically you couldn't complete the the pas 79 pro forma if that's the pro forma you'll be going to use without having had that discussion if it
00:22:33 without having had that discussion if it was a client that you were used to dealing with and you knew for example what their policies were on testing and servicing of fire protection measures
00:22:45 servicing of fire protection measures you might well check with them is everything the same as before are we still arranging for six monthly servicing of fire alarm
00:22:56 six monthly servicing of fire alarm systems and so on but you would probably need much less of a discussion because you already had the working relationship with the client now so does that tell us that for example looking at your second
00:23:08 that for example looking at your second bullet point there structure for management of fire safety yes um that that the fire risk assessor would have a conversation with the responsible person or a
00:23:20 with the responsible person or a representative of the responsible person about the structure within the organization for the management of fire safety yes they wouldn't do a full fire safety management audit
00:23:31 a full fire safety management audit because in fact there's a completely different or there was a completely different path for that it's now a british standard but you'd want to know you say
00:23:40 you say you know yesterday sir we talked about what i call the competent assistant under article 18. well you can't complete the past 79 template unless you
00:23:51 complete the past 79 template unless you have identified for yourself who the competent assistant is to understand who the competent assistant is you'd have to understand something about how they went about
00:24:02 something about how they went about managing fire safety perhaps even health and safety in the round exactly now um what would happen if during the course of the
00:24:11 of the investigation of the structure for management of fire safety with the competent assistant the competent assistant told the fire risk assessor that the structure for management of fire safety depended
00:24:23 for management of fire safety depended on a third person for funding fra actions
00:24:29 um i don't think the fire risk successor could could you could you just put some legs on that with an example yes of course supposing the competent assistant told the fire risk assessor
00:24:41 assistant told the fire risk assessor that it was all very well giving them advice about what actions to carry out
00:24:46 carry out er by way of remedy but the fire risk assessor should be aware that there was only a limited pot of money available uh what would the fire risk assessor do or say he would tend to
00:24:59 or say he would tend to take the view that that wasn't his problem as to how they funded the recommendations that would be a matter for the organization themselves because
00:25:11 themselves because the fire risk assessor can't be influenced by the ability of the organization to pay
00:25:19 pay and that would be outside the meaning of reasonably practicable the the measures that the fire risk assessor
00:25:26 assessor must come up with must be reasonably practicable and i've no doubt the inquiry is familiar with the meaning of that about cost time and effort versus uh risk and and the the the the the
00:25:39 uh risk and and the the the the the foundation for that in edwards versus national poll board but the subtle point about reasonably practicable is that the cost has to take into account only the
00:25:51 cost has to take into account only the risk not the ability of the duty holder to pay yes now that in fact um you cite the edwards case in fact i think past 79 has some guidance on this and i just
00:26:02 has some guidance on this and i just want to look at that with you can we go back to past 79 again please uh and look at page 59
00:26:10 703 59 roman 3 if you look at roman 3 yes it says the action plan is an inventory of actions normally prioritized and time restrained
00:26:23 normally prioritized and time restrained to devise maintain or improve controls first what does time restraint mean does that mean time limited uh it means that you should give the duty holder some form of
00:26:37 duty holder some form of time within which in the opinion of the fire risk assessor the work should be completed and was that because a time scale would be some kind of indication of the gravity of the cure action needed
00:26:50 of the gravity of the cure action needed yes but not always sir could i give an example that might help the chairman yes um imagine that you carry out uh we talked about plant rooms yesterday being within the scope
00:27:01 within the scope uh imagine if the fire risk assessor goes into a plant room and he finds some rubbish that has been left there by contractors combustible rubbish
00:27:12 contractors combustible rubbish that's not a huge risk because what's going to ignite it the boiler blowing up perhaps
00:27:19 perhaps arson whatever it's not a huge risk it is not a grave issue but you would put it down for immediate action not because if you don't someone's going to die it's
00:27:31 if you don't someone's going to die it's because why would you wait three months to move some boxes so sometimes the the
00:27:39 the recommended time relates to the ease on the other hand if you found a hotel with a fire alarm system on its last legs you would think that was a very important matter but you there'd be no
00:27:51 important matter but you there'd be no point in saying put in a new fire alarm system immediately because it would have to go out to tenders specifications would have to be drawn up so there's no point in saying a new system immediately because it can't be
00:28:02 system immediately because it can't be done
00:28:03 done yes i follow now let's look at little roman 7 on the same page please just cast your eye to the right-hand side of the screen it says this it is normally appropriate to allocate priorities to each measure recommended
00:28:14 priorities to each measure recommended in the action plan to reflect the urgency of the measure as determined in the fire risk assessment this might however be unnecessary if for example most of the recommended measures are minor in nature and will be implemented in the short term in any case yes that's
00:28:26 in the short term in any case yes that's your rubbish example i think with the fire risk assessor normally take account of expense and complexity of the remedial action when recommending a priority and time limit
00:28:37 recommending a priority and time limit or would um the fire risk assessor normally simply consider the risk to life safety no they would have to consider
00:28:45 consider the
00:28:46 the the cost
00:28:47 the cost and
00:28:48 and the reasonable practicability which then brings the whole lot together with cost and risk i see and if you look at page 59
00:28:59 and if you look at page 59 at
00:29:00 at um
00:29:01 um on the right left hand side again at little roman four if we just go back to that i think we'll need to scr thank you yes yes it says this the adequacy of the action plan needs to be tested at least in the
00:29:12 plan needs to be tested at least in the mind of the fire risk assessor before it's finalized at that stage it is appropriate to consider the following questions and then there are uh five questions set out will the revised controls lead to
00:29:24 will the revised controls lead to tolerable fire risk levels our new hazards created and then c have the most cost-effective solutions been chosen and i don't think we need d uh
00:29:35 uh for the moment at least um so have the most cost-effective solutions been chosen
00:29:41 chosen and
00:29:42 and that i would suggest and help me with this that doesn't mean that that an otherwise urgent remedial action should get a longer period for cure for financial reasons well absolutely not no
00:29:53 financial reasons well absolutely not no no no thank you now let's look at mr st can i just elaborate on that often there's more than one way of skinning a cat
00:30:01 cat so you can achieve a reduction in risk by a number of different methods uh and and that point is subtly different from the point you're making the point you're making is absolutely correct sir
00:30:12 absolutely correct sir that um
00:30:14 that um you can't uh take into account the fact that they haven't got any money but this this this is actually making a slightly different point this is basically saying if there are a number of different solutions have you thought
00:30:26 of different solutions have you thought of which solution would be the most cost effective in terms of reducing the risk at the least cost now let's look at mr stokes's time scales and his action plans for grenfell
00:30:37 scales and his action plans for grenfell tower and i want just to look at the the december 2010 and the november 2012. can we start with the 2010 at cst403165 please
00:30:49 cst403165 please uh let's go to page one
00:30:55 uh and there you'll see uh the date 29th december 2010 and priority time scales uh
00:31:04 uh quarter of the way down your screen mr todd can you see yes time scales high two to three weeks medium one to two months low three to six months yes uh
00:31:15 six months yes uh and then
00:31:16 and then perhaps we can have at the same time on the screen the 20th of november 2012 action plan cst403083
00:31:25 also page one same place on the page you cast your eye to the right hand side of the screen priority time scales uh high two to three weeks medium two to
00:31:36 uh high two to three weeks medium two to three months low six to 12 months yes you can compare the two you've got two to three weeks remains the same but the medium has now gone out instead of one to two months it's two to three months
00:31:48 months it's two to three months low instead of three to six months is now six to 12 months um were those time scales uh in either of those uh
00:31:59 of those uh risk assessments recommended by any government guidance or by any version of past 79. no not not at all so the time scales were left to the decision of the individual fire risk assessor on a
00:32:11 individual fire risk assessor on a case-by-case basis is that is that yes there is something in past 79 that says there's no unique way of designating priorities and time scales
00:32:23 designating priorities and time scales and find something that works around how the company is organized uh
00:32:30 uh uh and and take that into uh account
00:32:36 it's unfortunate that what mr stokes has done and many would do this he he's actually conflated the priority in terms of how much risk is created and the time
00:32:48 of how much risk is created and the time scale uh personally in our own practice and and in many uh fire risk assessors risk assessments they separate the two so if you take my rubbish point that
00:33:00 so if you take my rubbish point that would be a low priority but an immediate time scale because there's no point in waiting but it's not high risk if you take my fire detection point
00:33:12 take my fire detection point uh
00:33:12 uh the hotel with the fire detection system on its last legs that might be a very high priority but the time scale might be longer than moving the boxes simply because of what can be achieved
00:33:24 because of what can be achieved what do you say he's conflated them do you mean that he should have a priority scale for um for for the risk and a separate for completion i i think that makes a better job of it sir yes um can
00:33:35 makes a better job of it sir yes um can you help us was there any government guidance or or any other kind of document
00:33:40 document which would have prompted a change in the time scales between december 2010 and november 2012 for the medium and low categories no i can't think of anything sir no
00:33:50 sir no no mr stokes told us that he would have altered them because of relevant guidance that was available at the time uh
00:33:57 uh can you help us as to whether that's correct did he did he going did he elaborate on that at all no so the clg guides have been the same since 2006
00:34:08 since 2006 the
00:34:09 the lga guide
00:34:11 lga guide i don't think the lga guide came out between 2010 and 2012 yes it did um but i think in terms of time scales the we certainly referred to frequencies
00:34:24 the we certainly referred to frequencies of fire risk assessments i don't think sir we
00:34:28 sir we gave any indication of time scales for work so i don't think he can be talking about the lga guide path 79 came out i think you told me sir it was august 2012
00:34:40 think you told me sir it was august 2012 but i don't think we suggested
00:34:45 suggested um so so i can't i can't think of what he had in mind
00:34:52 now can we go to his 2014 uh fra action plan at cst403177 again page one this is dated the 17th of october 2014
00:35:04 this is dated the 17th of october 2014 and you see in the same place on the screen priority time scales two high two to three weeks medium two to three months low six to 12 months so like the november 2012 fra action plan but this
00:35:16 november 2012 fra action plan but this time he's added some words in brackets after the low to start to action any works
00:35:24 works now mr stokes's evidence was that the newly added qualification here to start any action to action any works applied to all of the time scales listed and that meant and i'm paraphrasing that
00:35:35 and that meant and i'm paraphrasing that if possible the work should be completed within the time scale but if that wasn't possible for example for financial reasons then the work had to be started within the time scale he set out but not necessarily finished i'm paraphrasing
00:35:47 necessarily finished i'm paraphrasing his evidence at day 137 page 40 lines 3 to 22 there now yes that was his evidence
00:35:54 evidence um
00:35:56 um is that qualification or rather liberty in favor of the responsible person to be found in any government guidance uh or past 79 at the time october 2014.
00:36:08 past 79 at the time october 2014. no
00:36:09 no pragmatically it wouldn't it wouldn't really
00:36:12 really entirely make sense to apply if if that's intended if that qualifications attended to intended to apply across the three which would seem
00:36:23 apply across the three which would seem intuitive
00:36:25 intuitive it wouldn't make sense to apply that to everything so if you take my my fire detection system again sir then
00:36:34 then you might say that
00:36:37 that uh
00:36:38 uh the the time to the let's say it was where were three months uh the the fire risk assessor would not know what the installation uh project how long that would take
00:36:51 uh project how long that would take so but he would know that you'd have to write a specification put it out to tender evaluate tenders so for something that involve major capital works you might say
00:37:02 might say you need to have got this rolling and be starting the work within a time scale you might do it for certain things like that but if you take my uh if you go to the other extreme and take my
00:37:13 go to the other extreme and take my boxes it wouldn't make any sense to say that you start moving the boxes in a specific time period it would be completed within a time period yeah i see um now that distinction you've just drawn sitting there today is it one that
00:37:25 drawn sitting there today is it one that one can find in in any government guidance or any in any pass or even the competence criteria um
00:37:35 um you know i would need to look up past 79 to see whether under
00:37:43 under uh prioritization and i don't know if you if you want to go to that section sir the reason i'm hesitating is is within our own fire risk assessments we actually make this distinction clear
00:37:54 actually make this distinction clear that where there's major capital works involved the time scale is to actually make sure that you have progressed it and then the installation time period
00:38:05 and then the installation time period will be what the installation time period is yeah yes i remember the the the approach that you just identified uh you've helpfully told us was one that you would
00:38:15 you would uh you say have within our own fire risk assessments that do i take it from that that that those are assessments that you would carry out professionally for clients my company would carry out so yes um
00:38:28 yes um was it a practice commonly adopted by fire risk assessors uh at the time 2017 uh 2014 and thereafter no i wouldn't i wouldn't say that it it
00:38:39 no i wouldn't i wouldn't say that it it was i think people people tended to adopt their own and past 79 facilitated this they adopted their own um
00:38:50 um rationale uh and uh designation for priorities and time scales and i think uh past 79 actually
00:39:01 scales and i think uh past 79 actually says there is no unique way of doing it i think we give some examples actually in past 79 of different ways you could go about it do you agree that the consequence of the this caveat to start to action any works
00:39:15 this caveat to start to action any works being applied across the board meant that actions even high priority actions could be left to continue uncompleted indefinitely
00:39:26 um i'm not sure about the word in indefinitely because uh if you start the work at a particular point in time then then
00:39:38 point in time then then it won't be in def it won't be entirely indefinite for for completion uh but but yes i i would i would uh agree that this would not this would not tie
00:39:50 that this would not this would not tie you down uh terribly well in terms of getting the work done yes i mean
00:39:55 mean what was what mr stokes did namely to say to start to action any works without regard to whether they were major capital workers yes that that's that's that's too much of a
00:40:06 that's that's that's too much of a blanket statement it's too much for a blanket statement is it something that uh no competent fire risk assessor would have adopted i think it would be an unusual thing to adopt sir right now
00:40:17 now um carl stokes told us that it was for janice ray at the tmo to judge the completion date would you expect a reasonably competent fire risk assessor to leave that
00:40:28 fire risk assessor to leave that decision
00:40:30 decision to the client the competent assistant within the responsible person without advising that person about the risks of not completing the remedial actions within the recommended time scale i
00:40:42 within the recommended time scale i think i think some yardstick on the
00:40:46 the the level of of risk this this is why i suggested that it's much better to specify the level of risk and the time scale and separate the two out so that
00:40:57 scale and separate the two out so that people have an understanding of how much risk there is from
00:41:03 from the situation remaining unremediated yes well let's look at a different example different building adair tower um can we go please to cst409046
00:41:15 um can we go please to cst409046 sorry before we leave this document mr can i just ask in in a way this approach that we see in the document on the screen is rather mechanistic isn't it because you've got high medium and low
00:41:26 because you've got high medium and low with
00:41:27 with prescriptive periods in one might have thought that a better approach would be to assess each individual uh element in the pro forma
00:41:38 pro forma and describe for the benefit of the client as you say how important how great the risk is and how quickly it needs to be remedied yes that that that that's that's that's correct sir if you
00:41:49 that's that's that's correct sir if you have the two the the priority and the time scale uh then
00:41:55 then the client has a better handle on how urgent these things are and how much they matter as it were and you don't need to force them into one of the categories because you don't need to have categories do you um i think the
00:42:06 have categories do you um i think the categories are helpful i think it's probably enough to to separate the two so
00:42:11 so um my rubbish would be a priority well the way we would my own company would do it would be that we would we would regard that as as a three as it were
00:42:23 a three as it were which would mean this is just good practice but it's probably not a breach arguably not breach of legislation and it's unlikely to result in death or serious injury so that gives people a handle on how
00:42:35 so that gives people a handle on how important it is but but then we'd have a separate time scale as i explained sir whereas the detection system in the hotel we might say it's liable to break down at any minute that's a really high
00:42:47 down at any minute that's a really high risk so you'll need to focus on this but get weaving on it within three months or whatever or maybe even get weaving on starting to write your specs immediately
00:42:59 starting to write your specs immediately yes thank you very much yes yes thank you um adair tower cst409046 if we can just go to that please
00:43:07 please this is
00:43:09 this is at page one of that document as you can see the fire risk assessment by mr stokes
00:43:15 stokes yes
00:43:16 yes tower dated the 11th of november 2015
00:43:21 2015 and if we go to page five at the top of that page you can see item 12i where the priority is given a strong advice
00:43:29 advice and this is about flat entrance doors um under the identified risk or hazard yes and it says the flat entrance doors in this building have have rising butt hinges on most of them a good percentage
00:43:40 hinges on most of them a good percentage of the flat entrance doors in this building are to be changed for new doors item 12c above i'd recommend that any flat entrance doors in this building that do not have self-cleansing devices fitted to them have self-closing devices
00:43:52 fitted to them have self-closing devices fitted and then the tma accepted that recommendation now i want to ask you about strong advice strong advice wasn't defined in the priority time scales on page one
00:44:02 page one was it a priority category known to the fire risk assessment trade at all the problem is sir everybody did their own thing on priorities i i
00:44:13 own thing on priorities i i if you're if you're having a high medium and low
00:44:17 and low it's somewhat anomalous to then have a strong advice because i'm not sure how
00:44:23 how whether strong advice is more important than high or less important than high i presume it meant something to janice ray or or
00:44:35 meant something to janice ray or or the tmo but um it
00:44:40 as i say we we see all sorts of weird and wonderful uh methods of prioritization and expression of of priority but that does seem a bit anomalous with high medium and low yes i mean i'm assuming
00:44:52 medium and low yes i mean i'm assuming on that basis it didn't have any uh any basis in any published guidance
00:44:59 guidance no it's not it's not a term i mean it almost it almost implies that it's less mandatory to the extent anything can be mandatory in a fire risk assessment because it's all
00:45:10 assessment because it's all recommendations it almost implies it's outside the the prioritization scheme and that it's not it it's more it's just a strong recommendation rather than a a must-have
00:45:22 recommendation rather than a a must-have but but i'm i'm really i may be reading something into it that was not understood what not the understood meaning between carl stokes and janice ray yes is strong advice a type of
00:45:33 ray yes is strong advice a type of priority level that you would expect a reasonably competent fire risk assessor to attribute to the installation of self-closing devices on flat entrance doors in an action plan
00:45:44 doors in an action plan the they did have a form of self-closing device uh in the form of rising butt hinges but rising back hinges are a really really poor way of of causing a
00:45:55 really really poor way of of causing a door to self-close they would have been accepted under the building regulations in the 60s and the early 70s where when regulations
00:46:06 and the early 70s where when regulations were prescriptive and the regulations specifically said that flat entrance doors could be self-closing by virtue of rising but hinges but then um in in later versions
00:46:19 um in in later versions and in guidance we would regard rising but hinges as an unacceptable method of closing a flat entrance door indeed the lga guidance strongly deprecated yes we do yes
00:46:32 strongly deprecated yes we do yes and therefore i ask the question is strong advice would you describe as an anomalous description the type of priority level that you would expect a reasonably competent fire risk assessor
00:46:43 reasonably competent fire risk assessor to attribute to the installation of self-closing devices on flat entrance doors i'd probably regard that as a as a high priority because i personally i would treat a rising butt
00:46:54 personally i would treat a rising butt hinges as
00:46:56 hinges as nothing yes so
00:46:58 so we overspoke i'm afraid i was finished i'm sorry sir you started your answer but do i take it that it is is the gist of what you've just told us that saying strong advice was not the
00:47:09 that saying strong advice was not the type of priority level that you would expect a reasonably competent fire risk assessor to attribute to the installation of self-closing devices my difficulty is i don't know what he meant by that
00:47:20 by that i really i genuinely don't know sir right now let's some uh just look at some
00:47:26 some contemporaneous material can we go please to cst 3026445
00:47:34 at page one bottom of that page and over to page two this is an email chain of the 20th of november 2015 at the very bottom of page one it's from barbara matthews to janice ray and if we
00:47:47 barbara matthews to janice ray and if we go to the top of page two you can see that she's uh that um
00:47:54 um barbara matthews says well please please see attached and attached from carl and then uh at the bottom
00:48:02 bottom at the sorry the top of page two carl from barbara yesterday when we met we agreed high priority items are stated as such due to the legal or regulatory
00:48:13 such due to the legal or regulatory requirement to undertake the action as this is not the case with retrofitting self-closers i'm not sure why you would be stating it as a high priority we've agreed internally that we will arrange
00:48:24 agreed internally that we will arrange for a program of fitting self-closers on existing doors to be undertaken quickly however as we are unable to enforce this for leaseholders we would be unable to action
00:48:34 action the as currently described our program will concentrate on tenants doors and we'll strongly advise leaseholders to follow suit we do not want to be in a position with the lfb that they can issue a deficiency notice
00:48:45 that they can issue a deficiency notice for all doors as we would be unable to fully action this we would be giving the fitting of self-closers where we can a high priority and to note that all new doors fitted would have self-closures fitted anyway hopefully you can
00:48:57 fitted anyway hopefully you can now at least downgrade this priority to a medium if not low now uh
00:49:07 now um i've shown you that um
00:49:12 um there's quite a lot in there isn't there sorry there's quite a lot in there now if we go back to page one we can see his reply if we just go back to page one please
00:49:21 please um
00:49:22 um he
00:49:24 uh comes back at the very top of the page two barbara matthews on the 20th of november
00:49:32 november uh
00:49:34 uh and uh there's an email below that that says carl apologies i should have read janice's first email to me that proposed you amend high to read strongly advise which i agree would be better presumably this would have no color you see that
00:49:47 this would have no color you see that and then he he responds uh at the top of the page barbara correct please see attached as sent back to janice now called item 12i the 12i was what we were looking at before
00:49:58 looking at before now
00:49:59 now mr stokes agreed in his evidence that that appeared to show that the tmo had placed pressure on him to downgrade the action from high to strong advice and for our purposes that was a day 138 at page 201 lines 12 to 14. now if in fact
00:50:14 page 201 lines 12 to 14. now if in fact it was the case that karl stokes in downgrading the fra action on self-closers to strong advice was doing so
00:50:22 so under pressure from the tmo would that have been normal in the trade no sir and i i think that possibly helps uh with an insight into your previous questions to me about the meaning of
00:50:33 questions to me about the meaning of strong advice because this would imply to me that strong advice was in fact something less than high priority so that that helps us a little bit doesn't it uh i i i you tell me it does then it
00:50:47 it uh i i i you tell me it does then it does
00:50:48 does tell me would it have been normal in the trade that's my question for the risk assessor to bend as it were to the will of the client or for the client to try to impose
00:51:00 client to try to impose something on the risk assessor yes which well
00:51:03 well to bends to the will of the client is the premise to bend to the will of the client um it's it's not unknown particularly for very small firms
00:51:14 for very small firms that are sole traders to
00:51:18 to listen
00:51:19 listen too much to the will of the client i have come across that um in in some circumstances it's wrong uh but it does sometimes happen it's
00:51:30 uh but it does sometimes happen it's wrong but it sometimes happens quite rarely i hope would you expect a reasonably competent fire risk assessor to bend to the will of the client assuming that that is in fact what happened
00:51:41 fact what happened they may have competence and risk assessment but they they shouldn't bend to the will of the client they should stick by their guns if that's what they believe otherwise they shouldn't have written it
00:51:52 otherwise they shouldn't have written it in the first place thank you now can we can we then turn to another sub-topic which is review of the fra
00:51:59 fra um can we start with past 79 please say cta
00:52:03 cta page 62
00:52:07 and on that page we'll see recommendations and under 20.2 it says
00:52:15 it says when
00:52:16 when let need to scroll thank you when the fire risk assessment is reviewed it should be confirmed where the work recommended in the original action plan has been carried out yes and if you look at the commentary uh on clause 20 uh
00:52:29 at the commentary uh on clause 20 uh little raymond five i think you need to go back to the previous page and look at the right hand column at the top you can see under little roman five it says when the fire risk assessment is
00:52:40 when the fire risk assessment is reviewed consideration needs to be given to the extent to which the original action plan has been implemented work that has not been completed needs to be identified that last sentence is important on the
00:52:51 that last sentence is important on the basis of this guidance where some or all of the actions have not been undertaken would you expect that fact to be expressly documented in the next fire risk assessment for that building
00:53:02 risk assessment for that building uh and separately separately identified do you mean from from new recommendations yes yeah our own practice would do that i'm not sure that everybody would they
00:53:14 i'm not sure that everybody would they they might well uh simply repeat it again uh sometimes yes uh i i prefer personally to point out that this is outstanding from a previous fire risk assessment because
00:53:26 assessment because it
00:53:27 it highlights it better to the client that work has not been completed this is not something new but but not everybody would do that well i'm puzzled by that because that would
00:53:38 i'm puzzled by that because that would rather imply an ambiguity here um does this mean or is it supposed to be taken as meaning um not simply that there was outstanding work
00:53:48 work but that the but the fact that it had not been completed itself needed to be identified needs to be separately identified well the fact that work has not been completed needs to be
00:53:59 not been completed needs to be identified
00:54:05 yes i i think some ambiguity in that sentence reading it if i'm if i'm honest uh but but but um
00:54:14 um would you also uh expect a competent reasonably reasonably competent fire risk assessor to identify the past due date in other words the date his previous fire risk assessment
00:54:27 date his previous fire risk assessment had placed on the completion of uh that item so so that it would be identified that it hadn't been completed in time correct yeah um
00:54:41 i personally would like to see that i'm not sure that all fire risk assessors would would actually uh point out that the the time scale had passed
00:54:51 passed i think some might might well repeat it uh as a almost as though it were a new item but but it is much more helpful to separately identify yes and one can see that there are obviously variations in the practice my
00:55:04 obviously variations in the practice my question really is would it be unreasonably incompetent or incompetent for a fire risk assessor not specifically to identify
00:55:16 not specifically to identify actions that were to have been completed but had not been it had not been completed
00:55:22 completed [Music]
00:55:24 [Music] not sure it affects the competence of the fire risk assessor to to do to carry out a fire risk assessment but it it's less
00:55:35 it it's less helpful than it might be certainly all right does it does it would it for if you took that approach would that fall below the prevailing standards of competence no i wouldn't i wouldn't go that far but
00:55:47 no i wouldn't i wouldn't go that far but right but you do need to to monitor it because there comes a point sir when if you keep finding the same thing risk assessment after risk assessment after risk assessment
00:55:58 after risk assessment then for your own liability alone you would want to and we've had to do this on occasions escalate it to some higher level and point out that we keep telling you
00:56:10 and point out that we keep telling you this
00:56:11 this and you're doing nothing about it and that's the ultimate sanction as it were now
00:56:16 were now it was i who suggested the potential ambiguity but it may be cured if we look at the template in annex e uh if we go to page 112 of this document
00:56:27 uh if we go to page 112 of this document yes um some uh
00:56:31 uh 50 pages away we can see um here
00:56:35 um here it says
00:56:36 it says uh
00:56:38 uh this is page 112.
00:57:00 some reason it's taking a little time to come up
00:57:15 i might be able to help you from memory if if i
00:57:19 if if i should have if the technology is not going to
00:57:21 going to well now as you wish we'll have the document okay cta 703 page 112.
00:57:35 oh i think i'm told mr chairman the transcript stopped working as well
00:57:43 well let's just see if the
00:57:50 yes
00:57:54 um which which it has well i've asked it to refresh and it's telling me the site can't be reached
00:58:02 right would it be sensible to take an early break i think it would be a yes we wouldn't normally have a break quite so soon mr todd but i think in the circumstances um we'll we'll have the morning break
00:58:14 um we'll we'll have the morning break now uh we'll come back a quarter past 11 assuming that the technology is back on track by then if not we'll have to wait a bit longer um and and hope we can continue certainly again please don't
00:58:26 continue certainly again please don't discuss your evidence of course sir
00:58:35 thank you sir thank you very much well let's say the transcripts back on but we'll still have the break go to past 11 please
01:17:22 thank you would you ask mr todd to come back in please
01:17:34 all right mr tom yes thank you so much sorry we kept you waiting longer than i said we would but um there were reasons for that anyway i think we're not up and running we seem to have the transcript
01:17:45 running we seem to have the transcript and we'll see if we get the documents yes thank you very much mr chairman uh mr todd i was going to take you please if we can to cta 703 page 112. 112.
01:17:56 112. and here we can see uh um within uh annex e to pass 79 2012 edition fire risk assessment action on previous action plan and can you see
01:18:08 on previous action plan and can you see that underneath that it says have all previous recommendations been satisfactorily addressed yes box for yes box for no and then brief details of recommendations not yet implemented yes
01:18:19 recommendations not yet implemented yes would you expect to see that box in a fire risk assessment or in a related action plan not not always this this is uh an informative annex as i think we
01:18:31 an informative annex as i think we discussed before sir um so some people have their own versions some people have a completely different version while still following the process of past 79 so so people tend to
01:18:44 process of past 79 so so people tend to to lay out the information they want to impart in in different ways so sometimes you'd see that sometimes you wouldn't well let's just take this in stages you say sometimes you would sometimes you
01:18:55 say sometimes you would sometimes you wouldn't that may be the practice in the trade yes that's what i meant sir sorry no i understand let's just take it in stages what would be the importance of including this information in the fra action plan
01:19:06 action plan to make sure that there was nothing missed from the previous fire risk assessment and and to make sure that that things were progressing along
01:19:17 that that things were progressing along properly yeah and would you agree that by including this box it would show that the fire risk assessor had turned their minds to whether the previous recommendations had been satisfactorily addressed and if not
01:19:28 been satisfactorily addressed and if not which ones hadn't and why not yeah that's precisely the intention yes and also to assist the fire risk assessor to identify any shortcomings in the fire safety management system
01:19:39 the fire safety management system uh or other shortcomings in the responsible person's ability to mitigate fire safety yes it would have that spin-off benefit yes so why was it a matter of taste or individual practice as to whether or not
01:19:51 individual practice as to whether or not this might or might not have been in an action plan surely this was essential
01:19:56 well the the problem is there is no statutory
01:20:02 statutory form of imparting the findings the significant findings of a fire risk assessment so the the article 9 duty under the fire safety order is to
01:20:13 9 duty under the fire safety order is to record significant findings my view is and and i think again you and i are id damn sir that that this is quite significant uh others might take a different view
01:20:25 uh others might take a different view the problem is significant findings are not addressed um the the the minimum prerequisites within the order itself as i'm sure you're aware sir are that
01:20:38 i'm sure you're aware sir are that um the
01:20:40 um the you'd have you have to record uh actions uh that need to be taken and that actions have been the actions that have been taken i could argue that this is to do with uh actions
01:20:54 argue that this is to do with uh actions that have been taken in in relation to provision of general fire precautions but such as the subjectivity of the legislation that
01:21:03 that there isn't a right or wrong really well
01:21:08 well uh
01:21:09 uh there is the concept of suitable and sufficient yes yes and the question is that where a a fire risk assessor had not turned their minds
01:21:20 minds to the question of whether or not previous recommendations had been satisfactorily addressed would that render a fire risk assessment
01:21:31 would that render a fire risk assessment unsuitable or insufficient if they hadn't well a fire risk assessment is a snapshot of fire safety in the building at the point
01:21:42 fire safety in the building at the point in time a bit like an mot uh so
01:21:47 uh so you know if you have your if you if you take your car into a garage and they tell you what's wrong with it and you bring it back on another time and they tell you what's wrong with it and they've told you what's wrong with
01:21:59 and they've told you what's wrong with it and and they've given you a picture of the the car as it is at that point in time
01:22:05 time i'm sorry
01:22:06 i'm sorry that's not right is it they've told you twice
01:22:09 twice and the fact that they've told you twice is new and is is different information from the fact that they've told you at all isn't it um
01:22:22 um they've told you what the car is like today
01:22:24 today and the fire risk assessment tells you what the building is like today i i agree with you sir it's it's helpful it's advisable i would wish that to be
01:22:35 it's advisable i would wish that to be in
01:22:37 in but if i were to then be asked well where does legislation require that you do that i would be struggling a little bit well let me let
01:22:48 struggling a little bit well let me let let's just analyze this a little bit more closely certainly if previous recommendations had not been satisfactorily addressed yes what might be the effect on the
01:22:59 yes what might be the effect on the assessment of the risk the risk would be as the as the risk is
01:23:07 it it would be the same as the risk would be the same as it as it was before and that's what the risk assessor is reporting on now i i i want to understand that um is
01:23:19 now i i i want to understand that um is there a difference to the fire risk assessor between the risk presented
01:23:25 presented by an action unremediated on the one hand and the risk presented by an action which has which is unremediated and remains unremediated by the time of
01:23:37 and remains unremediated by the time of the second risk assessment i would suggest you that there is a different level of risk level of risk or do you disagree the level the level of risk is the same
01:23:48 the level the level of risk is the same but it reflects uh i think we we can agree on this it reflects on whether the fire safety is being managed properly if you find the same thing time
01:24:00 properly if you find the same thing time and time again yes and that is that it's at that stage you would wish to escalate it the the risk it will be the same on each occasion
01:24:12 because the risk has gone on unremediated it's the unremediation that presents the new risk because it's a failure of fire safety management isn't it that's what i would suggest to you
01:24:24 would suggest to you and therefore it's for that reason that it would have to be identified it would certainly be good practice to identify i think we could agree that sir well i'm really seeking to explore with you whether it wouldn't just be good
01:24:35 you whether it wouldn't just be good practice to identify it but bad practice not to unreasonable practice not to and and i suggest so because you are unreasonably ignoring the eventuation of
01:24:46 unreasonably ignoring the eventuation of a new risk because i think that's something you'd wish to draw to people's attention but i'm not sure i mean the risk to life will be the same
01:24:57 will be the same and it's a bad reflection on fire safety management that the risk is the same but the risk is what the risk is if you see what i mean sir if a fire risk assessor had not
01:25:09 if a fire risk assessor had not considered whether previous recommendations had been satisfactorily addressed and therefore not considered the effect of that failure on the risks presented by fire that would be wrong sir that would be wrong and and the
01:25:22 sir that would be wrong and and the question is how could he adequately and competently assess the fire risk in the building concerned because you go through the whole thing again if it was a review then i would 100 agree with you if it's
01:25:35 then i would 100 agree with you if it's a new risk assessment then if if the risk assessor is doing the job properly he will find the same things as he found before uh it would be a lot easier if he'd taken along the previous
01:25:47 easier if he'd taken along the previous risk assessment and
01:25:49 and it would have made life easier for himself to check that things had been fixed but if he looked at everything afresh as it were then he's going to find the same things as before
01:26:00 as before it might be a function might need of time as well if you take your boxes in the basement yes if the boxes are still there in a year or two's time yes the boxes are still in the basement yes
01:26:12 the boxes are still in the basement yes no change in risk yeah yes the probability you take if you take your hotel with the fire alarm that is wearing out yes in 12 months time it may be even more horrible
01:26:23 months time it may be even more horrible and therefore the risk is different that could be true yes yeah that that that would be true but if you take my boxes the probability of their ignition is the same as the probability of ignition last time and
01:26:35 probability of ignition last time and the consequence risk is has two components probability and consequences the probability and consequences for the boxes still being there is exactly the same as it was before yeah yeah even if there's a managed a failure
01:26:47 yeah even if there's a managed a failure of management yes but it's a bad reflection on management sir it's a bad reflection on management and therefore the the fire risk of having a bad management system which is one of the matters that you've set out in your
01:26:59 matters that you've set out in your report has to be assessed yes it's slightly esoteric but yes i think we're not far apart sir very good now looking at cars let's look at the document
01:27:08 document cst403137
01:27:12 this is his letter of the 19th of october 2016 where he identifies some 23 actions outstanding from the previous fire risk assessment he'd done which was as we
01:27:23 assessment he'd done which was as we know the 20th of june that year
01:27:26 that year 2016. now um take it from me we can scroll down but all of the items were marked as high priority and therefore should have been completed or at least started to use mr
01:27:38 completed or at least started to use mr stokes's um approach uh within two to three weeks yes and is that something that you would have expected carl stakes to have commented or advised on in this letter
01:27:47 letter sorry
01:27:48 sorry tell me again about the context of the letter sir uh the context of the letter was an invitation to mr stokes to
01:27:57 conduct an inspection of grenfell tower before uh a an lfb audit oh i see yeah so okay
01:28:06 okay and uh he did that he went along had a look and i'm hoping actions all of which were high risk yes now my question is would you um my question it is would you expect him to
01:28:17 question it is would you expect him to have commented on the fact that those 23 items remained outstanding yes in this letter yes sir yes uh and particularly how those outstanding fra actions then fed into the risk rating for the tower
01:28:29 fed into the risk rating for the tower which he had uh he had already assessed yes
01:28:34 yes yes
01:28:35 yes and whether it showed shortcomings in the tmos fire safety management yes yes now in circumstances where a fire risk assessor becomes aware of a particular fire risk to premises um
01:28:48 fire risk to premises um outside the visit for a fire risk assessment uh an ad hoc visit such as this for example
01:28:54 example because perhaps you've been told on a separate visit that someone is removing self-closing devices would you expect the assessor to check any of the specific risks um that
01:29:05 specific risks um that had been addressed when undertaking the next frame
01:29:10 sorry i asked that question again yes would you expect the assessor to check any of the specific risks uh that were thrown up by that particular visit when he comes next time oh i see all right uh yes
01:29:22 oh i see all right uh yes so does it follow that if if there are items that are outstanding the fact that they are outstanding needs to be recorded in the new fra
01:29:33 well the the fact of the deficiencies needs to be recorded in the fra sir but it's it's more than that i'm suggesting that not just the deficiencies but they remain outstanding
01:29:45 deficiencies but they remain outstanding notwithstanding the fact that they were identified as deficiencies previously yeah i think with respect we're going back to the previous conversation the same again then let's move on to a different topic um mr stakes is training qualifications
01:29:57 um mr stakes is training qualifications and experience now um let's go to your main report please first mr todd page 54 yes and let's look together at paragraph 6.37 on that page yes sir and we see
01:30:09 6.37 on that page yes sir and we see there you say uh notably in his cv mr stokes states that he has experience in undertaking both audits which i seem to mean on behalf of oxfordshire fire and rescue service and risk assessments of the
01:30:21 service and risk assessments of the common parts of high-rise residential tower blocks under the fire safety order and also fire assessments of the private flat stroke dwellings in quotes under the housing act presumably for the purpose of assisting the local authority
01:30:33 purpose of assisting the local authority which is responsible for enforcement of the act
01:30:36 the act yes
01:30:37 yes now if you go over the page to look please at paragraph 6.40 you say there i make the assumption that as stated in his first witness statement mr stake's experience in
01:30:49 statement mr stake's experience in oxfordshire fire and rescue service between january 1994 and september 2009 was for the majority of his time as a fire safety officer on this basis in my opinion the period
01:31:01 on this basis in my opinion the period of experience in conjunction with the activities described above equates to substantial experience that would constitute more than sufficient experience for a transition into the field of fire risk assessment yes sir
01:31:13 field of fire risk assessment yes sir would you mind awfully if i went back to the previous paragraph of course i'm sorry to take up your time sir not at all
01:31:21 all but the bottom of page 54 i i yes i i feel bound in view of paragraph 6 37 and i'm sure the chairman
01:31:34 will be aware of this but just in case watching mr stokes evidence he appeared to contradict uh what he said in his cv uh which i took at face value for 6.37
01:31:49 thank you uh fair enough i don't know if that's helpful well it's it it is it is what it is and uh we will we will i just wondered if you were aware of that uh well we'll let let's see how we go and
01:32:00 well we'll let let's see how we go and if there's anything i'm missing then you can elaborate um let's put some of what mr stokes uh let's look at what some of mr stakes told us about his experience and i'll i will
01:32:12 and i'll i will uh list them and then give the transcript references so people can check them um first he said that he the only fire risk assessments he undertook while at oxfordshire fire and rescue service were
01:32:24 oxfordshire fire and rescue service were for fire stations that's day one three six page fifteen lines nine to fifteen uh he also said that otherwise he was in the role of auditing other people's fire risk assessments day one three six page
01:32:37 risk assessments day one three six page fifteen nine to fifteen again he never audited or conducted a fire risk assessment of a high-rise block of flats day 136 page 16 1-9 and by the time he retired from the oxfordshire fire and
01:32:48 retired from the oxfordshire fire and rescue service he had had three years of fire safety experience as an auditor and less than two years experience as a certified via risk assessor day one three six page twenty lines one to seven
01:32:59 three six page twenty lines one to seven now given that evidence that i've summarized it i hope accurately but given that evidence is it still your opinion as you've set out in paragraph 640 of your main report that i've just shown you that by the time
01:33:11 i've just shown you that by the time carl stokes started his employment with salvas in september 2009 his experience would equate to quotes substantial experience that would constitute more than sufficient
01:33:22 constitute more than sufficient experience for a transition into the field of fire risk assessment as you say a paragraph 640. yes
01:33:29 yes [Music]
01:33:31 [Music] can we can you just run by me again what he claims
01:33:36 he claims is his auditing experience in in under the fire safety order sir uh he said he audited other people's fire risk assessments yes but never audited or conducted a fire risk assessment of a
01:33:48 or conducted a fire risk assessment of a high-rise block of flats yes but but is my
01:33:53 is my is his evidence consistent with the paragraph over the page that you took me to sir that that he was actually a fire safety inspecting officer carrying out audits under the fire safety order well
01:34:05 audits under the fire safety order well that's a question i mean i've put to you a summary of his evidence and i'm just asking you given that evidence is it still your view uh given what he told us that he had substantial experience by
01:34:17 that he had substantial experience by september 2009 that would in your words constitute more than sufficient experience for a transition into the field of fire risk yes what i need to know to answer the question sir if you if you don't mind running through his
01:34:28 if you don't mind running through his evidence again is how long was he auditing under the fire safety order uh
01:34:35 uh does he now say well i i'm not sure i'm not sure i know the answer to that question i'm afraid right but
01:34:42 right but could could you take me to 640 again sir i think it was 6 40 you took me to well i can tell you that he had yes go back to page 640 page 55. i can
01:34:53 yes go back to page 640 page 55. i can tell you that and we can go that we go through his transcript if you like i know that may take a little bit of time and i'm trying to summarize it um but what he told us in summary is that he had three years of fire safety experience
01:35:04 experience and and uh and less than two years experience as a certified fire risk assessor
01:35:13 yes i watched his evidence and i thought there was possibly uh some misunderstanding of it i think the three years he referred to was
01:35:26 the three years he referred to was auditing under the fire safety order right enough but then in 2009 he couldn't have audited for more than three years under the fire safety order because it only came into force on the 1st of october 2006
01:35:39 1st of october 2006 and therefore before that as a fire safety officer he would have been enforcing under the fire precautions act and
01:35:49 and that
01:35:50 that would
01:35:51 would the combination would in my
01:35:55 in my view be substantial experience in the application of fire safety if that makes sense i see now um let's look at paragraph 539 of your report on
01:36:07 look at paragraph 539 of your report on page 47.
01:36:12 uh this is about his continuing professional development yes uh here you say um ife policy is that registrants on their register of fires cassettes must carry out at least 25 hours of cpd per
01:36:24 carry out at least 25 hours of cpd per annum of which no more than half should be non-formal cpd a log of the cpd must be kept and submitted to the ife every two years this is arguably a high standard yardstick for fire risk
01:36:35 standard yardstick for fire risk assessors though in my experience not one necessarily achieved by even all competent fire risk assessors yes is it your view that 25 hours of cpd a year is
01:36:46 your view that 25 hours of cpd a year is the standard that should be met by a fire risk assessor who is registered registered with the ife that is what uh we that's to say the ife impose on uh
01:36:57 we that's to say the ife impose on uh registrants yes right and would you expect a fire risk assessor who is not registered with the ife to carry out the same amount of cpd each year well if he then if he was not registered
01:37:08 well if he then if he was not registered and applied for registration uh we would ask him to or her to up
01:37:15 to up the level of their cpd and that that's that's that's frequently the case that they they haven't carried out enough cpd and we
01:37:25 and we would need to impose that requirement and give them a warning that that will be monitored in the future and what about um virus assessors who don't register with the iav
01:37:36 iav um how much would you expect a non-registered person to carry out it will vary from almost zero to whatever figure you choose right they
01:37:47 whatever figure you choose right they will be down to their own integrity to determine for themselves how much they they should do i see i mean for any years where it
01:37:57 it let it be assumed as a fact that mr stokes did not carry out 25 hours a year of cpd would you agree that that fell below the standards of a reasonably competent fire risk assessor no sir i wouldn't right
01:38:09 no sir i wouldn't right uh
01:38:10 uh the ife sets 25 hours yes a year um
01:38:16 a year um is that presumably because that is what the ife would expect it's quite a high bar to set but it's a bar where we as the ife uh
01:38:27 uh with my ife hat are quite serious about but when people come along to register
01:38:36 as as competent fire risk assessors we would see quite a number who are competent and that we are content to register but that haven't been doing 25
01:38:48 register but that haven't been doing 25 hours and therefore we need to draw it to their attention that um fine they're registered now but they will need to up the amount of cpd they do they do because they're not doing enough would
01:38:59 because they're not doing enough would it would they reasonably would a reasonably competent fire risk assessor in the trade um conduct no cpd a year
01:39:10 no cpd a year no
01:39:11 no that that
01:39:12 that that a zero would would be that that really wouldn't be acceptable thank you now um if we go to paragraph 6.48 of your main report at page 58
01:39:25 at page 58 you say at the bottom of the page there it is clear that either mr stokes is somewhat lacking in understanding regarding the proper use of post nominals or that he was at least
01:39:37 of post nominals or that he was at least endeavoring to overstate his qualifications in either case the manner in which he set out the supposed post nominals would in my opinion significantly mislead clients and potential clients as to his
01:39:48 potential clients as to his qualifications regardless of his level of competence absolutely and is there anything that you heard from mr stokes when he gave oral evidence to the inquiry that we might change that opinion no absolutely not um
01:40:02 opinion no absolutely not um he
01:40:03 he he i i recall and you correct me if i'm wrong sir that he said he didn't know what post-nominals were he had to look it up and
01:40:12 and that's a matter for the chairman to decide as to whether that is that is correct or not and moreover i i think you may hear evidence from others as to whether they
01:40:23 evidence from others as to whether they reject his explanation or not i think that's not a matter for expert opinion that's a matter for the chairman to decide the motives the the bottom line is that there is no question in my mind
01:40:35 is that there is no question in my mind that the post nominals that he did set out after his name would would definitely uh mislead people in fact and by in by evidence of that if it might
01:40:46 by in by evidence of that if it might help sir um after the grenfell terrifier uh wearing again my ife hat i i took calls from people who had uh looped him up i think
01:40:57 people who had uh looped him up i think one of his risk assessments was on the web and i had calls from people insisting that mr stokes was on the ife register
01:41:06 register and would not accept my word for it that that that wasn't correct because you could not other than uh read what he'd written
01:41:14 written to
01:41:15 to to mean that he was on the the ife register the other post nominals anybody knowing post nominals would would possibly see through them but but
01:41:27 would possibly see through them but but there's no question that the the package together
01:41:30 together um would have misled people i'm really quite clear about that so when you say people not just clients clients clients and potential clients anyone who read his reports yes say
01:41:41 anyone who read his reports yes say residents of grenfell tower the lfb yes yes yes um
01:41:48 yes um now in in the light of that can we go to paragraph 6.56 of your main report at page 62.
01:42:01 uh and you say at the bottom of page 62 in view of the circumstances outlined above while i discount a number of the post nominals used by mr stakes in that they are not in my opinion relevant
01:42:12 they are not in my opinion relevant qualifications i consider that mr stokes's education training and experience was suitable for the purpose of carrying out fras for grenfell tower and other buildings within the tma-managed estate yes
01:42:26 tma-managed estate yes why was that given the evidence that he he gave us about his post nominal about the post nominals the
01:42:35 the trying to think how to put this diplomatically um you don't have to put it diplomatically you just have to give us your opinion um his evidence on post nominals might mean
01:42:46 his evidence on post nominals might mean that i might not want to buy a second-hand car from him but he might be perfectly competent at fixing the car if i could use that analogy well we'll do our best with it
01:42:57 do our best with it uh well do you can i elaborate at all yes well we don't want too much beating about the bush we need to understand well
01:43:05 well exactly what your view is about this my impression is and this is my impression sir that he tried to big himself up yeah uh that would be my impression uh he he
01:43:18 uh that would be my impression uh he he says he didn't understand and that he thought putting down courses that he'd been on in the form of post nominals was was fine and that that's all he was trying to do my impression is he tried to bring
01:43:30 to do my impression is he tried to bring himself up and the frustrating thing is sir he didn't need to because he had the right experience he had the proper training he had and i think this is worth bringing out sir the
01:43:41 think this is worth bringing out sir the european diploma from the fpa he used the wrong post nominals for it um again frustratingly enough but he did and i had to check this for the metropolitan police sir i and i did
01:43:53 metropolitan police sir i and i did confirm that he had passed the european diploma
01:43:57 diploma of the fba which is a level four diploma the equivalent of an hnc so he actually had the academic training as a fire safety officer for that length of period
01:44:09 of period people
01:44:10 people anyone would be happy to employ him as as a fire risk assessor and yet he chose to for whatever reason have this this string of post nominals that would
01:44:23 string of post nominals that would mislead people and pick himself up if i can use the vernacular and there was a really no need for him to do so
01:44:30 to do so thank you thank you now can we then turn to a different topic which is um audit quality assurance peer review can we go to page 28 in this document your main report and look at paragraph
01:44:42 your main report and look at paragraph 4.17
01:44:44 4.17 do you say there however it's important to note that in 2009 there were no third-party certification schemes for fra companies the tma specification required that tender has operated a quality management system qms that
01:44:57 quality management system qms that conformed to bsen iso 9001 which in fact is a more onerous requirement in terms of management of quality than is required under the main third-party certification scheme that now exists for
01:45:08 certification scheme that now exists for fra companies bafe sp 205. preference was expressed for the qms to be certified by a united kingdom accreditation service ucas accredited
01:45:19 accreditation service ucas accredited accredited third-party certification body
01:45:22 body accordingly in my opinion in 2009 the requirements of specification of in terms of quality management were sufficient now would you agree that it's important in general for a fire risk assessor's
01:45:34 in general for a fire risk assessor's work to be audited and peer reviewed
01:45:40 um there are lots of one-man companies who are unable to achieve that sir because there's no one they don't have a
01:45:51 there's no one they don't have a a partner or employee or anyone else working in their practice to do it it's a known problem it's a known problem is that or an unknown potential problem
01:46:02 is that or an unknown potential problem to be fair all right but just the premise of my the question i asked you was whether it was important for a fire risk assessor's work to be audited and peer reviewed
01:46:15 it depends on the competence of the fire risk assessor well um with great respect can that be right yes it can how would you
01:46:27 yes it can how would you how objectively would you tell whether a particular fire risk assessor needed to be audited and peer reviewed and uh who would not
01:46:36 would not a third party would have to make their own judgment which is why we have third-party certification schemes but um
01:46:43 um you might be a perfectly competent lawyer but you might not be registered on what however lawyers are registered so they the the the risk assessor could be
01:46:54 the risk assessor could be i had a very good friend who would not uh
01:46:57 uh would not pay for third party certification he took the view he was a perfectly competent fire risk assessor he didn't need someone else to tell him that
01:47:07 that was his view his clients were asking for it he was probably one of the best fire risk assessors i knew but he just doggedly refused to submit himself to third-party
01:47:18 refused to submit himself to third-party certification it didn't make him a worse fire risk assessor but it meant that those using his services did not have independent verification of that so it made it more
01:47:30 verification of that so it made it more difficult for them to assess him now you say that it's a known problem for seoul yes traders yes uh and
01:47:40 and then is the nature of the problem that there is no third party uh auditing or peer reviewing that uh fire risk assessors work uh yes and on their day-to-day work sir
01:47:52 uh yes and on their day-to-day work sir um the under the bafe sp 205 scheme which is a company scheme under that scheme a one-man one-woman company
01:48:02 company uh is a company for the purpose of that so uh you can receive bafe certification for your company as a sole trader with no one in your company
01:48:14 no one in your company to
01:48:14 to routinely audit your fire risk assessments and so you will be limited to an annual audit by the certification body now that has changed only recently
01:48:26 body now that has changed only recently because there are many of us in the profession that consider that i think what you're implying that if you're a one person company
01:48:37 if you're a one person company uh how do you yourself know that you haven't gone off in some funny tangent and you've got no one to bring you back in line by routinely auditing
01:48:48 in line by routinely auditing and checking or peer reviewing your your fire risk assessments now um the fire industry association have made representations to beef about that and beef now
01:48:59 beef now call for a slightly higher level of monitoring of one-man companies whereby they have to submit another fire risk assessment in the interim period
01:49:10 risk assessment in the interim period for review by the certification body but there is concern by many of us that on a day-to-day basis if you are a one person company you
01:49:21 if you are a one person company you might be very competent but
01:49:25 but you
01:49:25 you are devoid of peer review to confirm that and is that where to keep you on the straight and narrow yes uh now let's look at um page 36 of your report paragraph 4.45
01:49:40 you deal here with the absence of peer review yes uh and you say in the second half of that
01:49:47 that uh paragraph the only possible disadvantage would be that it would be that associated with employment of any sole trader namely the absence of any internal peer reviews of fras prior to submission yes plus the more minor
01:49:58 submission yes plus the more minor potential for delay in the program as a result of sickness etc yes um uh you refer to internal peer reviews but what about the absence of any audit procedure or quality assurance procedure did you
01:50:09 or quality assurance procedure did you consider those factors when you wrote this paragraph uh
01:50:15 uh well that
01:50:16 well that the peer review is all part of of quality management it is the peer review that's missing from sole traders but i would not wish to
01:50:25 to speak badly of of sole traders i i've got a number of friends who are sole traders carrying out fire risk assessments who do a very good job but no one is actually reading and peer reviewing their reports and to my mind
01:50:37 reviewing their reports and to my mind that's a disadvantage but that that's their choice yes you said you use the word disadvantage here but given that mr stokes um became the tmo's
01:50:49 um became the tmo's essentially permanent standing and only fire risk assessor for the entirety of their stock of some 650 buildings would you agree that the absence of a qms a quality
01:51:01 that the absence of a qms a quality management system in place for him was more than just a disadvantage it was
01:51:08 it was a serious problem ah we need to pause there sir a one-man company can have a qms
01:51:13 qms there are one-man companies who are third-party certificated under bsen iso 9001 i've actually audited some on behalf of you well i've ordered the certification body auditing the one-man
01:51:25 certification body auditing the one-man company
01:51:27 company on behalf of ucas and they can run a qms uh
01:51:31 uh that's perfectly adequate under 9001 indeed the bit that's missing is uh the bit on top if you like to have a friend a critical friend to to
01:51:42 to have a friend a critical friend to to look at their their fire risk assessments well carl stokes told us that he had no auditing procedure and no quality assurance system in place while he was working for
01:51:53 system in place while he was working for the tmo uh contrary in fact to what had been specified by the consultants brief
01:52:01 in the light of that and given the scale of his task as i've identified would you agree that the absence of any quality management system in place uh and indeed any audit or or peer
01:52:13 uh and indeed any audit or or peer review was more than just a disadvantage to the tma it was a serious and fundamental problem
01:52:21 no i would i would stick with disadvantage sir are you able to tell us where on on a scale of of seriousness well advantage can and again sorry i don't know what the
01:52:33 and again sorry i don't know what the the inquiry already knows have quality management systems been explored and explained to the the inquiry
01:52:39 inquiry well i don't think we've had a an incoming for can i give you the the the the the key points well i think it needs to be brief if you can i'll do my very best
01:52:50 be brief if you can i'll do my very best sir um so if you have an iso 9000 quality management system you have to have a controlled document list you have to have a methodology which is audited to keep all your british standards up to
01:53:02 to keep all your british standards up to date
01:53:04 but people may do that on an ad hoc basis you have to have a customer complaint system if you're a one-man company you probably know what your complaints are um you have to have a policy of
01:53:16 um you have to have a policy of continuous improvement if you're a committed one-man company you can have a policy of continuous improvement so there are
01:53:23 there are you can meet all the components of iso 9001 as a one-man company i'm not saying mr stokes did i'm just saying you can uh
01:53:33 uh and and the bit that is missing on top of the iso 9001 is the peer review of your product
01:53:43 product and that's a disadvantage but it's one that
01:53:47 that is inherent if you employ the services of a one-man company but there are lots of uh perfectly uh legitimate one-man companies who who work for reasonably
01:53:58 reasonably sizable organizations mr todd you you currently stick by the word disadvantage yes
01:54:06 yes as opposed to mr serious rather more yes serious language yes the word passing through my mind was it was a weakness a weakness yes would you accept that yes definitely sir
01:54:21 and let's turn to a different topic uh namely mr stakes is fras and uh start with some some general points and of those general points i want to ask you about cutting and pasting if i may yes
01:54:32 about cutting and pasting if i may yes um if we go to page 75 in your main report and look please at paragraph 8.9 you can see uh
01:54:43 you can see uh that there is a set of bullet points under that paragraph yes and you're focusing there on the june 2016 fra for grenfell tower in particular yes and you say there is evidence that mr stokes was quite
01:54:54 evidence that mr stokes was quite meticulous in the detail he recorded though i have slight concerns that some of the content was standard wording which he incorporated in all of his fras as something of a cut and paste for example
01:55:05 something of a cut and paste for example for some reason the june 2016 fra for grenfell tower contains a section on pest control in which it has recorded the pigeon netting had been erected to cover the flat balconies which mr stokes
01:55:16 cover the flat balconies which mr stokes states were inspected visually from the ground when in fact there are no flat balconies now you use pigeon netting there as an example would you would you seriously describe as meticulous the work of a fire risk
01:55:28 as meticulous the work of a fire risk assessor who cut text from an fra for building a and pasted that into an fra for building b where it was completely in opposite um
01:55:40 um he he went into incredible detail but but you then have to sort out which of that detail was something of a cut and paste and which was
01:55:52 and which was uh
01:55:53 uh which was specific and unique to the building now there was a lot of information recorded that was unique to the building it was undermined and
01:56:04 and diluted by the fact that he cut and pasted things like pigeon netting and going back to our previously point our previous point and the chairman's term uh weakness if it had been a two-person
01:56:16 uh weakness if it had been a two-person company and every report had been read by a colleague of mr stokes the colleague probably would have said are you sure you've got pigeon netting at grenfell tower so that's the sort of problem you can you can have by by
01:56:29 problem you can you can have by by having someone who is a one-man company and is perhaps a bit uh careless in in reviewing their own report but on the other hand quite a lot of the detail he did record was unique
01:56:43 of the detail he did record was unique to grenfell tower which was a telltale sign that he had carried out a thorough inspection of the building and then jotted down quite a lot of detail well you just
01:56:54 lot of detail well you just that last answer within it is the seed of my next question you say perhaps a bit careless in reviewing their own report yes you agree that that a cut and paste approach as
01:57:06 that that a cut and paste approach as you've exemplified with your pigeon netting example is in fact very far from meticulous uh because it shows that the author did not bother to read their own work before signing it off and sending it to the client you certainly can't have read it
01:57:18 client you certainly can't have read it properly no that's not very meticulous is it never mind the detail well i don't want to get into semantics he he did record down uh he did
01:57:30 did record down uh he did jot down a lot of detail of what he'd seen
01:57:33 seen but he clearly didn't read the report properly thereafter or he would have seen that something like pigeon netting wasn't appropriate and there were other examples as well that wasn't the only one sir
01:57:44 one sir you see you say in the second line of the first bullet point there that you you have slight concerns yes some of the contact was standard wording incorporated in all his fras
01:57:55 incorporated in all his fras why did the fact that mr stokes recorded the presence of pigeon netting over balconies for grenfell tower when there were no balconies and no pigeon netting
01:58:06 were no balconies and no pigeon netting something that only gave you slight concerns
01:58:08 concerns it gave me concerns because it made it difficult
01:58:12 difficult to resolve which of the information was specifically relevant to grenfell tower and therefore was accurate uh and and which was not
01:58:24 which was not but in relation to quite a lot of the detail it was clear that it was unique to grenfellter like rust on an escape hatch i mean that shows quite
01:58:36 an escape hatch i mean that shows quite an eye for detail uh
01:58:39 uh and and therefore uh and he recorded that that detail but
01:58:45 but it
01:58:46 it it meant his his report was a little bit of a mess because of the uh
01:58:53 uh the the fact it was to the detriment of the report that there were things that were clearly not right and were cut and paced
01:59:00 paced yes it's just a question of why you'd say slightly quite a slight concern because putting that down didn't put anyone at risk no but doesn't it show that uh mr stakes failed to read his uh fire risk
01:59:13 failed to read his uh fire risk assessment uh properly before sending it to the client yes it does and that is why is that something that only gives you slight gives you slight concern what a serious problem isn't it you don't read your own work before signing
01:59:24 don't read your own work before signing it off
01:59:26 it off um
01:59:27 um i think it's very bad practice you wouldn't have done it with your experts report would you no i had three people peer review just wonder whether you've understated it a little bit here um
01:59:40 perhaps i i would be happy to delete the word slate if you wish sir
01:59:45 wish sir let's turn to evacuation strategy more substantively now um let's start uh as it were at the beginning uh can we look at the fso inq
01:59:58 beginning uh can we look at the fso inq three zeroes one one three two seven at page ten
02:00:05 um this is article 14 emergency roots and exits yes and under article 14 2 um it says uh it says quite a lot but it
02:00:16 um it says uh it says quite a lot but it it
02:00:17 it it provides a set of requirements with which the responsible person must comply yes in order to set to safeguard the safety of relevant persons doesn't it yes that's relevant persons is a defined expression
02:00:29 relevant persons is a defined expression yes
02:00:30 yes b
02:00:31 b in the event of danger it must be possible for persons to evacuate the premises as quickly and as safely as possible yes yes now was it the understanding in the fire
02:00:43 was it the understanding in the fire risk assessment trade before grenfell tower before the fire that in the event of danger the responsible person was required to ensure that persons could evacuate the relevant premises
02:00:54 evacuate the relevant premises as quickly and safely as possible without the assistance of the fire and rescue service
02:01:03 in anything other than a block of flats that would be true sir yes where is the is there any qualification
02:01:14 where is the is there any qualification so far as concerns blocks of flats to this obligation in the fsa um
02:01:20 um inherently sir because with the greatest of respect you didn't read the whole of the sentence which is a very um
02:01:30 a very um common uh problem because of the way the the very unhelpful way the uh articles of the fire safety order are
02:01:41 uh articles of the fire safety order are written
02:01:41 written so for example by analogy sir yes if you were to look at 14 2d you would read the emergency doors must open in the direction of escape always
02:01:52 always absolute but that's not correct in what way is it not correct because in many buildings the doors uh open inwards and that's perfectly acceptable and guidance says so and so
02:02:05 acceptable and guidance says so and so the question is where do i get that from and i get it from sir two very important words where necessary
02:02:17 and in fact when we train people on this very article just pause please the words were necessary that you're identifying for us first line here at the end of the first line and sub that's calculation two yes and they're very very important
02:02:30 two yes and they're very very important i see so important are they sir that they actually delayed the introduction of the fire safety order from april 2006 to october 2006. i would put it as
02:02:41 to october 2006. i would put it as strongly as that so are there cases where looking at b uh it is not necessary in the event of danger for it to be possible for persons
02:02:52 danger for it to be possible for persons to evacuate the premises as quickly and safely as possible well if you have a state boot uh strategy then
02:02:59 then it is
02:03:01 it is you still have to have adequate means of escape but uh in the event of danger you don't actually have an evacuation strategy as such uh you have a state boot strategy but the stay put strategy is not exceptionless is it as we know
02:03:14 is not exceptionless is it as we know that and hence the words must be possible now i don't want to get into a debate about the meaning of of a regulation what i'm keen to understand coming back to my question yes is whether it was the understanding in the fire risk assessment trade that
02:03:27 in the fire risk assessment trade that in the event of danger the uh responsible person had to ensure that persons could evacuate the relevant premises as quickly and as safely as
02:03:40 premises as quickly and as safely as possible yeah you can encapsulate that by sorry the qualification is important without the assistance of the fire and rescue service that's the question i see uh
02:03:49 uh then uh
02:03:52 there will the the understanding in the trade as you put it sir is that in a building with a state boot strategy then there had to be adequate means of
02:04:03 then there had to be adequate means of escape still for the reasons that you explained
02:04:07 explained but the understanding was and this may be where you're leading sir if
02:04:12 if persons couldn't because of disability then they would be rescued by the fire and rescue service
02:04:21 yes
02:04:24 that i understand was it the understanding in the trade also that this obligation here read in full um applied regardless of whether the responsible person had a staple strategy
02:04:35 responsible person had a staple strategy for those premises yes because you'd have to provide adequate means of escape yes staircases and likes
02:04:43 and likes so even where let's say we're clear even where a stay put strategy was in place was it the view at the time that any resident of that building affected by fire and or smoke should also be able to evacuate the
02:04:55 should also be able to evacuate the premises as quickly and as safely as possible
02:04:59 possible um
02:05:01 um it was
02:05:02 it was an understanding that was reflected in the lga guide that
02:05:07 that in the case of persons with disability they would need to rely on rescue by the fire and rescue service we'll come back to achieve this ability in detail later on in your evidence yes sir but just
02:05:19 on in your evidence yes sir but just just in general term in general terms yes sir we agree yes and that safe evacuation should not depend on the intervention of a fire and rescue service
02:05:27 service uh
02:05:28 uh other than for disabled people in blocks of flats thank you right um
02:05:36 and do you agree uh that it's the responsibility of the of the premises management to assess the needs of all people to make a safe evacuation when formulating evacuation plans
02:05:47 plans uh
02:05:48 uh yes as far as practicable and an evacuation plan should not rely on the assistance of the fire rescue service which
02:05:55 which [Music]
02:05:57 [Music] and that's a matter actually which should be taken into account in building design
02:06:04 i come back to the fact that the understanding at the time was that in in the case of persons with disability there would need to be reliance on the fire and rescue service now on that point just go back to article 14. yes um
02:06:18 point just go back to article 14. yes um and again i hesitate to debate the
02:06:22 the language used by the order but yes do you agree with me that nowhere on its face does it distinguish between able-bodied and that's correct persons yeah that's correct was it the understanding in the
02:06:34 correct was it the understanding in the trade that article 14 did perhaps implicitly did make that distinction or was it the understanding that it didn't and wasn't supposed to
02:06:46 didn't and wasn't supposed to um
02:06:48 um the understanding was that uh in a building with a state route strategy it would not normally be necessary however as you pointed out sir uh even in a building with a stay put
02:06:59 uh even in a building with a stay put strategy
02:07:01 strategy there will be a need sometimes for persons to evacuate that evacuation because there's no fire alarm system would normally be triggered
02:07:13 would normally be triggered by the fire and rescue service
02:07:18 so in your view did those in the fire risk assessment trade
02:07:22 trade think before the grenfell tower fire in june 2017 that where a disabled resident or vulnerable resident was was affected by smoke and or fire the responsible
02:07:33 by smoke and or fire the responsible person had an obligation to ensure that that resident could evacuate the building as quickly and as safely as possible the understanding would have been
02:07:45 the understanding would have been that
02:07:46 that this related to the safety of persons within their dwellings
02:07:53 dwellings which was outside the scope of the fire safety order but you could not simply ignore
02:08:01 ignore the safety of disabled persons because the most likely scenario and i think the chairman asked this question of a witness and it was an incredibly important question
02:08:13 an incredibly important question what if the resident has a fire in their own flat
02:08:17 own flat and i'm not sure that the chairman ever got an answer to that he may have done but the point is that the safety of disabled people in their
02:08:28 the safety of disabled people in their own flats
02:08:29 own flats it paradoxically enough is not adequately addressed by an evacuation plan you need more than that
02:08:40 you need more than that and in fact nowadays we would say that a peep to use that term and i know you haven't introduced it yet sir is only part of
02:08:48 part of the um means for securing the safety of disabled people in their own flat because if they die from a fire it will almost certainly be a fire in
02:09:00 it will almost certainly be a fire in their own flat grenfell tower is a dreadful dreadful obscene anomaly and since the grenfell terror fire sir 180 people have died from fires in
02:09:12 180 people have died from fires in purpose-built blocks of flats and
02:09:15 and almost without exception perhaps without exception
02:09:19 exception these are people who died from a fire in their own flat often vulnerable people very often older people vulnerable through simply age people with
02:09:31 through simply age people with disabilities and
02:09:34 and arranging for their evacuation when there's a fire elsewhere in the building is negligible compared to ensuring that they are safe from a fire in their own flat and
02:09:46 from a fire in their own flat and traditionally sir before grenfell tower we we recognized this we didn't ignore disabled people far from it but it was deemed to be
02:09:57 but it was deemed to be a matter not for legislation which was deemed to be a very blunt instrument with which to try and deal with the problem but by multi-agency working to identify
02:10:08 identify these people and ensure that with multi-agency cooperation measures could be taken to
02:10:16 to ensure that they didn't die from a fire in their own flat which was the most likely scenario to occur and that would be true sir if you had a bungalow in the middle of a field if you have a bungalow in the middle of
02:10:27 if you have a bungalow in the middle of a field with a person who is bedridden um the fire safety order doesn't apply you can't have a peep no one's going to go and rescue them
02:10:38 no one's going to go and rescue them other than the fire service but you don't you don't simply write them off far from it you provide a package of fire safety measures to make sure a that
02:10:49 fire safety measures to make sure a that they're unlikely to have a fire and b that if they do have a fire they are safe until the rescue by the fire and rescue service and that's that's much much broader than a peep and and today
02:11:02 much broader than a peep and and today we call that a person-centered fire risk assessment or pcfra and you'll find reference to that in guidance i drafted sir in and people can characterize me as the
02:11:14 and people can characterize me as the author of that if they wish um 2017
02:11:17 2017 fire safety and specialized housing and that's written around sheltered housing supported housing the likes and we introduced the concept of the pcfra we didn't invent it but
02:11:30 didn't invent it but we introduced international guidance in before grenfell but in the same year as grenfell and perhaps tucked away in that and perhaps not prominent enough but we actually do say
02:11:42 but we actually do say this is for specialized housing but if you have a disabled person in general needs housing you can do the same thing and create uh we often refer to it as an
02:11:53 and create uh we often refer to it as an island of sheltered housing in general needs housing does that make sense chairman yes thank you very much yes mr rather long answer i'm seeking to understand
02:12:04 long answer i'm seeking to understand sorry i'm doing my best to keep it short well can i just sorry i'm going to intervene for a moment because i think from time to time in your enthusiasm to ask the questions mr millet and in mr todd's enthusiasm to
02:12:15 mr millet and in mr todd's enthusiasm to answer them you're sometimes cutting across each other i'm sorry sir no it's right it just makes life very difficult for the shorthand yes i understand yes yes sorry
02:12:27 yes yes sorry i just want to try and understand what the trade understood by article 14 and particularly article article 14 2b yes was it coming back to the question was it was
02:12:39 coming back to the question was it was it understood by the fire risk assessor assessment trade that reliance on the existence of stay put in a residential high-rise building
02:12:49 building was not a sound reason uh for not discharging the obligation under little b there or that it was an acceptable way of discharging it or didn't it didn't need to be discharged there was a general
02:13:02 discharged there was a general understanding that stay put would work and in general it did so
02:13:10 so is that does that tell us that
02:13:13 people thought that stay put meant that you didn't have to think about evacuating disabled people uh there would be some would take a different view from what i'm about to say sir but i would
02:13:24 what i'm about to say sir but i would say the majority view was exactly that but
02:13:30 but if it came to a stage where you needed to evacuate people beyond the flat of fire origin it was understood that given that there was no fire alarm
02:13:41 was no fire alarm how would this disabled person know that there was a fire elsewhere in the building and there was a need for them to evacuate that would be because the fire service
02:13:52 that would be because the fire service had come to their door and told them so and at that stage both practically and legally under the fire and rescue services act 2004 the fire service are
02:14:05 services act 2004 the fire service are legally in charge of the building and the fire service it was understood would arrange for their evacuation now whether
02:14:12 whether whether the inquiry uh consider that was appropriate or not appropriate that that was i would say the majority understanding in the profession albeit
02:14:23 understanding in the profession albeit not possibly 100 thank you now can we look at the next article article 15 the foot of the page yes procedures for serious and imminent danger and for danger areas yes
02:14:35 danger and for danger areas yes and it it says the responsible person must
02:14:39 must establish and and where necessary give effect uh to appropriate procedures including safety drills to be followed in the in the event of serious and imminent danger
02:14:50 the event of serious and imminent danger to relevant persons yes and then secondly under b nominate a sufficient number of competent persons to implement those procedures insofar as they relate to the evacuation of relevant persons from the premises and
02:15:02 relevant persons from the premises and then over the page at little c uh ensure that no relevant person has access to any area to which it is necessary to restrict access on the grounds of safety unless the person concerned has received adequate safety
02:15:14 concerned has received adequate safety instruction yes sir was it your view or rather was it the view in the trade that the responsible person was required to establish an appropriate procedure to be followed in the event of serious and
02:15:25 be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to relevant persons yes and that would translate into i think uh you may be aware sir that what you're reading here is the actual wording of the workplace directive uh
02:15:37 wording of the workplace directive uh from europe on health and safety so it's not terribly
02:15:42 terribly clear
02:15:43 clear language uh when when written when translated into english this this is not written around fire safety this is verbatim reproduction of the workplace
02:15:55 verbatim reproduction of the workplace directive or the framework directive on health and safety in workplaces how much of articles 8-22 was taken from the workplace directive well the whole of 14 would be the workplace directive
02:16:09 of 14 would be the workplace directive 13
02:16:10 13 would be
02:16:12 would be you need to do a comparison but the a lot of the key the 15
02:16:19 the 15 18
02:16:21 18 would be
02:16:22 would be 16 would come from the explosive atmospheres directive because it's to do with
02:16:29 flammable substances quite quite a lot of the key physical measures that are called for under the fire safety order were copied out from the fire precautions workplace
02:16:40 out from the fire precautions workplace regulations or more broadly what was known as the workplace fire precautions legislation which was copied out and that was the government's actual term this was not a loose term the government in preparing the previous generation of
02:16:53 in preparing the previous generation of legislation to this said that they were going to adopt a principle known as copying out where they copied out the wording of the directives and to prepare the fire safety order they copied it out
02:17:04 the fire safety order they copied it out yet again but expanded the scope to relevant persons instead of just employees now i'm sorry if that was a long answer to your question then i'm going to come to the answer to 15. so
02:17:16 going to come to the answer to 15. so the understanding again i would say the majority but not the 100
02:17:23 the 100 consensus would be that in a block of flats the article 15 duty was satisfied by having a state boot strategy and people actually call that
02:17:34 strategy and people actually call that an evacuation strategy which is a misnomer because it's a non-evacuation strategy well quite so and that's the question i was going to ask you so your your your opinion or your evidence is
02:17:46 your your opinion or your evidence is that the responsible person as a matter of practice uh and fire risk assesses as a matter of practice would regard the obligation under 15 1 a as satisfied simply by the
02:17:57 under 15 1 a as satisfied simply by the presence
02:17:59 presence of a stay put strategy in a high rise yes with the caveats included in a state boot strategy indeed so so in in lots of people's risk assessments and i get to see hundreds of of risk assessments of others apart from our own practice you
02:18:11 others apart from our own practice you will often find a heading evacuation strategy and underneath that the risk assessor will commonly write stay put yes so does that tell us that in a
02:18:23 yes so does that tell us that in a high-rise
02:18:24 high-rise uh residential building in respect of which a stay-put policy or strategy is in place there would be no emergency plan or rather that would be the emergency plan no the emergency plan
02:18:35 emergency plan no the emergency plan would go a little bit further that
02:18:38 that if
02:18:40 if you wish to evacuate and can do so you're entitled to do so the the the state boat does not keep people prisoner or if your flat is affected by fire and
02:18:53 or if your flat is affected by fire and smoke
02:18:54 smoke then you should leave or if you're instructed to leave by the fire and rescue service that's the sort of standard wording of a fire procedure notice and that in its uh
02:19:05 notice and that in its uh that holistically would be the what people understood to be compliance with article 15. i see now can we look at uh the uh lga guide on this yes
02:19:17 on this yes hom3045964 please at page 27 section 18.
02:19:31 mr minute forgive me i'm sorry i keep interrupting transcriber how are you doing
02:19:36 doing we're going to have another 40 minutes till lunch time that can be all right
02:19:42 well will you flag if it's not please okay yes just a minute yes um this is entitled evacuation strategy yes it's four sub-sections long
02:19:53 yes it's four sub-sections long if you look at paragraphs 18.1 and 18.2 yes um they explain the principles of compartmentation yes sir then if we look at 18.3 it says this
02:20:04 at 18.3 it says this this is the essence of the staple principle it has underpinned fire safety design standards from even before the 1960s when national standards were first drafted it is it is it's still the basis
02:20:15 drafted it is it is it's still the basis upon which blocks of flats are designed today
02:20:18 today in the majority of existing blocks it remains entirely valid inevitably fires do occur in which for operational reasons the fire and rescue service decides to evacuate others in the building fires
02:20:30 evacuate others in the building fires have been known to spread beyond the flat of origin to involve other flats or to spread across the top of blocks through the roof voids in these cases total evacuation of the block has sometimes been necessary fortunately
02:20:42 sometimes been necessary fortunately these fires are rare they are usually the fault of failings in the construction yes now it looks from this lga guide that um it contemplated the
02:20:54 lga guide that um it contemplated the possibility of compartmentation failing yes sir that's good even if it was rare yes do you agree that if compartmentation were to fail or taking your word from yesterday bypassed
02:21:07 taking your word from yesterday bypassed um that would present a serious and imminent danger to relevant persons in the building it could do yes yes do you agree also that the responsible person should ensure that a resident can evacuate as quickly
02:21:19 that a resident can evacuate as quickly and as safely as possible in the event that compartmentation either failed or was bypassed uh
02:21:27 uh yes and and that's why we have protected stairways
02:21:31 stairways protected lobbies smoke control and so on yeah and do you also agree that the responsible person was required to esta establish and give effect to a procedure to be followed in that
02:21:43 a procedure to be followed in that eventuality even if rare yes and that that's why the standard fire procedure notice would say what i said it would say yeah and does that tell us that the responsible person was obliged to assess
02:21:55 was obliged to assess the means of escape both when the stay put
02:21:58 put strategy is in force and
02:22:02 and when
02:22:03 when it was revoked because for example compartmentation had failed or was bypassed yes that goes to the same thing the fire procedure yes
02:22:17 so it was not your understanding that the responsible person was not required to put and forgive the double negative it wasn't your understanding or the understanding of the trade that the
02:22:29 understanding of the trade that the responsible person wasn't required to put in place any evacuation arrangement in the event that compartmentation failed or was bypassed but would simply leave it up to the fire and rescue service to
02:22:40 it up to the fire and rescue service to do whatever it needed to do by way of evacuation no because they would need protected stairways by which residents could evacuate or the fire and rescue service could evacuate people who
02:22:51 rescue service could evacuate people who could not evacuate themselves that's that's why we regard the staircases sacrosanct yes thank you now let's turn to the fra responsible fire risk assessment
02:23:02 responsible fire risk assessment responsibilities to assess the means of escape and we start with with past 79 please on that topic at page 44 cta 703 page
02:23:16 44. uh this is
02:23:21 under the title means of escape and if you look at little roman 23 and this is i should just tell you part of the commentary uh under paragraph 15 which starts on
02:23:32 uh under paragraph 15 which starts on page 41. we don't need to go back to that yes but the title to this section is is assessment of fire protection measures you'll be familiar with that yes and it says here at uh little roman 23 under the heading means of escape in
02:23:44 23 under the heading means of escape in considering the likely consequences of fire the fire risk assessor needs to consider the likely effects of fire on escape routes c320
02:23:53 c320 during the escape time c321 taking into account the time for detection of fire and raising the alarm see commentary on clause 15 fire detection and warning this requires a thorough in that
02:24:04 this requires a thorough in that evaluation of means of escape yes so do you is it the case that the fire riskers assessment would need to include an assessment of the means of escape in
02:24:15 an assessment of the means of escape in a high-rise residential block absolutely yes and then if we look across to the right-hand side of the page to little roman
02:24:22 roman 27
02:24:27 you can see that uh
02:24:29 uh this pass sets out five critical factors in the assessment of means of escape which are listed under little a to d can you see yes and if you uh look down at e
02:24:45 well d is also i think important but the d says the means of protecting escape routes from ingress or buildup of smoke that prevent occupants escape e the ability the ability of occupants to
02:24:56 the ability the ability of occupants to use the escape routes yes do you agree that the fire risk assessor should
02:25:03 should indeed must take into account these critical factors when assessing the means of escape yes so that's correct yeah and that would include critical factor e the ability of occupants to use the escape routes yes
02:25:15 occupants to use the escape routes yes yeah and that would that include all occupants including those who by reason of vulnerability of some kind might be unable or be less able to use the escape routes yes and particularly in
02:25:27 routes yes and particularly in non-domestic premises one would go to quite a length to look at that yes then if you look at the next paragraph 28 it says it can normally be anticipated that occupants with disabilities are or
02:25:39 that occupants with disabilities are or are likely to be present on the premises and consideration needs to be given to arrangements for their evacuation in the event of fire in most multi-story premises designated refuges are likely to be necessary as temporary waiting
02:25:51 to be necessary as temporary waiting spaces and there will be a need for arrangements to assist mobility impaired occupants to escape from the refuges using staircases and or specially designated evacuation lifts or
02:26:02 designated evacuation lifts or firefighting lifts which can be used to evacuate disabled people by people in the premises at least until arrival of the fire and rescue service yes now past 79 recommends that the fire
02:26:13 now past 79 recommends that the fire risk assessor assesses the arrangements for evacuation of occupants with a disability yes you agree with that yes do you also agree that the fire risk assessor should also take these factors into account when carrying out
02:26:25 into account when carrying out a fire risk assessment of a high-rise residential block um yes but possibly more genetically what do you mean by that what i mean by that so if i were or
02:26:38 that so if i were or any fire risk assessor were looking at an office building you would sit down with the management and say do you have any disabled people and that includes all disabilities not
02:26:49 and that includes all disabilities not just mobility impaired deaf people blind people whatever and inevitably you will find one or two and
02:26:58 and the
02:27:00 the the emphasis here on
02:27:03 on not
02:27:04 not relying
02:27:06 relying on the fire and rescue service was really aimed at non-domestic premises and i need to explain the reason for that
02:27:13 that there was
02:27:15 there was a really horrifying understanding by some people some responsible persons and this would be up to
02:27:26 large corporate bodies their understanding was that disabled evacuation was all about physical measures not management measures so they were perfectly willing and with their
02:27:38 were perfectly willing and with their heart probably in the right place to create refuges poop communication systems and the refuges and then think job done the fire service will get them out now
02:27:49 will get them out now and and that was an extremely common and
02:27:53 and highly inappropriate misconception and
02:27:58 and it was important to get across to people in non-domestic premises that evacuation of their disabled people as employees
02:28:08 employees and and members of the public who come on their premises must not rely on the fire and rescue service there had to be designated employees who would act as common term as buddies and who would as
02:28:21 common term as buddies and who would as part of a disabled evacuation strategy evacuate disabled people in the event of fire
02:28:29 fire and so that's why there was this emphasis on uh not involving the fire and rescue service and as i explained yesterday so 79 2012 was really focusing on
02:28:41 79 2012 was really focusing on non-domestic premises notwithstanding you're quite correct to point out the footnote
02:28:47 footnote and and so our focus was to to dispel the misconception that you could just leave disabled people in refuges and people were doing it it wasn't just hypothetical people were
02:28:59 wasn't just hypothetical people were being left in office buildings disabled people were being left in refuges while all their colleagues left and we needed really quite urgently to dispel that myth
02:29:12 quite urgently to dispel that myth why not dispel it also in respect of of residential high-rise buildings because there are no staff to evacuate disabled people there are no trained staff uh
02:29:23 staff uh and therefore you have no one to implement what's described here for really for not for for non uh domestic premises well given as we established yesterday
02:29:35 given as we established yesterday that it is not in doubt that this pass applied
02:29:39 applied to high-rise residential blocks is there anything in it which says that you can take a different approach in respect of these five critical factors and particularly e as between an office block on the one
02:29:50 as between an office block on the one hand and a high rise without i don't know i don't actually think there is and as i said to you that is why after grenfell tower the housing sector wanted something that was more specific
02:30:01 wanted something that was more specific to housing because this was really written around uh commercial premises but you're telling us you see about the practice in the trade do i take it from your answer that the practice in the trade was
02:30:12 that the practice in the trade was essentially a two-tier one uh that you would apply uh 2028 27e
02:30:21 27e root and branch to uh
02:30:24 uh office blocks or factories for example but when it came to high-rise buildings not so much i wouldn't call it two-tier i would call it different well all right
02:30:35 well all right it's one difference in tears yes i mean that's a quibble i mean i what i'm really putting to you is that is is it right
02:30:43 right that the fire risk assessment trade
02:30:47 trade regarded it as appropriate to take a different approach to disabled people in high-rise residential buildings from the approach they would take in an office block that would have been the
02:30:59 office block that would have been the majority opinion sir yes although people will
02:31:02 will with the the benefit of the the lens of hindsight uh argue about that now but that would would have been i would have said that we we trusted and stay put basically and is there anything in the
02:31:14 basically and is there anything in the majority opinion sorry is there anything in the legislation or the guidance which would justify
02:31:21 justify that majority opinion um
02:31:24 um i'm not sure that i can point to anything it's a matter of reasonable practicability sir um i mean if you if we go back to 28 for one moment um
02:31:36 um there
02:31:37 there and we look at this uh designated refuges
02:31:42 refuges well i've never seen a block of flats with a designated refuge sir by definition the common parts are performing the purpose the the function of a refuge but
02:31:54 purpose the the function of a refuge but i've never seen a block of flats with a designated refuge in my life and
02:32:02 the uh i've never seen a block of flats with an evacuation lift there'd be firefighting lifts for the fire service but i've never seen a block of flats with an evacuation lift although the
02:32:13 with an evacuation lift although the mayor of london is doing something about that apparently now you say it's a matter of reasonable practicability yes going back to the long answer you gave earlier
02:32:23 earlier about a fire risk assessor sitting down with the management and saying do you have any disabled people yes that includes all disabilities etc yes what was not reasonably practicable
02:32:34 was not reasonably practicable for
02:32:35 for a building owner or building manager of a high-rise residential building to sit to sit with the fire risk assessor and tell the fire risk assessor exactly the same information could could we
02:32:46 the same information could could we scroll down a little bit sir so that we can see the whole picture so if we go on to 29 assistance with their evacuation is provided by persons within the premises
02:33:00 provided by persons within the premises what persons in a block of flats would would that be a two-way speech communication system within the refuge might be necessary this is uh so that the disabled person
02:33:12 this is uh so that the disabled person in an office building can talk to someone at reception tell them that they need to be assisted with evacuation and also receive reassurance that's why
02:33:24 and also receive reassurance that's why we asked for it to be two-way my my company actually invented the
02:33:29 the the uh the systems that are used for that purpose we penned a name for them emergency voice communication systems and
02:33:40 that was to help disabled people in in commercial premises you do not get evcs in in blocks or flats it is i would say completely unknown unless someone can
02:33:51 completely unknown unless someone can find it so come back to the question i i asked you yes why was it not reasonably practicable for a building owner or building manager to collect the same information about disabled people in
02:34:03 information about disabled people in their high-rise residential block as it would for a high-rise office block because in a high-rise office block the purpose of collecting the information is to make sure that there are designated
02:34:14 to make sure that there are designated employees who
02:34:18 in relation to the particular disability of the person are able to provide them with assistance to evacuate right in a block of flats you don't have
02:34:30 right in a block of flats you don't have such people right and what i'm taking from this exchange we've been having over the last five minutes or so is that these parts of means of escape under clause 15 of
02:34:42 of means of escape under clause 15 of this pass were really in opposite for a high-rise residential block of flats
02:34:50 flats at least so far as the ability of occupants to use the escape routes is concerned
02:34:55 concerned or is that not right i think it was an interpretation of article 15 that we come back to the fact that
02:35:02 that the evacuation strategy much as it might be a misnomer was a staple strategy and i think if you if you were to scroll through this you you might see other telltale signs
02:35:16 you you might see other telltale signs that this could not really be talking about a high-rise block of flats but the problem with that answer mr todd is as i think you accepted yesterday and according to footnote 1 the entirety of past 70
02:35:27 past 70 applies to high-rise blocks of flats but do i take it from the answers you've been giving is that although that's written it wasn't actually intended to be that way and in practice not understood that way
02:35:38 and in practice not understood that way there would be certain aspects that would apply to a high-rise block of flats so for example fire prevention keeping escape routes clear not having combustibles and escape
02:35:50 clear not having combustibles and escape routes all of these things would be applicable to a high-rise block of flats just as much as to any other building so so
02:35:59 so there
02:36:00 there unfortunately would be a bit of a curious egg there would be bits of pas 79 that would be entirely applicable to high-rise block of flats and there would be bits
02:36:09 be bits such as that on which you've honed in that would not clearly not really apply to a block of flats how would your average fire risk assessor know which bits to apply and which bits not to apply when going
02:36:21 and which bits not to apply when going along to fire risk assess a building like grenfell tower because they they had the they had the appropriate education training and experience uh
02:36:31 uh to apply the principles of fire safety when you were lecturing and giving these courses to people did you ever pick up past 79 and say well don't worry about course 15
02:36:42 course 15 sub clause 27 28 and 29 because they don't apply to residential high rises do worry about them and do apply them when it comes to office blocks no we didn't put it that way we would
02:36:53 no we didn't put it that way we would put it that article 15 in the case of a block of flats uh
02:36:58 flats uh generally will be satisfied by the stay put strategy and the wording adopted uh in a a stay put adopted in a state boot strategy
02:37:11 adopted in a state boot strategy well
02:37:13 well coming back to 29 which you referred to i had some questions of my own about about it
02:37:19 about it does it not signal to the responsible person
02:37:22 person uh and the fire risk assessor advising the responsible person that they could not just leave it to the fire brigade to assist disabled persons to evacuate the responsible person needed to have a
02:37:33 responsible person needed to have a system in place of its own regardless of whether it was an office block or a high-rise residential block i think we were gradually coming round to the view that
02:37:44 that information about disabled people in a premises information box might be appropriate but i would call that gradual that would be completely accepted in sheltered housing
02:37:55 completely accepted in sheltered housing where you're expecting
02:37:59 expecting majority of the residents to have some form of limitation in terms of mobility hearing or whatever and so
02:38:10 hearing or whatever and so information about disabled people in uh premises information boxes had become kind of standard for sheltered housing it hadn't become standard for general needs well we'll come to that because i
02:38:22 needs well we'll come to that because i think you cover it in i think it's 79.3 of the rgo guide yes more than me but but we'll come back to that into course um just on this though mr todd does the does 28 29 in the d27
02:38:36 mr todd does the does 28 29 in the d27 uh er 28 and 29 not signal to the responsible person that they had to have a system in place at least a system in place for
02:38:46 for the evacuation of disabled persons all persons regardless of disability the understanding would have been that that system would be that the fire service because they keep coming back to the
02:38:57 because they keep coming back to the fact sir
02:38:58 fact sir that the disabled person their evacuation is not triggered by any form of alarm system their evacuation would normally be triggered by the fire and rescue service and if they needed
02:39:10 and rescue service and if they needed assistance the fire and rescue service who had control of the building would arrange that right now let's let's explore
02:39:17 explore that i think you've said that a number of times yes i have so to be honest and and perhaps i'm sorry to repeat myself it's me i think inviting you to repeat yourself but no never mind let's look at your report can we go to uh page one two
02:39:29 your report can we go to uh page one two one please and look at section twelve this is your phase one report not your main report yes two this is your phase one report yes at ctr uh
02:39:40 uh seven zeros one yes i'm sorry i've given this is my fault i'm afraid i've given you the wrong reference ctr ctar seven zeros one
02:39:51 ctar seven zeros one page 121 thank you and this is section 12 of your phase one report and at 12.7 at the foot of the page you say furthermore in a general needs block of flats it is not practicable to
02:40:02 block of flats it is not practicable to nominate persons to implement fire procedures insofar as they relate to the evacuation of a resident when a fire occurs in their flat in effect this would entail the provision of a sufficient number of
02:40:13 provision of a sufficient number of suitably equipped staff within the building on a 24-hour basis to force entry into a flat and effect a rescue and then if we look at page 123 please next page paragraph 12.19
02:40:26 next page paragraph 12.19 you say there in a block of flats with a stay put policy it has always been recognized that a decision might be taken by the fire and rescue service to evacuate residents beyond the flat of fire origin
02:40:38 residents beyond the flat of fire origin as discussed in paragraph 9.2.35 in over 99 percent of fires in blocks of flats in
02:40:45 in 2009-2010 no more than five persons were evacuated with the assistance of the fire and rescue service yes uh and then at 12 21 a little lower down the same page if we could just scroll up
02:40:56 the same page if we could just scroll up so we see the whole thing thank you when such further evacuation of residence is necessary or when residents simply choose to leave their flat during a fire elsewhere in the building by virtue of compliance with article 14 of the fire
02:41:07 compliance with article 14 of the fire safety order there will be suitably protected means of escape which would have been required under building regulations for them to do so no special facilities are provided specifically for residents who cannot walk down a staircase the maintenance of the means
02:41:19 staircase the maintenance of the means of escape is addressed by article 17 while consideration of their adequacy is necessary in the fire risk assessment required by article 9. yes and then i'm sorry to read a lot to you here but last one 1222 foot of the page
02:41:33 here but last one 1222 foot of the page it is sometimes necessary that this reliance on the fire and rescue service is contrary to the principle in fire safety whereby occupants of buildings should be safe in the event of fire without fire and rescue service
02:41:44 without fire and rescue service intervention basically buildings should stand alone without the involvement of the fire and rescue service in evacuation it is correct to say that service is not a fire and evacuation service nor would it be acceptable for
02:41:56 service nor would it be acceptable for them to be regarded as such in a building with a simultaneous or phased evacuation strategy now i've read a lot of that to you i have just a number of questions but is it your position first that the fsa does
02:42:09 it your position first that the fsa does not require any special consideration of vulnerable persons no
02:42:16 you agree that it doesn't or is it sorry that it does it the fso applies to everybody it applies to everybody yes um and
02:42:28 and is it because the compartment is so far as special so far as vulnerable persons are concerned compartmentation underpins the staple strategy correct and if the staple strategy is revoked then
02:42:39 staple strategy is revoked then residents should self-evacuate yes if they're able to do so and if they're unable to do so then they need then they can and need to rely on the fire and rescue service to rescue them
02:42:50 fire and rescue service to rescue them crap right would you agree that that position is inconsistent with the guidance we've been looking at at section 15 of past 79 on means of escape yes we didn't finish looking at the
02:43:01 yes we didn't finish looking at the section
02:43:02 section but
02:43:03 but you did you did highlight a couple of sections
02:43:07 sections we can look at others if you like well it might have been useful just to go through the rest of it because it might have supported my view that implicit in what is written uh was the fact that we were really
02:43:18 uh was the fact that we were really talking about non-domestic premises rather than than blocks of flats but if you're happy to take my word for that sir we don't need to take up the time of the inquiry looking at
02:43:29 the inquiry looking at further but there might be further information uh or further guidance that would would simply support my view that that was implicit
02:43:37 implicit right so you say to you that within past 79
02:43:41 79 uh although it expressly referred to
02:43:44 to as applicable to high-rise residential blocks of flats yes nonetheless it was implicit in section 15 that the means of escape parts didn't
02:43:55 that the means of escape parts didn't at least so far as concerns vulnerable persons at least as so far as concerns arrangements for evacuation of vulnerable persons by people on the
02:44:06 vulnerable persons by people on the premises correct um
02:44:08 um now you told us yesterday you'd written uh the 2007 edition of past 79. yes and
02:44:16 and you wrote the 12 2012 edition published in august 2012.
02:44:22 when you were writing past 79 2012 were you also writing the lga guide no we wrote the lga guide in
02:44:33 in the
02:44:33 the first part of 2011 yes
02:44:38 2011 yes and
02:44:39 and we wrote past 79 2012
02:44:44 i think you told me sir it's published in august august seoul 2012 normal period for writing a pass i'm not sure when we started but the normal period for writing a path is not more than 12 months and sometimes less if it's a
02:44:56 months and sometimes less if it's a revision so we wouldn't have been writing the two simultaneously my question really is why they're not consistent why did why did you not seek to bring past 79
02:45:06 past 79 into 2012 edition in line with the lga guy that you had written the previous year yeah that's an interesting point sir the
02:45:15 sir the the general focus of fire safety and enforcement of fire safety and fire risk assessment
02:45:24 had not previously been on
02:45:29 been on blocks of flats what you have to remember sir is before 2006 blocks of flats weren't even within the scope of fire safety legislation so the fire precautions act in 1971
02:45:42 so the fire precautions act in 1971 never applied to blocks of flats if you want to be pedantic there was a power to issue a prohibition notice on a block of flats but it was never exercised so so there was no mainstream fire safety
02:45:53 there was no mainstream fire safety legislation applied to blocks of flats until 2006. government chose to incorporate blocks of flats
02:46:02 of flats in 2006 not because of concern about people dying from fires and blocks of flats they were concerned about people dying from firing blocks of flats but
02:46:13 dying from firing blocks of flats but because the people were invariably dying within their own flat the fire safety order couldn't do very much about that but community fire safety efforts by the
02:46:24 but community fire safety efforts by the fire and rescue service non-legislative activity most certainly did
02:46:30 did so when blocks of flats came within the scope of the fire safety order there was no vigorous enforcement of the fire safety order from 2006 onwards
02:46:42 from 2006 onwards the focus was and quite properly was on hotels
02:46:46 hotels and hmos and places where the fire safety order could make an impact on life safety i'm sorry if this is sounding like a long answer but i can't think of a shorter one and so the
02:46:59 can't think of a shorter one and so the view taken was well we the enforcing authorities never had any powers to enforce them blocks of flats ever before and
02:47:09 and there were no bodies on the streets as it were at the time because of that lack of enforcement so why do we need to vigorously enforce that i'm not saying they didn't enforce
02:47:20 that i'm not saying they didn't enforce i'm saying they didn't vigorously enforce and blocks of flats in scotland remain outside the scope of fire safety legislation and again they do not have fires
02:47:32 fires sorry deaths from fire beyond the flat of fire origin in fact a study done by scottish government without digressing too much i'm trying not to a study done by scottish government showed that in the
02:47:44 scottish government showed that in the last 10 years there has not been a single death in a block of flats beyond the block the the flat of fire origin and now scottish government are going
02:47:55 and now scottish government are going back 20 years to see if they can find one death
02:47:59 one death beyond the flat of fire origin um the people who died in the flats so so the fire service were not vigorous in their enforcement all of that changed with
02:48:10 enforcement all of that changed with lachenal house in 2009 but that didn't happen until 2009
02:48:16 2009 and then to our horror six people died beyond the flat of fire origin and the interesting thing about these six deaths and the terribly frustrating
02:48:27 six deaths and the terribly frustrating thing about these six deaths is they probably could have been prevented by better resident engagement and better information to residents and that's frustrating because we've been
02:48:39 that's frustrating because we've been saying that for 20 years that a really important part of fire safety in blocks of flats is engagement with residents so so everything changed after 2009 and it
02:48:51 everything changed after 2009 and it went almost from the sublime to the ridiculous where some fire authorities i don't mean ridiculous in the sense of it being a bad thing to do but it went to the other extreme so some fire
02:49:02 the other extreme so some fire authorities were doing nothing else for a while
02:49:06 a while then enforcing fire safety in blocks of flats
02:49:09 flats but that was done with such urgency there was no time to train the officers uh and they hadn't ever been in blocks of flats enforcing in general before
02:49:21 of flats enforcing in general before and so they threw officers out at blocks of flats
02:49:25 of flats risk assessors were all called upon to go and look at blocks of flats after 2009
02:49:32 2009 but with no appropriate guidance because the sleeping accommodation guide was not appropriate and sleeping accommodation guide was limited to blocks of four stories in
02:49:43 limited to blocks of four stories in height
02:49:44 height so they couldn't use that and so
02:49:48 and so they weren't told what to look for and so they were quite ludicrous things absurd things being asked for one fire and rescue authority required newly built blocks in their county
02:50:01 newly built blocks in their county to have fire alarm systems installed and they'd only just been built under building regulations without a fire alarm system and event and risk assessors were just as
02:50:12 event and risk assessors were just as guilty of the same thing this is i'm so sorry
02:50:15 sorry did you ask you an open question sorry and i'm but i think i'm getting more of an open answer than i'd bargained for i'm sorry sir i just wondered whether you might be able to help me explain the why it was that past 79 2012 august 2012
02:50:28 why it was that past 79 2012 august 2012 wasn't brought into line with the lga guidance the previous year that's that's what i was trying to tell you about
02:50:43 in a nutshell uh we were in that little period after 2009 where suddenly there was this focus on blocks of flats but there never had been before the 2007
02:50:57 there never had been before the 2007 uh
02:50:58 uh pass 79 had not focused on it 2012 was just a minor revision and therefore it had not picked up on the
02:51:09 the the new focus if you like on blocks of flats and that was the purpose of the lga guide of course
02:51:19 i see perhaps i should have given you in that nutshell to begin with sir but i just thought it might help the chairman to understand why there was not this focus on blocks of flats until lacking
02:51:31 focus on blocks of flats until lacking all house was there some kind of external
02:51:33 external i wouldn't say pressure perhaps but influence on you when when producing past 79
02:51:39 past 79 not to make too many changes no absolutely not it would have been in the interest of bsi to have lots of change yes so why not when crafting uh the 2012 2012
02:51:51 not when crafting uh the 2012 2012 version of past 79 make it much clearer that there were parts of it which applied to purpose-built blocks of flats as the lga guide had done and parts of which which
02:52:02 guide had done and parts of which which didn't
02:52:03 didn't because we didn't have the visual acuity seen through the lens of hindsight i suppose
02:52:08 suppose now can i then turn
02:52:10 turn in the six minutes before the break to the identification of people especially at risk
02:52:15 at risk um can we go back to your main report for phase two please cta 6011 page 66
02:52:25 and let's look at paragraph 714. and you say that it's a long paragraph i don't need it all um you're you're uh referring to the five steps in the in
02:52:36 referring to the five steps in the in the
02:52:37 the um
02:52:38 um in the lga guy yes and on 7 14 2 you say the identification of people especially at risk reflects the requirement of article 97b of the fire
02:52:49 requirement of article 97b of the fire safety order that the prescribed information that must be recorded in an fra includes any group of persons identified by the fra as especially at risk in workplaces hotels etc this does
02:53:00 risk in workplaces hotels etc this does include of course disabled people but as discussed in section 12 of my march 2018 report identification of disabled people in an fra for a block of flats creates enormous practical difficulties yes now
02:53:12 enormous practical difficulties yes now it's that last part i i want just to cover with you i think we've seen your march 2018 report already yes sir um uh let's uh
02:53:22 let's uh um go back to
02:53:25 to that again ctar701 page one two one
02:53:33 and get deeper into it paragraph 12.6 here just above the part i read to you it says this prevention of fire within a resident's own flat and arrangements for evacuation of a vulnerable resident when
02:53:44 evacuation of a vulnerable resident when fire occurs in their flat are not matters addressed by the fire safety order moreover it is difficult to envisage how this could be otherwise the responsible person for example freeholder or possibly a managing agent
02:53:55 freeholder or possibly a managing agent is not in a position to identify the vulnerabilities of every resident which may change slowly or acutely with time yes now just is your is your position
02:54:06 yes now just is your is your position was what was the fire um risk assessment trades position that article 9 7b of the fire safety order requires that information should be
02:54:17 requires that information should be included in the fire risk assessment about any group of persons identified by the assessment as being especially at risk
02:54:23 risk that's what it says but yes did did you take that did it did you understand it as meaning what it said uh
02:54:31 uh yes
02:54:32 yes it does say that and individuals who are less able to react and respond to a fire compared to the general population would be persons especially at risk wouldn't they correct yes um but
02:54:46 at risk wouldn't they correct yes um but a fire risk assessment for a residential block
02:54:48 block is this right it was not it didn't need to contain information about those individuals especially at risk because of practical difficulties in collating and maintaining that information that's
02:54:59 and maintaining that information that's probably very eloquently put sir yes right
02:55:02 right so
02:55:03 so is this it that the distinction the way of hiving
02:55:07 of hiving um those persons especially at risk off was because of practical difficulties in collating and maintaining that information was that the rationale for not doing them yes and
02:55:18 the rationale for not doing them yes and and an understanding that to help these people
02:55:22 people and they absolutely should be helped and needed to be helped i i think i put it earlier that legislation was a bit of a blunt tool to deal with it and people were already
02:55:33 deal with it and people were already dealing with it by identifying those who needed
02:55:37 needed special assistance and having multi-agency support for them including support by the fire and rescue service what was the was the approach that i've just articulated to you with
02:55:49 that i've just articulated to you with which you've agreed a common one among fire risk assessors even before the publication of the lga guide in
02:55:55 guide in the middle of 2011. yes i would say so sir so it was the prevailing opinion uh that it was simply too impracticable for building owners of residential
02:56:06 for building owners of residential blocks of flats uh to collect the information so it would be treated essentially as inapplicable the requirement yes that's that's that's that's probably fair comment it was
02:56:17 that's probably fair comment it was certainly the view uh when the lga guide was written it was certainly the view of the steering group to whom we were responsible because we i think you're aware sir from um attachments to my witness statement
02:56:29 um attachments to my witness statement we raised this with the steering group and asked them what they wanted to do about it
02:56:34 about it yes
02:56:35 yes um
02:56:36 um now i want to turn then and we'll come back to that steering group later in your evidence next to is carl stakes's assessment of disabled persons yes but i'm mindful that the shorthand writer has had a very
02:56:47 that the shorthand writer has had a very long stretch mr chairman and it might be prudent to take the language so he's two minutes to one i think that's a good point it is yes thank you
02:56:56 thank you well uh mr todd we're going to break for lunch at this point we'll resume it to the top please with my apologies to the shorthand transcriber if some of my answers were a bit long sir i think as long as you're
02:57:07 bit long sir i think as long as you're speaking clearly she can manage and you work so thank you very much anyway two o'clock and no discussion revenue
02:57:15 revenue thank you very much
02:57:24 alright mr millet thank you very much two o'clock
02:57:51 you