FRA Expert Evidence - Tuesday 7th September 2021 (1/1)

Name: FRA Expert Evidence - Tuesday 7th September 2021 (1/1)
Uploaded: 2021-09-07
Duration: 2 h 33 min 4 s
Description: Grenfell Tower Inquiry - FRA Expert Evidence - Tuesday 7th September 2021 (1/1)

2021-09-07 · 2:33:04

▶ Watch on YouTube Open in interactive viewer

Grenfell Tower Inquiry - FRA Expert Evidence - Tuesday 7th September 2021 (1/1)

Key moments

00:03:39PolicyExpert on KCTMO's duty to vulnerable persons: "kc tmo's duty to provide adequate fire protection for vulnerable persons that's chapter six"
00:04:40AdmissionIncreased count of vulnerable adults: "as a result of your repeat review is it right that you've increased the number of adults that you've counted as vulnerable that's correct yes"
00:35:12AdmissionLess competence means missing hazards: "the less competence there the less likely it is you will find all the relevant hazards which is the the main point of carrying out a risk assessment so i think it's about maybe likelihood of missing something"
02:05:27AdmissionCarl Stokes only provided summary update: "the evidence shows that mr stokes only provided a summary update to his previous fire risk assessment documents in june 2016 only"
02:07:13AdmissionSo much had changed in refurbishment: "no absolutely because so many things have changed you know the smoke control system the you know there was all sorts of things had changed were different required consideration"
02:07:48AdmissionStokes should have told TMO new FRA needed: "in your opinion should carl stokes have told janice ray that a new fra was needed after completion of the refurbishment yes i think he should have known that and raised us yes"
02:08:59AdmissionFailed to record impact of actions: "he did not record how any action or a failure to complete any specific action would impact the risk level for the premises"
02:12:38AdmissionFailure to communicate consequences: "his failure to connect the actions required to a potential consequence for the relevant persons in his technical method and more importantly his failure to communicate the connection to consequences in his documentation was a significant"
02:13:37Contentious90% of actions were high priority: "the kctmo were in a position where it was tolerable every year and sometimes 90 of their actions were high priority"
02:13:56ContentiousNeed to understand risk being carried: "if you're a responsible person and you have a building stock where everything is apparently high priority all the time you need to sit down and actually understand is what does that really mean how much risk am i carrying here"
02:15:33PolicyPAS 79 on inadequate fire protection: "the analytical approach to fire risk 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"

Full transcript

00:00:34 good afternoon everyone welcome back to the inquiry hearings i'm very glad to say that with the relaxation of the covid restrictions we are now able to invite members of the public to come and

00:00:46 invite members of the public to come and see our work and so we look forward to hearing and seeing those who may want to come and hear what we're doing over the next few days

00:00:57 what we're doing over the next few days and weeks

00:00:58 and weeks today we're going to hear evidence from dr barbara lane one of the experts instructed by the inquiry so if dr lane's there would you ask her to come in please

00:01:09 to come in please have i got so many screams

00:01:19 good afternoon dr lane hello you're going to take the oath i think is that right right do you take the testament in your right hand and read the words on the screen please i swear by almighty god that the

00:01:30 i swear by almighty god that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much do sit down and make yourself comfortable please

00:01:44 yes when you're ready mr chairman thank you very much good afternoon good afternoon members of the panel dr lane good afternoon to you thank you very much again for attending the inquiry on i

00:01:55 again for attending the inquiry on i think what is your fifth occasion to assist us with your opinions my questions are intended to be short and simple sometimes they don't turn out that way so if you want me to rephrase

00:02:06 that way so if you want me to rephrase the question or put it in a different way please just ask me

00:02:10 ask me also if you need a break at any point other than the scheduled break that we'll take during the middle of the afternoon or so please let us know yep now you've prepared a report for module three of phase two of the inquiry

00:02:21 three of phase two of the inquiry entitled the management and maintenance of grenfell tower is that right that's correct and it's broken down i think into some 11 chapters yes what i'm going to do is just read the chapter numbers

00:02:32 to do is just read the chapter numbers and references into the record so that everybody can find them if they need to so bear with me if you would the first is blarp25023

00:02:43 the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 and its application to high-rise residential buildings that's chapter one of your report isn't it that's correct and chapter two is this right is that

00:02:55 and chapter two is this right is that blarp250 is 24 organizing and planning a system of management that provides the fire safety arrangements required by the fso or rro as we shall call it yep yes

00:03:07 fso or rro as we shall call it yep yes and then uh 29 blr blarp25029 the fire safety arrangements made by the kc

00:03:14 kc tmo that's chapter three correct and is it right chapter four at page 30 kctmo's duty to provide protection measures to support the means of escape fire doors

00:03:25 support the means of escape fire doors yup yes correct then chapter 5 at 31 page 31 kc tmo's duty to control the hazards from building works and alterations correct yes and then at blarp 250 30

00:03:37 correct yes and then at blarp 250 30 page 34

00:03:39 page 34 uh kc tmo's duty to provide adequate fire protection for vulnerable persons that's chapter six yes chapter seven is it blarp two five zero thirty three kctmo's duty to provide a suitable

00:03:51 kctmo's duty to provide a suitable system of maintenance for fire protection measures correct yes and then chapter eight of blarp two five zero twenty seven the adequacy of the advice provided by the fire risk assessor carl

00:04:02 provided by the fire risk assessor carl stokes of cs stakes and associates limited to the kctma correct yes and then chapter nine a beer at blarp25028 kctmo's duty to create a system of

00:04:15 kctmo's duty to create a system of emergency planning the resulting emergency plan for grenfell tower chapter nine christ and then chapter 10 at blarp 250 32 the external wall construction the hazard it posed to

00:04:28 construction the hazard it posed to relevant persons correct yes and then finally chapter 11 conclusions of blarp two five zeros 40 correct yes now you have had calls to revisit the number of individuals that you have

00:04:40 the number of individuals that you have counted as vulnerable in chapter six i think since you wrote that report yes that's correct and as a result of your repeat review is it right that you've increased the number of adults that you've counted as vulnerable

00:04:52 you've counted as vulnerable that's correct yes and that will be set out i think is this right in a second version of chapter 6 section 14 which will be will be finalized soon and disclosed to court parties yeah that's correct yes thank you apart from those

00:05:05 correct yes thank you apart from those amendments to those aspects of section 14 of chapter 6 that you propose to make in due course are the factual matters the factual matters set out in your report true to the best of your knowledge and belief

00:05:17 the best of your knowledge and belief yes they are yes and can you confirm also that the report sets out your true and complete professional opinion on the matters that you've addressed in it yes it does yes and can you confirm also that you've

00:05:29 and can you confirm also that you've understood your duty to the inquiry as an expert to the inquiry and that you have complied with that duty yes i have and in particular have you given the evidence and opinions set out in your report in the same ways that you would

00:05:41 report in the same ways that you would to a court and abided by the same principles yes i have now your report stands as your evidence to the inquiry having addressed some matters of context my questions are going to focus principally on those matters which in

00:05:53 principally on those matters which in respect of your report are truly ones of expert opinion and where there have been material developments in the evidence given to the inquiry since your report or reports

00:06:04 the inquiry since your report or reports as well and i'm going to focus on the points of relevant controversy do you understand i think so uh well am i allowed to ask a question sorry so when you say expert opinion you

00:06:15 sorry so when you say expert opinion you just my normal opinion here based on the work i've done okay yes exactly okay understood yeah yes thank you now can i start by asking you some questions about your qualifications and experience yes

00:06:26 your qualifications and experience yes you've given some details of your relevant qualifications and experience in the introduction to your phase one report in april 2018 yes paragraph 1.1 yes i'll just read the reference that's

00:06:37 yes i'll just read the reference that's blar

00:06:39 blar 701 page 6. and to that report you appended your cv as appendix a yes at blar five

00:06:49 five six zeros one six i'm going to look at that in a moment before i do uh i just want to read another document into the record you've given us a further document which is at

00:07:01 further document which is at 5 blarp2500 41 which sets out your current roles at arab and your specific experience in respect of fire risk assessments is that right yes that's correct yes now before i go to that document i want to ask one

00:07:13 i go to that document i want to ask one or two questions about your your cv which you appended to your phase one report from april 2018. that's at blar 6016. can we have that up please

00:07:27 there's page one can we go to page five

00:07:32 and on page five [Music]

00:07:48 which is taking a little time to come up

00:07:56 page five thank you you'll see the heading current arab roles uh and in the first paragraph there it says uh director of arab and partners limited global fire safety engineering

00:08:07 limited global fire safety engineering technical leader for 228 fire engineers 83 of whom are based in the uk yes is it right that from april 2021 this year yes you were no longer carrying out

00:08:19 year yes you were no longer carrying out those roles that's correct i have a whole new set of roles yeah and we'll look at those in a moment um to what extent did those roles that you've identified there on the page

00:08:30 you've identified there on the page we're looking at involve carrying out fire risk assessments under the rro to well

00:08:39 well it's as i've set out in my latest more specific right fire risk assessment cv

00:08:45 cv right so

00:08:47 right so those activities fell within the scope of your role sorry no no no so as my role as a fire safety engineer working on projects right i carry out fire risk assessments

00:08:59 right i carry out fire risk assessments thank you and despite regardless of any corporate role at arab so i have new corporate roles at arab now i still work on projects as a competent

00:09:10 i still work on projects as a competent fire safety engineer yes and to what extent did those roles in relation to fire risk assessments particularly uh involve quality assessment

00:09:21 involve quality assessment um

00:09:24 so my experience of quality assessment is both as a project director for projects at arab um for fire safety engineering projects and where we do we have we call it's our

00:09:36 and where we do we have we call it's our own work so where the fire practice has a commercial project on its own but i also do quality assurance checks and i'm involved in project reviews and and and more extensive reviewing as a

00:09:47 and and more extensive reviewing as a director of the firm on multi-disciplinary projects that araf would produce and in the last two years particularly i would because i was a member of the

00:09:59 i would because i was a member of the region board of arab which is it's like a management executive really i was responsible for advising the co who is our responsible person

00:10:11 who is our responsible person um on

00:10:15 how to comply with his duties right

00:10:18 right i see

00:10:19 i see now can we go to blarp25041

00:10:24 which is the further document that you've now provided to us

00:10:31 we'll just have the first page of that up

00:10:37 blrp blarp 2 5 0's 41.

00:10:43 5 0's 41. that's the first page there can we go to page six in that please

00:10:50 and if you look at the top of that page you can see that it says current operational roles at arab group limited since first april 2021 my operating roles in arab of arab and partners limited came to an end and i commenced

00:11:02 limited came to an end and i commenced new operational roles for the arab group limited and have various new responsibilities in that regard and then you've set them out underneath that yeah to what extent do those roles that you've set out there involve carrying

00:11:14 you've set out there involve carrying out

00:11:16 out either carrying out or quality assessing fire risk assessments oh quality assessing fire risk the husbands okay so it's important to um all my firework is done as a project

00:11:28 um all my firework is done as a project director in a project director in arab fire and that's an additional role to my quite they're quite senior corporate roles

00:11:40 roles right okay but but i have quite a substantial role i wasn't planning on talking about that today actually but in the roles listed here um

00:11:50 um by being the director of the arab university i'm responsible for the learning provision

00:11:57 provision the skills provision and knowledge transfer processes in the whole of the arab group which is the uk and the whole company and i also have responsibility for certain risk zones in

00:12:10 responsibility for certain risk zones in our own risk profiling exercise for our own business right and does that role in the learning provision skills provision and knowledge transfer process

00:12:21 and knowledge transfer process does that include uh knowledge and understanding of how to carry out a fire risk assessment under the rro yeah yes it does because we have a large number of fire safety engineers

00:12:34 large number of fire safety engineers and i myself am a you know a full-time fire safety engineer yes thank you so i hope that's um i'm not entirely sure i'm answering your question yes you have okay thank you and we can answer it further i think

00:12:46 you and we can answer it further i think by going to page four of this document okay

00:12:49 okay if we go to the introduction page four

00:12:52 page four um in the fourth paragraph down you say i have been carrying out you see yeah i've been carrying out fire risk assessments since my career started at arab in 1997 and have latterly also been

00:13:03 arab in 1997 and have latterly also been responsible for the detailed checking and approval for issue under our quality management system for fire risk assessments produced by staff at arab also yeah now just one question on that

00:13:14 also yeah now just one question on that you say latterly yeah you've been responsible for checking and approving fras produced by our staff since when and in what role have you been doing that well the more senior you get

00:13:27 well the more senior you get the the more work of others you become responsible for rather than just self-check i have no idea what year i became a formal approver at arab it's a

00:13:38 became a formal approver at arab it's a very long time ago right i can confirm the year somehow so when you say latterly when are you referring to do you just mean after 1997. no i think i was just trying to communicate that

00:13:50 i was just trying to communicate that you your role your responsibilities expand beyond your own work only where you are very intimately involved and increasingly there's an expectation

00:14:01 and increasingly there's an expectation and a requirement to also on top of your own work your own projects to also make sure the work of others is fit for purpose so it wasn't meant to

00:14:13 fit for purpose so it wasn't meant to mean

00:14:14 mean i did one thing and now i'm doing another i i do both but my responsibility for other people is much more than it was when i first started working yes i see it's just i

00:14:25 started working yes i see it's just i wanted to understand what you meant by latterly there do you mean well i wish i hadn't put that word in now because it wasn't meant to have a great meaning other than the more senior you are at arab

00:14:36 you are at arab the more work of others you are responsible for and that requires you know a proper understanding of what a quality assurance system is and being able to utilize it

00:14:47 utilize it in any i mean in any given year in the period to which you're referring there how often would you

00:14:54 check and approve an fra produced by your staff i have no idea i would say to you not at a public inquiry endlessly right but i don't know how many i have no idea i work very long hours endlessly

00:15:06 no idea i work very long hours endlessly checking and approving the work of others and being responsible for the very complex risk assessments i do myself

00:15:13 myself you're likely to give a similar answer to my next question okay forgive the question yeah if you go down to the next paragraph you say since 2009 i've spent the substantial portion of my professional time working on existing

00:15:25 professional time working on existing buildings refurbishments and therefore occupy premises including construction sites within occupied premises in particular since 2011 the majority of my professional time was spent on projects within the framework of the regulatory

00:15:37 within the framework of the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005. and equivalent legislation um as i say forgive the question yeah but what do you mean by the substantial portion yeah okay so i was just trying to make the

00:15:48 okay so i was just trying to make the point there so i think i'm aware that there's this perception of arab and arab fire

00:15:54 fire that we

00:15:56 that we specialize in design and you know you know say quite theoretical work and i wanted to make the point here because i'm aware you know of people

00:16:07 because i'm aware you know of people querying my expertise i wanted to make the point here that i personally have i as i understand it from other people quite unique experience because i've done so much work

00:16:20 i've done so much work in on in construction in construction in occupied buildings and on refurbishment and um providing advice to clients where it's in the occupied building condition

00:16:32 it's in the occupied building condition not in those really early stages when one deals you know particularly with an architect

00:16:37 architect so i just wanted to draw that experience that i have out yes thank you now in the last paragraph on that page you say my experience spans across multiple

00:16:48 my experience spans across multiple sectors and includes both public and private sector clients i've selected projects below where i had a particular role in fire risk management system analysis as well as technical fire risk assessment activity in premises with a

00:16:59 assessment activity in premises with a sleeping risk and with vulnerable people do the selected projects that you've listed and we'll come to those in a minute represent the totality of the projects where you've carried out that activity or only a selection of

00:17:11 activity or only a selection of proportions they don't represent the totality right can you give us some idea of the proportion no i've never sat down and calculated it i'm really sorry now let's look at page seven then and some

00:17:22 let's look at page seven then and some of those selected projects if we go to page seven of this document and go to the heading 2011 to 2017 portfolio of multiple high-rise residential dwellings buildings it's the second section down it says independent

00:17:35 second section down it says independent review sorry fire risk assessments 2013-14

00:17:39 2013-14 independent review of existing fire risk assessments including the significant findings and action plans production of a new full fire risk assessment for each building based on a detailed inspection

00:17:50 building based on a detailed inspection of the active and passive fire protection measures um

00:17:55 um again forgive the question in light of what you've already told us but can you tell us roughly even how many fire risk assessments you carried out on high-rise residential buildings before the 14th of june 2017.

00:18:07 the 14th of june 2017. i've no idea there were there were 17 buildings here for example so no idea because it's a lot is that well i don't know if it's a lot by other people's standards but i think i've

00:18:19 people's standards but i think i've worked on on very many high-rise residential buildings actually i probably should just say something i don't think the number of is important it's more the complexity and the work that i did

00:18:31 and the work that i did i i i don't agree that chugging things out makes you more experienced or competent

00:18:37 competent so i'm not able to confirm if someone needs me to do an analysis of everything i've ever done at our open confirmed percentages i'm happy to do that no that's all right if you go to page nine please you've listed two projects at the

00:18:49 please you've listed two projects at the top of the page there uh

00:18:54 2012 purpose built um blocks of flats england south coast yeah and uh 2012 to 2017 purpose-built block of flats england north west yeah can you just clarify what work you were doing on

00:19:06 clarify what work you were doing on those particular projects um the one the one in 2012 was to do with the construction

00:19:17 was to do with the construction of the single escape stair and how the relevant persons were utilizing

00:19:28 the the public spaces available

00:19:32 available right in those buildings as well

00:19:36 as well as complex matters of fire doors that had various defects to them um

00:19:47 um i'm just trying to think what else i think that was about the extent of that i see yeah and what about the second second set of buildings is that the same um that was to do with the external wall

00:20:01 um that was to do with the external wall the structure of the building and the vulnerability of the persons living there right what was it about the external

00:20:12 right what was it about the external wall

00:20:13 wall do you recall i very much recall

00:20:18 it i think the best way to describe it here

00:20:22 here is that it was a very poor construction standard

00:20:28 standard um

00:20:29 um there was no acp or anything like that just to be absolutely clear it was of a very poor construction standard and combined with serious concerns about the overall

00:20:40 serious concerns about the overall structural stability of this purpose-built blocks of flats in combination with problems with faulty internal

00:20:52 problems with faulty internal compartment walls faulty fire doors and a few other issues all together it was quite an extreme

00:21:03 situation did um those projects involve uh carrying out fire risk assessments for the for the purposes of the rro absolutely yeah

00:21:16 have you carried out fire risk assessments on existing purpose-built blocks of flats such as grenfell tower i have never carried out a fire risk assessment on a block of flats built in

00:21:28 assessment on a block of flats built in 1971 no

00:21:30 1971 no are you saying built in 1971 that's quite a specific oh sorry no i'm sorry yeah sorry that wasn't meant to be sinister yeah if that was no no i haven't right yeah but i sorry just again

00:21:41 again i think that i've carried out very many risk assessments on all different types of buildings and i think i'm very familiar with residential buildings and i'm not aware that there are

00:21:53 and i'm not aware that there are different rules for different types of residential buildings yes now um uh come i

00:22:01 uh come i i'll just mention this rather than taking you to the part of your report um in your um report at chapter 1 at paragraph 1.2.2

00:22:13 report at chapter 1 at paragraph 1.2.2 uh let's i better show it to you this is a quotation it's a blarp25023

00:22:20 page eight

00:22:25 um you say at paragraph 1.2.2 there two-thirds of the way down the screen yeah now halfway down the screen uh you refer to mr todd's

00:22:36 mr todd's reference and reliance on past 79 2012 and you say this includes carrying out fire risk assessments of high-rise residential buildings with combustible materials in the external wall

00:22:48 materials in the external wall construction can we take it that you're very familiar and have in your work been very familiar with past 79. yes you can yeah is past 79 or rather was past 79 as of june 2017

00:23:02 79 or rather was past 79 as of june 2017 the leading guidance

00:23:04 guidance for fire risk assessors when carrying out fire risk assessments i i think it's the most robust publication available to people carrying

00:23:15 publication available to people carrying out fire risk assessments to get a really clear understanding of what needs to be done and i i i tend to re rely on it

00:23:26 to re rely on it as a checklist or you know quality check of my own work to make sure i haven't forgotten anything and i really like the risk the risk level estimator particularly in past 79

00:23:38 level estimator particularly in past 79 right so would you say that any fire risk assessor who relied on it wouldn't be going far wrong

00:23:48 i think i i think that there's

00:23:52 there's there's no you know i i don't think using a pro forma as presented in past 79 um automatically means that you know

00:24:03 um automatically means that you know that one can then add on all sorts of very positive effects i think it's one part of the work needed to produce

00:24:14 the work needed to produce a fire risk assessment my question wasn't designed to think to elicit whether or not it was an adequate checklist exercise but simply that the principles contained in it are principles which if followed um

00:24:27 are principles which if followed um meant that you wouldn't be falling into error as a pharisee no i think sorry i think that it describes the classic five-step health and safety risk assessment process in a much more

00:24:39 in a much more you know expansive way for fire risk assessments yes and if you you know if you do what it says and don't think any further

00:24:50 and don't think any further you know the most of us will help you get there yes yes okay that's helpful can i then turn to a topic um a different topic which is the duty to undertake a fire risk

00:25:01 the duty to undertake a fire risk assessment and and its purpose um do you agree that article 9 1 of the rro imposes a requirement on the responsible person

00:25:12 requirement on the responsible person to make a quote suitable and sufficient unquote fire risk assessment yes i do yes now the term suitable and sufficient is not defined in the rro is it no no um do

00:25:26 not defined in the rro is it no no um do you do you happen to know where it where it comes from well my understanding of where it comes from is i think it's from the management regulations and

00:25:36 and um

00:25:37 um when i try to understand what that means for me

00:25:41 for me i always refer to

00:25:45 the general health and safety publications written by the hse they tend to give advice about what's suitable and sufficient could mean but there's nowhere where there's a

00:25:57 but there's nowhere where there's a formal

00:25:58 formal definition of it when you say the management regulations do you mean the the management regulations promulgated under the health and safety legislation yes before the rro came into being from

00:26:09 yes before the rro came into being from memory i think it's i

00:26:12 i just because i don't have everything in front for me it's definitely in 1999 and i think it's in 1992. yes i'd need to check

00:26:19 check now given that the term suitable and sufficient isn't defined in the rro how would a responsible person go about working out whether its fire risk assessment is suitable and sufficient

00:26:30 assessment is suitable and sufficient yeah um i think so i think the the easiest way to do that

00:26:40 probably the easiest way to do that is to use something like past 79 as a check

00:26:49 but there's always a certain portion of you know premises specific issues that the responsible person and the fire

00:27:01 that the responsible person and the fire risk assessor would have to exercise you know judgment beyond the checklist and past 79. yes thank you

00:27:10 thank you would you agree that a fire risk assessment done by or on behalf of a responsible person

00:27:19 person should give consideration to the matters each of the matters set out in article 4 of the rra in article 4. let me give you a shopping list measures to prevent the outbreak of fire

00:27:31 measures to prevent the outbreak of fire oh the general fire precaution sorry okay i'm not as i don't phase around the article sorry so will you just ask that question again would you agree that

00:27:39 that a

00:27:40 a uh a fire risk assessment done by or on behalf of a responsible person or ought to include first measures to prevent the outbreak of fire yes yeah second

00:27:51 outbreak of fire yes yeah second compartmentation fire stopping and fire doors

00:27:55 measures too sorry yes you should it needs to look at it sorry i don't actually really understand where you're what you mean i'm really just seeing if we can agree the scope of the scope

00:28:06 if we can agree the scope of the scope so are you asking me about protection measures that a fire risk assessor should look at when trying to deal with article four um let me try differently yeah would you agree that article 4 would include oh yes um

00:28:20 looking at compartmentation yes yeah and looking at fire stopping yes looking at fire doors yes yes and then the rest of the list would include things like

00:28:31 things like emergency escape lighting yes yes yes yes fire exit signage yes certain places yes yes yes smoke control if it's there yes if it's their

00:28:43 control if it's there yes if it's their fire extinguishers um not normally in in public areas again it depends what's in the building right yep fire detection and the fire alarm systems it if it depends where it is right yeah uh

00:28:55 depends where it is right yeah uh appropriately fire safety procedures yes yes and destruction instruction and training of employees in fire safety where relevant where relevant arrangements for the management of fire

00:29:07 arrangements for the management of fire safety yes yes have i missed anything out

00:29:13 all right but i'm afraid to say yes or no yes so obviously i think on on a more serious note i think i've been very clear in my report about the the basic

00:29:24 clear in my report about the the basic principles and then the more detailed protection and protective and protective measures i i would expect and i've relied on

00:29:32 relied on forgive me for saying this and i should have said this at the beginning your report is of course quite long and some of the questions i'm asking you really designed to summarize for for people listening to this exercise yes

00:29:43 people listening to this exercise yes what's in it so that they can understand and my report's very long because i was given such extensive evidence to review we are very grateful for every word you're welcome yeah um now

00:29:56 you're welcome yeah um now it on those matters on the shopping list that we've just discussed should they be specific

00:30:01 specific to the building under assessment in other words you take your building on your assessing and you go through that list yeah exactly so so it's a bit like when we were speaking

00:30:12 it's a bit like when we were speaking about power 79 i think every building is meant to come equipped with a set of fire safety provisions so say you take whatever has been provided under the building regulations whatever year that

00:30:24 building regulations whatever year that was

00:30:25 was and um

00:30:27 and um you you need to understand what your building specific fire safety provisions are they're not the same in every building even across um residential buildings so it's important to

00:30:39 buildings so it's important to understand the premise of specific information and that's why the pro forma in past 79 is useful

00:30:46 is useful but there may be something else for your building that you have a duty to notice and include yes thank you now bearing in mind past 79 and its contents and

00:30:57 mind past 79 and its contents and for the

00:30:57 for the technicians here specifically as yourself page 18 clause 5 roman 1 we don't need to look at it do you agree that a fire risk assessment

00:31:08 do you agree that a fire risk assessment should do

00:31:10 should do four things particularly first express the current level of risk

00:31:16 yes yes second determine the adequacy of existing

00:31:21 existing fire precautions yes third determine the need if any for and the nature of any additional fire precautions yes and fourth then set out any additional

00:31:33 and fourth then set out any additional fire precautions required in the action plan yes i do yeah would it would a an fra need to do anything else in order to be

00:31:41 be um in order to count as suitable and sufficient do you think

00:31:48 again sorry i'm just struggling a little bit with what you mean i mean uh

00:31:52 uh it needs to explain all sorts of different things like the evacuation plan explain about the fire safety management system is that what you mean so there's there's other features beyond physical features

00:32:05 other features beyond physical features that a fire risk assessor has to consider

00:32:10 i see and you say that includes fire risk management safety management yeah so the man so there's the physical aspect of the work you go to the building you see

00:32:22 the work you go to the building you see the fire safety provisions so what the building comes with how it's being used what hazards are introduced by the use of the building and then there's non-physical matters

00:32:34 non-physical matters to do with fire safety management and you know how these matters are dealt with yes i see yeah can to come to fire safety yeah later in your evidence but i'm grateful for that that addition to

00:32:45 i'm grateful for that that addition to the list of things i've referred to can we then turn to the question of competence competence of fire risk assessors to carry out fras um again do you agree that under uh

00:32:56 um again do you agree that under uh article nine one indeed any part of the uh of the rro there's no requirement there's no specific requirement uh that a fire risk assessment should be carried

00:33:07 a fire risk assessment should be carried out by a specialist by a specialist yes a specialist fire risk assessor for example there's no requirement to appoint a sp well i mean uh

00:33:19 appoint a sp well i mean uh well what is what's a specialist well someone who's someone knows how to do a fire risk okay well that's a different matter isn't it so i think that the use of the word competent the use of

00:33:31 the use of the word competent the use of the word competent isn't used in the order in the article about fire risk assessments i think if that's what you're asking me and it is used elsewhere

00:33:42 elsewhere um i don't know why any i'm just struggling a bit about why legislation would ask for specialists anywhere

00:33:50 anywhere um well you've answered both of the next questions i had okay i think you agree there's no provision in the rra which requires that an fra should be carried out by a competent person

00:34:01 the it i i can only agree that the article dealing with fire risk assessment makes no mention of the word competence that's right and do you do

00:34:13 competence that's right and do you do well it does use the word suitable and sufficient and it might be an interesting matter of a debate whether they in turn assume the existence of a degree of competence necessary to

00:34:25 competence necessary to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment yeah and i i was very interested in your exchange on that actually um you were talking about cooks and puddings that you can accidentally

00:34:37 and puddings that you can accidentally produce and it's actually quite a serious point though that can an incompetent or someone with less competence than somebody else classified as having

00:34:49 somebody else classified as having extreme competence end up producing a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and the answer must be probably but i think the pro where competence comes in is

00:35:01 comes in is as a function of the hazards in the building and the type of building you're looking at the less competence there the less likely it is you will find all

00:35:12 the less likely it is you will find all the relevant hazards which is the the main point of carrying out a risk assessment so i think it's about maybe likelihood of missing

00:35:23 about maybe likelihood of missing something

00:35:24 something as opposed to i suppose i can turn the argument around can a very competent person end up producing a risk assessment that others will conclude was not suitable and

00:35:36 will conclude was not suitable and sufficient and the answer is yes can can you just help me with this since i've interrupted you sorry yeah and

00:35:44 and it occurs to me that if you're going to assess the risks relating to fire yeah you're going to ask yourself what are the risks of an outbreak of fire yes

00:35:58 of an outbreak of fire yes what is the possibility of controlling a fire if it does occur yes and what are the prospects of escaping from a fire if you can't control it yes is there anything else that you're

00:36:10 is there anything else that you're looking at on the overall level yes there is so i think um so that's the fire scenario side so so what in the building can cause a fire to

00:36:21 what in the building can cause a fire to occur in the first place where will the fire spread how does that impact the people okay how it impacts the people and so what type of evacuation may become may be

00:36:33 type of evacuation may become may be available to them is a function of your understanding of what you know the building regulations separate legislation but it calls fire safety provisions so what's

00:36:45 calls fire safety provisions so what's in the building that's meant to make it safe

00:36:48 safe when the fire has broken out and if the fire is spreading so as well as those fire scenarios you can't determine that spread and

00:37:01 you can't determine that spread and you know consequences without understanding what the building itself is capable of in those scenarios well that has a bearing on the ability to escape from a fire right soon

00:37:13 to escape from a fire right soon absolutely yeah it has the ability it has a bearing on how you escape you know and the likelihood of being able to

00:37:20 able to and it also has a an impact on firefighting as well noting that yes i understand that that's separate but it impacts what's possible in those scenarios thank

00:37:33 what's possible in those scenarios thank you

00:37:34 you can we go to cta 6011 please

00:37:40 and what i'm showing you is the competence competency criteria published by the competency council uh in

00:37:48 uh in uh

00:37:49 uh i think 2011 20 uh th

00:37:52 20 uh th this is part of mr todd's report if we go to page 11 sorry page 109 in that document

00:38:03 um this is

00:38:06 the foreword

00:38:12 uh and yes it was published on the 21st of december 2011. and if you um go to um the second paragraph under the forward you could see that it says there's no legislative requirement for the fire risk assessment

00:38:24 requirement for the fire risk assessment to be carried out by a competent person this is to avoid an implication that every duty holder under the legislation needs to employ the services of a fire safety specialist such as a consultant to carry out their fire risk assessment

00:38:36 to carry out their fire risk assessment now

00:38:37 now despite the fact that the duty holder is not obliged it seems to to retain the services of a competent fire

00:38:44 fire safety specialist um is it the case that every fire risk assessment must be carried out competently yes it is um am i allowed to say something about that sentence there please yes like i think my experience of

00:38:58 please yes like i think my experience of working with different organizations is some of the best risk assessments and fire risk management systems come

00:39:09 management systems come when there's there's an a competent person embedded in the organization because there's that bit of what really goes on every day in an organization and in a

00:39:21 every day in an organization and in a building that's really important okay so

00:39:26 okay so i don't know why it kind of goes from one extreme to the other that there's no confidence so you don't need to employ a specialist i don't understand why it's so linear that just description there

00:39:37 so linear that just description there right i see because of course there is a an obligation to have a competent advisor isn't there yes there is person within the organization yes so you say that there's an inconsistency there is there between well i don't understand

00:39:48 there between well i don't understand why we go from it well i don't understand why you don't need confidence to do a fire risk assessment and you are required to have confidence to do any other risk assessment and i've made it

00:39:59 other risk assessment and i've made it clear that i don't understand that but i i don't understand why that triggers this phrase about needing a specialist and having to employ someone from outside that's all i don't think it's a

00:40:10 outside that's all i don't think it's a big point right okay in a high-rise residential building would it be normal in your experience um for a a fire risk assessor i call it i call them a specialist someone who does it a lot okay to be instructed or

00:40:22 does it a lot okay to be instructed or would it be normal for the responsible person to take on that that obligation or that function itself well i

00:40:30 well i i think i've seen both i mean so sometimes i brought in you know to review what's going on okay and i can't speak for the thousands of

00:40:42 and i can't speak for the thousands of people carrying out this work yeah would you expect anyone undertaking a fire risk assessment uh whether it was the responsible person itself or on its behalf yeah to meet the

00:40:53 itself or on its behalf yeah to meet the standards of the reasonably competent fire risk assessor as contained in past 79 and in these criteria in part 79 and which criteria here the

00:41:04 in part 79 and which criteria here the one on this page

00:41:07 risk assessment company council yes the one that's on the screen yeah i think you know i think um yes i think that would be a fair and reasonable thing for a

00:41:18 a fair and reasonable thing for a responsible person to do right other than the fire risk assessment competency competency council criteria published in december 2011 and past 79 published in august 2012

00:41:31 and past 79 published in august 2012 other than those two documents is there any other guidance document that you would use

00:41:36 would use to determine or enforce competency on the part of a fire risk assessor enforced competency i mean i think they're very

00:41:47 competency i mean i think they're very well

00:41:50 well established i mean

00:41:53 i think i'd be you know i think there's helpful guidance on competency generally um from

00:42:00 um from the hse i i quite quite like how they describe competency right okay now

00:42:10 forgive the generality of this question next uh but in light of some of mr todd's evidence i feel bound to ask you um do you agree or disagree that past 79 applies to fire risk assessments

00:42:23 applies to fire risk assessments of high-rise residential buildings such as grenfell tower well i thought i very much thought about us yes are you aware of any parts any parts of past 79 that were intended

00:42:36 any parts of past 79 that were intended to apply

00:42:37 to apply only to commercial premises i don't know anything about that i mean i i'm just i am a practitioner i read i read the document

00:42:46 document i apply it i ignore parts where it's not relevant to my work but as far as i'm concerned it's a perfectly appropriate document to use for any time i'm doing a risk assessment

00:42:57 for any time i'm doing a risk assessment let me try this a different way during your time as practitioner yeah up to and including june 2017 or or even today for what it's worth yeah were you or are you aware of any

00:43:09 were you or are you aware of any understanding or any view in the fire risk assessment business

00:43:14 business that when it came to high-rise residential buildings there were some parts of past 79 that should be treated either as wholly inapplicable or applied with less vigor than if the

00:43:26 or applied with less vigor than if the building

00:43:27 building were a commercial building i don't know anything about that when you say you don't know anything about i've never i've never heard that but i'm very uncomfortable kind of representing people i've never met no but i'm asking you about what no no

00:43:39 no but i'm asking you about what no no so in my work and in the work of all the people at arab and the other people that we engage with including

00:43:47 including work that we have to review that that's not a theme that i've ever had to tackle yes and that i think that answers my question which was where you were were you aware of any view floating around

00:43:58 you aware of any view floating around the business that that there were bits of past 79 that simply either didn't apply to high-rise residential buildings or you could sort of treat as secondary yeah but i i i

00:44:08 but i i i so i haven't heard that but maybe someone else would come in here and tell you they heard it every day but in my working environment that's not something i've ever been

00:44:20 that's not something i've ever been aware of or had to deal with my recollection is that mr todd was of the view that past 79 had been drafted principally with commercial

00:44:32 drafted principally with commercial buildings in mind and that in his view some parts of it were not really very appropriate to

00:44:42 to uh residential buildings is is that something on which you can comment well i think

00:44:50 i think that if an author of a document thinks that that they should say it at the front

00:44:55 the front i'm sorry i feel like i'm being a bit you know i i would like i would like to know that

00:45:01 know that as a user of the document in terms of exercising my own judgment and independent thoughts when i've used past 79 i've never reached a point where it fell down

00:45:13 never reached a point where it fell down for me

00:45:15 for me when i was risk assessing anything i find it a very good method to assist me in my work and following on from that can i just show you what you say in chapter eight of your your report um can we go to

00:45:30 blarp25027 page 60 paragraph 5.5 point 12.

00:45:40 you say there in my opinion past 79 2012 provides the most comprehensive guidance on action plans therefore i have used this document as the benchmark for my later assessments

00:45:52 assessments one or two questions flowing on from that do you agree that a fire risk assessor could use the template in either annex b or nx e to pass 79 depending on whether they

00:46:03 to pass 79 depending on whether they were carrying out a new fra or an fra review yes they could yes and and if the format varied they would need to make sure is this right do you agree that all the recommendations of

00:46:14 agree that all the recommendations of the current past 79 were satisfied yeah because most people i mean i went back and had a look at things coming here most people actually adapt us because to make a premises specific

00:46:25 us because to make a premises specific yeah and now following on from that given that a fire risk assessor isn't required to use any particular template but makes it premises specific would you expect

00:46:38 premises specific would you expect that for fras on grenfell done after august 2012 the reasonable fire risk assessor would have used the 2012 version of past 79. yes yes yeah

00:46:50 version of past 79. yes yes yeah and is it fair to say that there's there would be

00:46:53 would be if he or she did not use the 2012 version of past 79 but an earlier version there would be there would be a risk

00:47:01 risk that the fire risk assessor would not necessarily be following the up-to-date most up-to-date british standards or industry guidance they're they're not enormously different

00:47:12 different um

00:47:13 um i can provide a comparison but i think it's a sign of keeping up to date on things which is very important part of

00:47:24 things which is very important part of actually demonstrating competence to other people even if not to yourself that you are aware that such a significant document has been subject to a revision thank you

00:47:36 thank you now i want to ask you some questions about other guidance documents published relevant to the conduct of fire risk assessments which you've referred to in your your report at uh chapter eight at section five

00:47:48 section five would you expect mr stokes as the fire risk assessor on behalf of the tmo for grenfell tower in the years 2010 to 2016 to have a

00:47:59 to have a reasonably thorough knowledge of and i'm going to give you a list first the what we call the sleeping guide namely uh hm government fire safety risk assessment sleeping accommodation

00:48:12 assessment sleeping accommodation um published in 2006 yes at rbk 3036 722 yes yes yes you would the second document would you expect mr stokes to have a reasonably thorough knowledge of

00:48:24 have a reasonably thorough knowledge of um the hm government guide entitled fire safety risk assessment means of escape for disabled people published in march 2007 yes rbk sorry inq three zero is one

00:48:36 2007 yes rbk sorry inq three zero is one four seven three two you would third document late the lay cause housing fire safety guidance on fire safety provisions for certain types of existing housing published in 2008. yes yes

00:48:50 published in 2008. yes yes cst402516

00:48:51 cst402516 next document the lga fire safety and purpose built blocks of flats published first printed in july 2011 and then reprinted without the error a little bit

00:49:02 reprinted without the error a little bit later that yeah yes hom five four zeroes three zeros five four five nine six four and then finally would you expect the reasonably competent fire risk assessor during that period for grenfell tower to

00:49:14 during that period for grenfell tower to be familiar or reasonably familiar with the relevant british standards so for example

00:49:19 example british standard 9991 2015

00:49:23 2015 yes and probably more so the british standards for the systems in the building so including lifts yeah all the different types of systems and all

00:49:35 the different types of systems and all the guidance documents refer you to those other standards yes i see thank you now

00:49:42 now can we just look then at the lga guide and i want to ask you about where it sits in the pantheon if you like of guidance can we go please to your chapter 11

00:49:54 can we go please to your chapter 11 blarp 2 5 0 40 page seven

00:50:04 and here at paragraph 3.1.5 you say at section 5.1 of the lga guide it states that with respect to purpose-built blocks of flats it quotes builds on the advice given on quotes in

00:50:16 builds on the advice given on quotes in the hm sleeping accommodation guide but it also states two paragraphs later at section 5.3 that the lga guide is quote the more appropriate guide to use for purpose-built blocks of flats

00:50:31 and if you go on the same page to paragraph 3.1.7 two paragraphs down you say i have found no other publicly available evidence that fire safety risk assessment sleeping accommodation was superseded by

00:50:43 sleeping accommodation was superseded by the lga guide which is not an hm government publication and therefore that the hm government guides no longer applied to purpose-built blocks of flats with respect to article 50.

00:50:54 with respect to article 50. and then if you go on to page 68 uh i'm sorry uh go back to chapter one at blarp25023

00:51:06 page 68 paragraph 5.1.24 you say i consider it reasonable to expect

00:51:14 expect responsible persons and their safety assistants to have considered hm sleeping accommodation guide fully not just the lga guide in isolation nor as a

00:51:25 just the lga guide in isolation nor as a primary reference source now

00:51:28 now i've shown you what you've said in your report there in those places having heard the evidence in this part of the inquiry thus far do you maintain the opinions that you've set out in those parts i've just shown

00:51:39 set out in those parts i've just shown you yes i do you do now let's go then to the lga guide at hom3045964

00:51:47 page 14.

00:51:55 and there's a heading which

00:51:58 which next to the section 5 relationship to other guidance

00:52:04 and uh it

00:52:07 uh it uh

00:52:08 uh says uh in the second line it builds on the the advice given in the dclg sleeping accommodation guide mentioned earlier and that's what you've quoted it goes on to say that guide applies generically to all premises in which

00:52:19 generically to all premises in which people sleep but for purpose-built blocks of flats this guide is likely to be the more appropriate guide to use one to use

00:52:30 one to use and if you go um to uh paragraph 5.3 two paragraphs down it says this present guide covers all purpose-built blocks of flats both common parts and the flats

00:52:41 flats both common parts and the flats themselves including those within the scope of the dclg and lakeholds guides it is therefore the more appropriate guide to use for purpose-built blocks of flats

00:52:50 flats now in light of those express statements in the lga guide can you help us understand why it wasn't reasonable for any fire risk assessor conducting an fra in the period 2012 to 2016

00:53:05 in the period 2012 to 2016 uh after the publication of the lga guide

00:53:08 guide um

00:53:09 um on on a block of flats in general needs housing to have regard only to the lga guide on the basis that it absorbed everything of relevance in the dclg and lakehouse guides why was it unreasonable

00:53:21 why was it unreasonable for a pharisee assessor only to use this document okay well if we're talking about grantful tower all the guidance documents were referred to so it's not relevant if you're asking me to give a view on

00:53:33 if you're asking me to give a view on lots of other people and what they did which i've told you i'm not comfortable doing

00:53:39 doing and again i've i've gone back and looked at all different documents that are available available to me and what i see is most people list out all those guidance documents

00:53:51 list out all those guidance documents and then state they've had to element that is my experience right and i i understand the language written here okay

00:54:00 okay but it does not say to me that i must ignore

00:54:04 ignore everything else let me try yeah thank you and i understand that let me see if i can get an expansion on that a little bit yeah um if an fire risk assessor

00:54:17 if an fire risk assessor assessing

00:54:18 assessing a building such as grenfell tower in the period 2012 to 2016 yes used this guy the lga guide only and didn't use or look at the other guidance such as the

00:54:30 look at the other guidance such as the sleeping guide yes would he or she be falling below the standards of the reasonably competent fire risk assessor so

00:54:40 so that didn't happen at grenfell okay

00:54:44 okay if a person read the lga guide only they it still refers them out to all the different british standards and all the different things

00:54:55 different things you can never in my opinion simply read the lga and carry out your work

00:55:02 work so i think the answer to my question is that if you did only read the lga and carry out your work you would be falling below the standards of reasonable competence expected of a fire risk assessor

00:55:18 i think i'm being asked to give a view on a published guidance document as if that's what my the focus of my work was

00:55:28 work was the focus of my work was on grenfell tower

00:55:31 tower i think the lga guide document is a summary of lots of different publications with other opinions there

00:55:43 with other opinions there and in my professional opinion it requires a careful reading and a careful assessment with other published guidance documents

00:55:57 would you criticize a responsible person or a far risk assessor

00:56:03 assessor for using the lga guide as essentially what i might call a one-stop shop

00:56:10 and nothing else if there risk if the resulting

00:56:15 resulting risk assessment contained

00:56:23 items that i considered to pose a risk to life

00:56:28 to life or i considered to be from a technical perspective not in compliance with the order yes i would thank you thank you now turning to a totally

00:56:39 thank you now turning to a totally different topic well not totally different um relatively different uh the scope of an fra and practical steps including evidence gathering and frequency that's what we're going to look at next dr lane um

00:56:52 look at next dr lane um first can i show you uh and i'm not going to read it all out can i show you chapter 11 of your report at blarp 2 5 0 40 page 5

00:57:03 40 page 5 and i'd like just to show you what's on that page under the heading the rro at paragraph 2.1.4

00:57:14 2.1.4 for paragraphs down you say one central question which emerges is whether the external wall is within the scope of the duty set out in the rrfso yeah

00:57:25 the rrfso yeah and you proceed after that to set out down to subparagraph 14 on the next page we can just turn the page um your opinion there

00:57:36 there that uh the external wall of a building with a stay put policy or state put strategy

00:57:42 strategy falls within the scope of the rro now

00:57:49 and i'll show you what you do say expressly at paragraph 2.1.14 you say from that perspective the kctmo should not have omitted the external wall construction from its assessment of risk as it was so interlinked with the

00:58:01 risk as it was so interlinked with the safety of relevant persons in grenfell tower and because grenfell tower relied on the stay put strategy

00:58:10 am i in understanding or evidence can i do i summarize it correctly by by asking you that the gist of that evidence or your opinion is that the external wall constitutes a collective protective

00:58:21 constitutes a collective protective measure for relevant persons in any building with a staple strategy yeah so any building where the compartmentation abuts the external wall

00:58:33 abuts the external wall it means the external wall is so when the internal compartmentation abuts the external wall as you know the external wall in high-rise buildings

00:58:44 the external wall in high-rise buildings is a fire safety provision it has a section in the building regs just as internal compartmentation has a section in the building rigs and so where you rely on

00:58:56 and so where you rely on the protection afforded by the internal walls and the external wall for your

00:59:02 for your evacuation it prov it is a collective protective measure can i just understand that a little bit more closely

00:59:12 closely on your last answer you say

00:59:16 you say that the external wall in high-rise buildings

00:59:19 buildings is a fire safety provision and that's a section of the building reg yes just as internal compartmentation yeah um could you just explain what what it

00:59:30 um could you just explain what what it is about the building regulations that makes an external wall a a protection measure no so i i wasn't trying to imply some kind of

00:59:43 that's that's that's a different way of saying it so what i was trying to say is i said a while ago as a fire risk assessor you have to understand what's in the building and

00:59:55 understand what's in the building and then what happens when the fire starts and i wanted to make the point that the external wall is one of the fire safety provisions that comes with

01:00:08 that comes with an you know a high-rise residential building so it's it has to perform to a certain standard okay yes so when you get under the order so i don't want everyone saying oh she

01:00:20 so i don't want everyone saying oh she said the building regs equals this that's not what i mean when you get to the order and you're doing your risk assessment you you should be able to rely on that

01:00:31 you you should be able to rely on that external wall to perform as intended when considering you know how the compartmentation where to

01:00:42 to how reliable it is when you're going to continue to rely on also to stay put strategy

01:00:53 to stay put strategy okay and it's a collective protective measure

01:00:57 measure because um the whole purpose of stay put is that once the people who have to leave and there's always a cohort of people that have to leave it should be

01:01:09 people that have to leave it should be safe for everyone else to stay and that means the compartmentation they rely on and i just keep using this phrase where it abuts the external wall

01:01:21 phrase where it abuts the external wall it becomes reliant on it that performance now okay just just to be absolutely precise yeah you say the external wall is is a fire safety provision yes

01:01:32 provision yes do you mean that it it has fire safety rules about it including b4 the functional requirement in b4 and

01:01:43 and section 12 of adb yes it it it you there's a

01:01:54 it's a fire safety provision and the rules are correct as you've described them okay

01:01:59 them okay and it's part of the package so when you when you design a high-rise residential building no matter what decades the external wall has always been

01:02:11 the external wall has always been you know assigned a minimum performance because it's a provision in high-rise residential buildings it's part of the package of safety measures and i think miss

01:02:24 of safety measures and i think miss mendes is always really good at explaining about the interconnectedness of things okay and the external wall has always in high-rise buildings and high-rise residential buildings

01:02:36 high-rise residential buildings you know it has always been a fire safety provision and something that's relied upon in high-rise residential buildings i see so just to clarify for it may just be me but yeah

01:02:47 it may just be me but yeah can we agree this that the external wall is not itself a component part of the compartment but itself has regulations applying to

01:02:59 but itself has regulations applying to it yeah i see what you mean sorry yeah so that's true okay right that's that's that that's correct and

01:03:08 and because remember it depends on the layout of the space so at grenfell all the flats were on the perimeter there will be other premises where you have land locked compartments that don't

01:03:19 land locked compartments that don't above the external wall okay so when the internal compartmentation you know hits the external wall together in those circumstances

01:03:31 in those circumstances you are reliant on the performance of the wall as well in that capacity so

01:03:37 so perhaps we can can we summarize your opinion like this that the external wall is relevant to the sorry the fire safety and the risks attendant on it of the of

01:03:48 and the risks attendant on it of the of the external wall is relevant to the fire risk assessor because it is relevant to the maintenance of compartmentation exactly because without it the internal compartmentation can't

01:04:00 it the internal compartmentation can't carry on so i'm not saying an external wall is a compartment wall because that has a really formal definition yeah but when the internal compartmentation

01:04:12 when the internal compartmentation meets the external wall and the six-sided box i've been kind of going on about this since you know since the very start where they meet together you

01:04:22 you one is reliant on the performance of that wall in maintaining this overall compartmentation strategy to allow people to stay in their flats

01:04:34 to allow people to stay in their flats and not be forced to evacuate yes okay probably i'm not being clear now no that's very that's very clear yeah

01:04:42 yeah uh so

01:04:44 uh so was it was does it follow from that that it was your view and is your view that the external wall falls within the scope of the

01:04:53 of the obligations imposed on the responsible person by the rro when it comes to the fire risk assessment yeah so the internal walls and the external wall

01:05:06 the internal walls and the external wall where they're relied upon for protection by definition in my mind that requires consideration in a fire risk assessment

01:05:19 risk assessment now

01:05:19 now you may have helped me with this because i think i'm having a little difficulty i'm just thinking of the external walled grenfell tower before the refurbishment yes

01:05:30 refurbishment yes you had concrete spandrels yeah which were by definition not combustible yeah and between them you had window spandrels or window pieces

01:05:42 spandrels or window pieces which were not fireproof and were either composed of glass fittings or infill panels which may or may not have been very

01:05:55 which may or may not have been very substantial yes now in the case of a fire within a flat yes uh depending on its severity yeah that part of the external wall would be

01:06:06 part of the external wall would be likely to fail very quickly yes so potentially i'm just struggling to remember what the info finals were made from originally i thought it was some kind of asbestos type material but anyway i can't remember right now yeah

01:06:19 anyway i can't remember right now yeah anyway

01:06:20 anyway the window yeah sections were regarded as as you say as part of a compartmentation was it was a non-combustible well it's the glass you know it's the glass part and it breaks quickly the

01:06:33 glass part and it breaks quickly the glass will go very quickly yeah so you haven't got uh any form of real fire protection on the outside wall have you yeah so

01:06:42 so so

01:06:43 so it's it correct so it's not a compartment wall which would require fire rated glazing right okay but what it what it's meant to do is to not

01:06:55 is to not you know promote substantial spread of flame beyond that flat so i'm not saying that there will not be a fire breaking out of the

01:07:06 will not be a fire breaking out of the first flat okay

01:07:09 okay but the idea is that it doesn't promote fire spread to multiple other compartments would it be fair

01:07:20 would it be fair to say

01:07:21 to say that in your view the fire risk assessor should be interested in the external wall to the extent that it might promote fire yeah exactly that

01:07:33 it might promote fire yeah exactly that it's become a hazard so and you've actually touched on something really important so when stay put was created the rules for the materials in the

01:07:45 the rules for the materials in the external wall were totally different okay

01:07:49 okay so you might say in a way you didn't need to think about it okay that you might call that not suitably insufficient but if you didn't think about it you were more likely you know it was probably

01:08:01 you know it was probably more likely to be okay because the wall was not a hazard so in in my mind and i i've been very as clear as i possibly can in my report i understand

01:08:12 possibly can in my report i understand everything that's written down i know what i did and i know what was happening but

01:08:18 but when you think about the wall in a building with the stay put strategy are other buildings with very complex evacuation strategies

01:08:29 evacuation strategies you need to know if the wall is a protective measure in some form or if in itself it's become a hazard in the event of a fire well that i do

01:08:41 the event of a fire well that i do understand yeah sorry okay yeah now your the view that you've just expressed an answer to the chairman's question just now namely that i hope i've summarized it correctly as follows that the fire risk

01:08:52 correctly as follows that the fire risk assessor should be interested in the external wall at least to the extent that it might promote fire was that of an approach or view that you

01:09:02 that you heard in the industry generally

01:09:06 generally uh from your work in other words was that a commonly shared view to the to the best of your knowledge and experience so i just all i can say to you is is that my experience is

01:09:17 experience is from

01:09:18 from 2013 i was being asked by people with existing buildings and experiencing difficulties on my own projects

01:09:29 projects with the hazard the external wall posed

01:09:35 and i i that's what i've all i can say now um let's look then at that that opinion uh against the question of

01:09:46 uh against the question of what i'm loosely called common parts can we go to blarp 2 5 0 23 page 5 and this is chapter 1 of your report

01:10:00 let's look at paragraph 1.1.11 towards the bottom of the middle of the page now two thirds a third of the way down your screen and you say this the rrfsa expressly excludes premises defined as

01:10:11 expressly excludes premises defined as domestic premises such as flats common practice became therefore to consider areas outside the domestic premises as so-called common parts quotes on quotes i deal with this later in section 6.2

01:10:22 i deal with this later in section 6.2 and if we look at section 6 chapter of chapter 1 can we go to page 76 please of the same document

01:10:31 document you say there at paragraph 6.1.5 i'm aware for example that there is a body of opinion that because external walls are not within the common parts nor a part nor part of

01:10:43 the common parts nor a part nor part of a workplace by these definitions the external wall falls outside the scope of the rrfso i do not agree um

01:10:53 um are you referring here when you say there's a body of opinion to a body of opinion before or after the grenfell tower fire or perhaps both after after

01:11:05 after after right

01:11:07 right are you able to assist us with how in your experience or knowledge that body of opinion grew up after the fire no i can't assist you can't when you say body of opinion was that

01:11:18 when you say body of opinion was that the body of opinion to the best of your knowledge held by the majority of fire risk assessors in the

01:11:31 for example whose opinion was it do you know i mean was it government well i as i went on to do in chapter 10 i looked at the fia documents right yes yes i see

01:11:42 at the fia documents right yes yes i see are you able to explain the rationale for that opinion

01:11:51 no no we know you disagree with it um no well i i can't explain it at all but i mean i feel like i'm straying a little bit off me having analyzed grenfell tower which

01:12:03 me having analyzed grenfell tower which is why i'm here all right but i hope that the technical information i've provided and

01:12:12 and we might hopefully get to talk about the order a little bit more i haven't been able to retrospectively prove

01:12:21 prove that the external wall

01:12:25 was right to be excluded i've done a double or triple negative there but i haven't been able to prove that no no no thank you and in fact

01:12:34 in fact taking that a little bit further isn't it right

01:12:36 it right that both the sleeping guide and the lake wars guide and indeed and indeed the lga guide all said in their different ways that the rro applied only to the common parts of blocks of flats

01:12:48 to the common parts of blocks of flats or common areas yeah so i think that that that is true that is up that's absolutely correct but that doesn't um

01:12:59 but that doesn't um remove

01:13:00 remove or

01:13:02 directly cause the omission of looking at a hazard i think yes so it's kind of hard to explain this actually but

01:13:13 but a hazard is a hazard in a building and i can't find anywhere that any type of wall was expressly

01:13:26 categorized as being in or out right before the fire what was there a body of opinion to your knowledge uh

01:13:36 uh that the external wall was or should be excluded from the scape of a fire risk assessment because it wasn't

01:13:45 wasn't um

01:13:50 outside the private dwelling or a pertinent there too i was surprised to hear that and i think we we were surprised to hear that i can say as well right

01:14:06 so is it yours i understand i mean i don't want to say you know i think there's always that kind of remark about hindsight i understand what

01:14:17 remark about hindsight i understand what the guidance document said and i'm absolutely clear that explaining explanations of what the external wall is far in a

01:14:30 of what the external wall is far in a high-rise residential buildings are omitted from from all the guidance documents i mean it's important to make that absolutely clear there is no explanation

01:14:42 there is no explanation of the external wall as a fire safety provision

01:14:46 provision and the importance of it particularly in high-rise residential buildings just for balance so i'm clear that none of that was expressed

01:14:57 of that was expressed yes i i mean you know that because you're familiar with the the rro that by virtue of article six and the definition of domestic premises uh domestic premises uh are excluded yes

01:15:11 uh domestic premises uh are excluded yes from its scope except parts used in common

01:15:14 common parts of the domestic prem yeah yes yes um

01:15:17 um how do you square your opinion that the external wall is a is a

01:15:23 is a or may present a hazard which should be assessed okay with the with the exclusion of domestic premises save parts used in common and okay well i think

01:15:34 think so

01:15:35 so my understanding of the rro as a fire safety engineer is it it actually splits things into three types of

01:15:46 splits things into three types of i don't know if the right word is demise or not but you have domestic workplace and not a workplace that's how that's how it goes about things in the

01:15:57 that's how it goes about things in the order

01:15:58 order and i understand the domestic premises are excluded with respect to hazard and control but i i don't understand how that makes

01:16:09 makes the external wall or the internal wall outside the scope i don't understand how you immediately go there

01:16:21 i think some people might say that the external wall isn't part of the common parts and therefore uh

01:16:27 uh doesn't fall within the scope but the rro doesn't say please do a risk assessment in the common parts the rro asks the responsible person to deliver general fire precautions by means of

01:16:40 general fire precautions by means of protective and preventative measures uh as a you know depending on the type of responsible person they are for workplaces not at workplaces

01:16:52 not at workplaces and yes exclude the domestic premise i understand that but it doesn't say please carry out fire risk assessments in the common parts and exclude external

01:17:04 in the common parts and exclude external walls

01:17:05 walls and include internal walls because i think it's important to also realize now that you know i tried to look at all the ways common parts are referred to

01:17:18 ways common parts are referred to you know

01:17:20 you know the same is true of the internal wall it's not included because the wall is the workplace it's included in that risk assessment because it's a protective measure it's one of the fire safety

01:17:31 measure it's one of the fire safety provisions in a building i see i see is that i because i know this is a very controversial subject so i hope i'm being clear enough i just want to understand your understanding before the

01:17:42 understand your understanding before the break can i just see if we can leave it this way yeah that you come you you include the external wall as within the scope of a fire risk assessment because it's part of the protective measures which fall within article four

01:17:53 article four yeah exactly i can as opposed to yeah can't say to a client we've sorted out your general fire precautions for this high-rise residential building

01:18:05 residential building i haven't looked at the wall here's hoping it doesn't cause extensive fire spread because because you know the truth is that if extensive fire spread

01:18:16 truth is that if extensive fire spread can be supported in a wall not all external walls are a hazard okay but if it supports fire spread i'm unable to say to the responsible

01:18:28 i'm unable to say to the responsible person

01:18:29 person the classic evacuation strategy remains suitable i may have to change my evacuation strategy because i can't rely on that wall

01:18:41 because i can't rely on that wall yes um thank you and that that actually takes me very neatly to my next question and the break

01:18:48 the break before your next question there we are yes we'll have the break now we'll come back please at 25 to 4 and you know i've said this to you many

01:18:59 and you know i've said this to you many times already please don't talk to me don't talk to anybody anymore no very wise good thank you very much

01:19:09 thank you 25 to 4.

01:37:22 would you ask dr lane to come back in please

01:37:43 all right dr lynn happy to carry on no yes of course thank you very much yes yes thank you mr chairman um dr lane can i look with you at the lga guy please hon3045964

01:37:55 page 111 paragraph 72

01:38:01 and uh under the heading external fire spread at 72.1 it says and i'll just read it to you the external facades of blocks of flats should not provide potential for extensive fire spread when

01:38:12 potential for extensive fire spread when assessing existing blocks of flats particular attention should be given to any rain screen or other external cladding system that has been applied and to facades that have been replaced and then 72.2 says the use of

01:38:24 and then 72.2 says the use of combustible cladding materials and extensive cavities can present a risk particularly in high-rise blocks restrictions are normally applied to the nature of such materials and in particular their surface spread of flame

01:38:35 particular their surface spread of flame characteristics cavity barriers are also required in some circumstances assistance from specialists may be required to determine if the external surfaces of walls are satisfactory and whether there is adequate provision of

01:38:46 whether there is adequate provision of cavity barriers now just looking at that and reminding ourselves that that is the lga guide 2011.

01:38:54 2011. who was it who was supposed to assess using the word there existing blocks of flats and pay particular attention using the words there to any rain screen

01:39:05 using the words there to any rain screen or other external cladding system yeah so i think just a perfectly sensible warning about a hazard emanating from the construction industry and who was it

01:39:17 and who was it well the the reader of the lga guide and so the responsible person and their in-house or out of house

01:39:28 their in-house or out of house fire risk assessor actually sorry mr miller is it okay if i just say something else because i was thinking over the break about walls yes yes this thing about in and out so if

01:39:40 yes this thing about in and out so if the common lobby in grenfell was land locked so it doesn't touch the external wall

01:39:46 wall but other buildings the common lobby you know again above the external wall so by that definition does that mean those walls are in

01:39:57 those walls are in and not other external walls this is where i couldn't square the whole thing away in the end yes i know you can't answer that question but i think that's something that should be considered

01:40:09 that should be considered it does what i've said make anything yes so to take that yeah point and perhaps bring it back to you are you saying that the external wall would represent a hazard or may

01:40:21 would represent a hazard or may represent a hazard to be assessed by the responsible person yeah uh and or their fire risk assessor whether or not it butts a compartment or a common part exactly exactly sorry so

01:40:32 common part exactly exactly sorry so back back to this this is a war a sensible warning about a hazard because of a trend in the industry that's very helpful um now um on the basis of the answer

01:40:43 um now um on the basis of the answer before last the responsible person or their in-house or out-of-house virus assessor is supposed to do the assessment how

01:40:51 how were fire risk assessors before 2017 how were fire risk assessors meant to incorporate their knowledge of the building envelope into their fire risk assessments

01:41:04 so in this case um this is about a refurbishment but i'd well

01:41:12 well has been applied and two facades that have been replaced so this is focusing particularly on replacements so a risk a fire risk assessor would be reliant on

01:41:25 reliant on fire safety information that they could obtain through the responsible person from the parties responsible for designing and installing

01:41:38 designing and installing that particular type of external wall and

01:41:42 and would you have expected the responsible person or the fire risk assessor as the case may be to be sufficiently reasonably sufficiently experienced and trained to be able to

01:41:54 experienced and trained to be able to carry out a proper assessment within the meaning of section of section of paragraph 72.1 yeah so i think

01:42:10 i think for this circumstance where there's new materials i'm going to assume they should be compliant with approved document b during design

01:42:22 during design in an ideal world there should be a fire safety strategy that would provide some simple description of the performance

01:42:34 which should be enough for my opinion or else you would have to look at some of the basic component fire safety information yourself okay but that has i have to say in an

01:42:46 okay but that has i have to say in an ideal world because obviously

01:42:51 there wasn't a prevalence of that information available in the spirit of balance but there's kind of all different extremes when it comes to risk assessing cladding

01:43:04 when it comes to risk assessing cladding i have to be very careful now

01:43:08 and i think there is a way where it can be

01:43:13 be quite simple if it's described adequately in a fire strategy document instead of having to escalate into a scenario

01:43:24 scenario of detailed reviewing of a building manual or even having to do some kind of major inspection

01:43:35 but there should be sufficient paper based information to enable you to understand the combustibility

01:43:47 combustibility of the main components of the clouding yes thank you okay would it be enough

01:43:56 for a fire risk assessor when

01:44:00 when using the words in 72-2 determining if the external surfaces of walls are satisfactory yeah simply to say that it had been signed

01:44:11 simply to say that it had been signed off by building control absolutely not no and i think so if a

01:44:18 so if a person skilled to review a certain level of detailed drawing or doesn't have access to a fire strategy where it's explained

01:44:31 strategy where it's explained the the

01:44:32 the the safest thing to do and the most accurate thing to do is to explain the building has been reclad

01:44:41 reclad that you cannot ascertain if it is a hazard or not and you strongly advise the responsible person within a specific time frame

01:44:52 person within a specific time frame that they urgently through whatever means available to them determine the materials that have been used in that refurbishment thank you that's very helpful um can i then

01:45:05 that's very helpful um can i then just to back this up a little bit go to the competency criteria again at cta 703 please

01:45:13 please page 73

01:45:21 and i'd like to look at a pen this is a part of appendix h and uh if we look together at um appendix 8 fire protection h1 on the right hand side

01:45:32 right hand side passive fire protection if you look a little bit lower down yeah uh it uh it says

01:45:41 it says there

01:45:42 there under the heading fire passive fire protection uh the fire risk assessor should have a knowledge and understanding of the role in the provision of fire safety

01:45:53 in the provision of fire safety uh including the types of fire performance requirements load bearing capacity integrity insulation reaction to fire performance etc of the following yes

01:46:03 yes and then uh if you go to page 74

01:46:10 in the final section on the left hand side

01:46:15 the building envelope for example fire resisting external curtain walls significance of their role in protecting escape routes at boundaries the significance of any immediately visible

01:46:26 significance of any immediately visible damage and then a reference to sandwich panel constructions with a combustible insulating core um

01:46:34 um does

01:46:35 does does that reference there in your opinion support the idea that a fire risk assessor should be examining and forming a risk view about the

01:46:46 and forming a risk view about the hazards presented by the building envelope yeah so actually yes but also the text you showed me before you went to the building envelope

01:46:57 before you went to the building envelope and you listed out load bearing capacity insulation yeah i'm sorry i don't know we could flip the page back is that okay yes because i think that's really important actually so it says the fire performance

01:47:09 so it says the fire performance requirements low bearing capacity integrity insulation reaction to fire performance so in the approved document b in the fire strategy it should list the

01:47:21 in the fire strategy it should list the insulation and its performance the reaction to fire performance particularly when it comes to the external wall and so there is a

01:47:32 and so there is a level of understanding needed of that fire safety provision not necessarily a vastly in-depth understanding down to the tiny little gubbins that go into cladding but that basic

01:47:44 cladding but that basic main component fire performance is written there first of all and then we go to your wall section on the other page could we turn page please page 74.

01:47:57 could we turn page please page 74. yeah

01:47:58 yeah so the significance of their role in protecting escape routes at boundaries you know

01:48:03 you know that's to do with escaping past a wall and it's having to have fire resisting properties okay which is different to reaction to fire properties

01:48:14 fire properties um

01:48:15 um the significance of any immediately visible damage is relevant to sandwich panels used in external walls because once they're damaged or have any

01:48:26 because once they're damaged or have any kind of you know it means the the risk of ignition rises because the combustible material within them is exposed so i see those two separate things one

01:48:39 so i see those two separate things one about a fire resisting wall and the other about a wall requiring reaction to fire performance the classic external wall performance

01:48:50 the classic external wall performance very helpful advice about considering those two things and how much would you need to know as a reasonably competent fire risk assessor about

01:49:00 about the requirements of approved document b section 12 and

01:49:05 and fire performance classifications how much would you need to know well you need to know what the standard is would for example would you need to know whether or not your um external wall

01:49:17 whether or not your um external wall uh complies with diagram 40. oh

01:49:20 oh um would you need to know in order to be able to become because obligation because

01:49:27 because when when a risk assessor is relying on the building they have to understand its performance as the original fire safety provision so yes they do need to understand if

01:49:39 so yes they do need to understand if it's modern building yes they need to have some understanding of the performance requirements one of which

01:49:47 which is diagram 40 yes so therefore would you expect the reasonably competent virus assessor to have sufficient training to be able to understand what it is he's looking at from that perspective i i think it's

01:49:58 from that perspective i i think it's incredibly difficult to provide an adequate description of hazards

01:50:04 hazards without understanding fire safety provisions so i think that that means yes i think thank you yeah and in your experience in the industry generally did fire risk assessors your run-of-the-mill

01:50:17 fire risk assessors your run-of-the-mill ferrous assessor have that kind of training

01:50:19 training no

01:50:22 um moving to april 2017 i just want to ask you um uh a a question about the lfbs approach in that yeah yeah um this is cst four

01:50:36 in that yeah yeah um this is cst four zeros three one three 3138 and it's the letter

01:50:39 letter of the 6th of april 2017 from assistant commissioner dan daly to

01:50:45 to chief executives of london boroughs it went widely and it's entitled tall buildings external fire spread it's a document on this occasion dressed at laura johnson at rbkc but it went as i say widely and

01:50:58 at rbkc but it went as i say widely and it's a document we've looked at a number of times in the course of phase two of this inquiry can we go to the second page of this letter please the last paragraph

01:51:07 paragraph first two sentences um

01:51:10 um assistant commissioner daley says this i would therefore strongly urge that you consider this issue as part of the risk assessment process for premises under your control i suggest that you make sure all relevant

01:51:21 suggest that you make sure all relevant information about any replacement window and facade schemes is fully available to fire risk assessors now

01:51:30 now first do you agree with the approach urged by assistant commissioner daley here

01:51:34 here yes i do i think it's another just as the lga

01:51:38 the lga provides helpful information about the hazard wall campos i think this is a very sensible letter warning people about a hazard

01:51:49 warning people about a hazard emanating from the materials being used by the construction industry yes are you able from what you know from your experience at the time rather than reading documents in the inquiry

01:52:00 reading documents in the inquiry to explain the basis on which mr daley formed the view and told laura johnson that fire risk assessor should be assessing the fire safety of facades well i mean i don't know why i don't think i've ever met mr daley and i don't

01:52:11 think i've ever met mr daley and i don't know why he wrote this letter but i think is this is 2017 yes it is and i've made it clear to you that from 2013 my own personal experience was the

01:52:23 my own personal experience was the prevalent use of those materials and a rising sense of concern in certain parts

01:52:31 parts in my experience about insulation but in other i was aware of other people's concerns about materials beyond insulation

01:52:42 materials beyond insulation so

01:52:43 so if you know if i had read that letter on the day it would simply have reflected

01:52:52 your view what do you say you know that moment in time i do whatever yeah how in practice at the time would fire risk assessors address

01:53:01 address the information set out in mr daley's letter what would a fire risk assessor do you know well i know what they should do but i mean i've never spoken to someone who

01:53:12 mean i've never spoken to someone who did do it if that's what you're asking me

01:53:14 me yeah that's helpful but what yeah can you tell us briefly in brief what they should do yeah well i think i kind of tried to explain that in in chapter 10 so

01:53:26 so it depends on the number of buildings i've explained about what kctmo did and mr stokes did but

01:53:34 but it's

01:53:35 it's because a lot of this ends up becoming about information making sure you have the information to determine if it's a hazard or not

01:53:46 to determine if it's a hazard or not and then if you don't have the information my reading of the letter was a warning that you needed to go about getting that information and therefore be in a position

01:53:59 and therefore be in a position to confirm if that hazard existed in the building the responsible person was responsible for so it was about information

01:54:10 so it was about information and taking the time to starting you know starting to categorize you know starting to understand if that hazard existed in your portfolio

01:54:21 if that hazard existed in your portfolio or building or if it did not yes and you know there was nothing unsensible you know short medium and long term actions to address the risk so it was

01:54:32 actions to address the risk so it was about preparation and understanding and then taking sensible steps to resolve a hazard if a hazard was found

01:54:43 found thank you can i then turn to the next topic which is gathering information rising out of your last answer in fact but a different topic would you expect

01:54:54 but a different topic would you expect the responsible person to be sufficiently familiar with its obligations under the rro as identified in the relevant guidance um

01:55:05 um to know that it had to provide the fire risk assessor with all up-to-date information relevant to the fra that that they are about to understand would i expect that yes i would yes and you would expect that would you in

01:55:16 and you would expect that would you in just the same way as if it were carrying out the risk assessment itself in-house oh absolutely because you can't do an ad a suitable and sufficient risk assessment without information no now

01:55:28 assessment without information no now can i show you what janice ray said on day four two please i'd like to go to day one four two page one three five uh we'll just want to show you some of her evidence that lines six to ten day one four two page one

01:55:41 six to ten day one four two page one three five line uh six she's asked do you recall whether before or after his visit to carry out a fire risk assessment mr stakes ever asked you

01:55:53 risk assessment mr stakes ever asked you for up-to-date information about disabled persons at grenfell tower and our answer i don't recall him asking me

01:56:01 me and then if you go a few pages on to page 137 on day 142 page 137 at line 14 uh question i think from your earlier evidence this morning but just confirm

01:56:12 evidence this morning but just confirm it's right isn't it that you never actually considered telling carl stokes that before he carried out each fra or rather when you gave him the list of fras to do you never told him about the

01:56:23 fras to do you never told him about the number of vulnerable residents that the tmo had identified in those buildings answer i don't believe i did no and why is that it was clearly a major oversight i can't give you any other

01:56:34 oversight i can't give you any other explanation i'm sorry now

01:56:37 now just

01:56:38 just on that evidence if a fire risk assessor in the position of carl stokes wasn't given the information that we've had that we looked at with ms ray there

01:56:49 that we looked at with ms ray there would you have expected them to ask for it

01:56:53 it yes yes

01:56:54 yes yes and if not given it despite asking for it what would you expect a fire risk assessor to do about it

01:57:03 produce a risk assessment on the basis of a clear explanation of what information they had and what information they did not have

01:57:14 and what information they did not have and the consequences of the missing information so a clear explanation of the information forming the basis of

01:57:25 of the information forming the basis of the risk assessment and the consequences of not having that information yeah so i mean this particular we've jumped from cladding to in this particular case regarding

01:57:36 in this particular case regarding vulnerable residents in grenfell tower yes it's an example as an example there were statements made as if information had been considered quite thoroughly

01:57:48 quite thoroughly actually

01:57:49 actually when that's not the case as we now know and we'll come to that yeah but look but look use it i'm using that as an example here would it be normally accepted practice for the responsible person to rely on

01:58:00 for the responsible person to rely on the fire risk assessor the appointed fire risk assessor to identify information needed for them to complete the fire risk assessment yeah i i think so because sometimes people aren't quite sure of what it is that you need to do

01:58:12 sure of what it is that you need to do your job properly for them so there's an exchange at the start that's my experience we would issue a list of documents as a minimum we require before we start

01:58:23 require before we start and if they're not available something has to be done sometimes that means the inspection you do has to be well beyond the inspection of a you know a classic risk assessment because there is no

01:58:35 risk assessment because there is no other information to rely on right so i see it as two ways i think it's the responsible person and the risk assessor together

01:58:45 together needs to come to a conclusion on the information forming the basis of the risk assessment right would it follow from that perhaps it doesn't that where the fire risk assessor doesn't ask for information or advise that he

01:58:57 ask for information or advise that he should be given information yeah relevant to the fire risk assessment then the responsible person can safely assume that it's unnecessary or irrelevant safely assume so i don't think a competent fire risk

01:59:10 so i don't think a competent fire risk assessor should conduct themselves like that

01:59:14 that if they do i you know i have some sympathy with a responsible person but i would expect the person representing i'm thinking about grandfather particularly

01:59:25 thinking about grandfather particularly now

01:59:26 now i would expect the person representing the responsible person there to

01:59:31 to be

01:59:33 be very familiar with the information required

01:59:36 required they had a warning before as we know now yes

01:59:40 yes yes are you referring well what are you referring to i'm referring to the salvas audit where they set out really clearly that each building in kctmo's property

01:59:51 that each building in kctmo's property needed its own fire safety file or they might have used a different word there's just a basic level of information any person responsible for pers

02:00:02 any person responsible for pers building needs you know for maintenance purpose risk assessment purposes all different purposes well we'll come back to the september 2009 service report later in your evidence

02:00:14 report later in your evidence can i then ask you some questions about frequency

02:00:17 frequency um

02:00:19 um we can proceed i think on the basis that article 9 3 of the rro requires that fire risk assessments should be reviewed regularly so as to keep it up to date yeah yes yeah and particularly if there's a reason to

02:00:30 particularly if there's a reason to suspect that it's no longer valid or there's been a significant change yes yes

02:00:35 yes um now can we can i just show you blr blarp250

02:00:41 blarp250 page 139 paragraph 8.2.23 of

02:00:45 of your report at chapter 8. and here it is that you address the tmo's arrangements for carrying out reviews of their fire risk assessments and new fire risk assessments

02:00:56 and new fire risk assessments uh as as set out in section 14-3 of their

02:00:59 their um their fire safety strategy of november 2013 and you quote from it there and if you um go over the page in this

02:01:10 and if you um go over the page in this report to page 140 you you set out

02:01:17 at the very top of the page still within paragraph 8.2.24 paragraph 14.3.4 which says the fra will usually set out the time scale within which the regular review

02:01:28 scale within which the regular review will be required generally for properties assessed by us as being potentially high risk this will be required on an annual basis we would aim to carry out a new fra on a three yearly basis

02:01:39 three yearly basis and if you look below that you say 8.2.25 in my opinion these arrangements if properly implemented would adequately enable compliance with article 9 of the rifsa

02:01:50 rifsa now mr todd says that it's commonly considered that the best practice is for fras for most buildings to be reviewed annually

02:01:59 annually just for our reference that's paragraph 3.25 of his main report do you agree with him

02:02:04 with him sorry i thought you were talking about the new under three yearly so we're on review now so i think the a new fra on a three yearly basis i'm

02:02:15 a new fra on a three yearly basis i'm aware that that was actually quite common practice though i've always thought it should be two and a review every year in in

02:02:25 in in in high-rise residential buildings i would agree is adequate yes yes now

02:02:33 yes now we know for a fact that the fras for grenfell tower were done irregularly at irregular intervals so september 2009 uh december 2010 november 2012 october

02:02:44 uh december 2010 november 2012 october 2014 and april and june 2016. yes would in your opinion would the fire risk assessment trade regard those frequencies as regular for a full fire risk assessment or

02:02:57 for a full fire risk assessment or so

02:02:58 so i think every two years for a full fire risk assessment is quite common doing a review in between is also common

02:03:11 and i see so you agree that if there had been spot checks annually if there'd been spot checks annually by the tmo to ensure that fra actions were being completed that would be is it right is it your opinion that that would be

02:03:22 it your opinion that that would be regarded as satisfying it it could if it could be if if ev everything is happening

02:03:31 happening if the actions are being closed out and things are being done thoroughly yes i wouldn't criticize that timing no on its own

02:03:39 own but it's the effectiveness of what's done each year and the effectiveness of the full risk assessment every two years yes but i wouldn't criticize a really

02:03:51 yes but i wouldn't criticize a really well done

02:03:52 well done system like that simply because of time no i see so you don't criticize the frequency within no for grenfell tower i don't

02:04:03 for grenfell tower i don't i haven't criticized the frequency of every two years no now can i ask you then to look uh at the same part of this report at page 425

02:04:16 the same part of this report at page 425 paragraph 17.8.1 still within chapter eight paragraph 17 17.8.1

02:04:26 you say and this is under the heading mr stokes is understanding of the preventive and protective measures in grenfell tower after handover you say finally kctmo as responsible

02:04:38 you say finally kctmo as responsible person had a critical activity once the primary refurbishment works were complete and that was to ensure a fire risk assessment for grenfell tower was carried out capturing the effect of the new works and formulating the resulting

02:04:49 new works and formulating the resulting general fire precautions by means of a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and then at 178.17.8.2 once practical completion occurred in july 2016 this was a moment

02:05:00 occurred in july 2016 this was a moment in time based on my own professional experience to carry out a thorough fire risk assessment taking into account all the new systems fixtures and fittings in grenfell tower and then over the top of the page to

02:05:12 and then over the top of the page to page four two seven we can go

02:05:15 we can go to that two pages on you say uh there at paragraph 17.8.8 yet the evidence shows that mr stokes only provided a summary update to his previous fire risk assessment documents

02:05:27 previous fire risk assessment documents in june 2016 only now just to be to be clear if we can is it your opinion that carl stokes should have been instructed to carry out a new fra

02:05:37 fra on grenfell tower after after practical completion in july 2016. yes and not earlier than 20th of june 2016 when he was in fact instructed

02:05:51 if the kctmo thought they had another reason for doing a risk assessment at that time i understand there may have been some other reason but in terms of the final condition of the building it

02:06:03 the final condition of the building it needed to also occur after practical completion can you explain why

02:06:09 because there was so much work done in grantful tower

02:06:14 tower to passive and active

02:06:18 active protection measures it wasn't possible to rely on old descriptions or theoretically old drawings but as we know there's no evidence that drawings were used anyway

02:06:30 evidence that drawings were used anyway so there was a need to understand the the

02:06:35 the the performance of all the new active and passive systems and record them and explain how they would be relied upon in the event of afar

02:06:50 i mean are you asking me in the sense of review versus full or just the timing

02:06:57 i'm asking you uh full

02:07:01 full yeah no absolutely because so many things have changed you know the smoke control system the you know there was all sorts of things had changed were different required consideration yeah

02:07:13 required consideration yeah and and when you say he only provided a summary update to his previous via risk assessment

02:07:21 which was april 2016. um why do you say that it was only a summary update because

02:07:28 because it didn't

02:07:29 it didn't explain

02:07:35 the resulting protective measures from the refurbishment works right and how you know what was meant to happen or not for with respect to the tower okay i see

02:07:48 for with respect to the tower okay i see and in your opinion should carl stokes have told janice ray that a new fra was needed after completion of the refurbishment yes i think he should have known that

02:07:59 yes i think he should have known that and raised us yes and equally

02:08:04 equally miss ray the responsible person should know that and it it's something that's actually quite commonly documented as well if one didn't know

02:08:15 didn't know thank you can i then turn to a different topic which is fra actions yeah and i just want to ask you first about the general recording of risk in action plans

02:08:25 plans um we can stick uh within chapter eight of your report where we are and go please back to page 184 and at page 184 paragraphs 9.1.14

02:08:37 and at page 184 paragraphs 9.1.14 and 15. you say this the most significant purpose of a fire risk assessment is to estimate the level of risk and provide clear guidance on any actions required or to reduce or maintain that level of risk as trivial

02:08:48 maintain that level of risk as trivial or tolerable mr stex did not explain or record the purpose of any action derived by him as a result of his risk assessment as being relevant to the control of a specific hazard by this i mean he did not record how any action or

02:08:59 mean he did not record how any action or a failure to complete any specific action would impact the risk level for the premises now a number of questions flow from that first shouldn't should the connection between each risk and each action be

02:09:11 between each risk and each action be explained one by one in the main body of a fire risk assessment yeah yes i think so yes yes can you just explain why it was important for a fire

02:09:22 why it was important for a fire successor to do that because it helps the responsible person understand which actions are a risk you know which actions are the most serious risk

02:09:35 which actions are the most serious risk to life or not and a timed program of work can be developed between them because a

02:09:47 because a specific identified risk may pose say say a very high level of harm to the relevant people

02:09:58 level of harm to the relevant people but may not be something that can be dealt with very honestly and practically in the short term okay

02:10:06 okay so that's why the risk levels of each one it's important to understand them and then the timing possible practically and honestly of

02:10:17 possible practically and honestly of each one they need to be separated and so

02:10:22 and so a sensible action plan exists on the record and a sensible risk level can be agreed for that moment and how it will change for the building

02:10:35 and how it will change for the building as you move through closing out your actions so i see it as quite dynamic does that is is that a reason why one

02:10:46 does that is is that a reason why one shouldn't

02:10:47 shouldn't uh

02:10:48 uh do a risk assessment generically or cumulatively generically i'm sorry i'm sorry i don't actually know what you mean by that but why would okay let me try it a different way

02:10:58 way would it be reasonable for a fire risk assessor to lump all the risks together and then produce a generic risk assessment or a cumulative risk assessment do you mean a you mean a final risk level

02:11:09 final risk level no because i i don't agree with that because the whole point of bringing risk assessments into the fire space in the first place was for the responsible person

02:11:20 was for the responsible person to have a more active part in controlling risk in the building it's an ongoing matter in a way it never ends and they have to have clear help

02:11:33 and they have to have clear help about you know what can happen in the short medium and in long term and what risk they continue to carry until those actions are closed out

02:11:44 until those actions are closed out because

02:11:45 because if a specific hazard can cause significant harm but you genuinely can't fix that like let's say it's going to take you three years to fix it

02:11:56 take you three years to fix it the responsible person has to understand that they are carrying that risk and that risk exists to the relevant people in their building

02:12:07 to the relevant people in their building and they have to make a decision if they're prepared to accept that risk level yes or they're going to do something else in the interim

02:12:18 something else in the interim so so i'm sorry that's very helpful thank you you've explained it uh very very fully i think now um

02:12:25 now um if we go on pleasing this report to page 206 and let's look together at paragraph 9.8.18.

02:12:35 you say there

02:12:38 there his failure that's mr stokes you say his failure to connect the actions required to a potential consequence for the relevant persons in his technical method and more importantly his failure to communicate

02:12:50 importantly his failure to communicate the connection to consequences in his documentation was a significant yeah yeah

02:12:55 yeah now

02:12:56 now just just again a clarificatory question from me are you are you saying that mr stokes should have spelt out to the tma the particular possible consequences of not taking each of the remedial actions

02:13:08 not taking each of the remedial actions that he was advising should be taken yeah because risk is is formulated from two parameters probability and consequence so by assigning a risk level to each

02:13:21 so by assigning a risk level to each hazard that's basically what what you're doing

02:13:25 doing i see so he he needed to explain that when you step right right back and think about grenfell tower the kctmo were in a position where it was tolerable every year and

02:13:37 where it was tolerable every year and sometimes 90 of their actions were high priority

02:13:42 priority okay

02:13:43 okay and i think you know i would like to be a bit clearer about that if if you're a responsible person and you have a building stock where everything is apparently high priority

02:13:56 everything is apparently high priority all the time you need to sit down and actually understand is

02:14:01 is what does that really mean how much risk am i carrying here and how much risk am i causing to my relevant persons okay

02:14:11 okay so that's why splitting the risk level for the different types of hazard ones one fine some of them are quite trivial some of them can be very serious

02:14:23 some of them can be very serious and then formulating action plans and measuring oneself on a sensible action plan is my understanding of what the order was

02:14:34 understanding of what the order was asking everybody to do i see

02:14:39 i see and the and from the tmos perspective is this is it right that it would gain

02:14:46 gain from a

02:14:47 from a a risk by risk approach rather than a cumulative approach um enough information to be able to understand the probability and the consequences exactly so that it could decide on in in an informed way whether

02:14:58 decide on in in an informed way whether to accept that right exactly and that's a really important part a really important outcome from a risk assessment yes i see okay can i then turn to the question of time scales for fra actions

02:15:11 question of time scales for fra actions and let's start with past 79 which is cta 703 please page 59 this is the commentary in past 79 to clause 19.2

02:15:22 in past 79 to clause 19.2 and if we look at the left-hand side of the page there there it is you can see roman 2 there and it says in formulating an action plan for premises

02:15:33 plan for premises in which the fire risk has been assessed as unacceptably high the analytical approach to fire risk assessment permits backtracking to determine whether in effect the problem arises from inadequate fire prevention i.e

02:15:45 inadequate fire prevention i.e inadequate means for control or elimination of fire hazards inadequate fire protection eg unsatisfactory means of escape or fire warning systems shortcomings in fire safety management or a combination

02:15:57 fire safety management or a combination yes yeah now um focusing on shortcomings in fire safety management yes how would you expect a reasonably competent fire risk assessor or rather a fire risk assessor aiming to

02:16:10 or rather a fire risk assessor aiming to produce a reasonably competent fire risk assessment to assess shortcomings in fire safety management

02:16:20 so first of all they have to understand the arrangements in place and then

02:16:27 and then in the position mr stokes was in where he had the benefit of inspecting so many premises he had the practical means to understand

02:16:39 he had the practical means to understand how those arrangements were being implemented in very many buildings including grenfell tower so i would expect a review of the arrangements as the responsible person

02:16:52 arrangements as the responsible person planned or understood them to be and then

02:16:56 and then you know one's observations in practice of what was really happening in the building and that you know you can work that out from

02:17:08 you can work that out from you know

02:17:09 you know say

02:17:10 say the repetitive repetitive repetitiveness of a defect or not

02:17:16 or not um and other there's other signs in a building that the arrangements are being consistently implemented or not i see um

02:17:29 and what kinds of shortcomings if you could just give us an example what kinds of shortcomings in fire safety management would you expect a fire risk assessor aiming to produce a

02:17:40 fire risk assessor aiming to produce a reasonably competent assessment to identify

02:17:44 identify what kind of shortcomings okay well so

02:17:48 so question i accept but can you give us an example i'll give you some examples so the

02:17:53 the the routine inspections of critical fire safety systems don't appear to be happening

02:17:59 happening or

02:18:00 or the quality of fire door

02:18:05 fire door say

02:18:08 say closing and closer seems to be deteriorating with time you know so either changes in the the protective measures relied upon or

02:18:19 the protective measures relied upon or or consistent failures to to inspect them something like that does the part thank you that's helpful does the paragraph that we're looking at uh tell us and we can read it and work

02:18:30 uh tell us and we can read it and work it out but does it tell us that a fire risk assessor uh should work back from the problem to the source of the problem and to work out whether one of the reasons for the problem

02:18:41 one of the reasons for the problem which leads to the unacceptably high risk is defects in the fire safety management system yeah and that's exactly why you you deal with each hazard in turn

02:18:52 you you deal with each hazard in turn because some of them may be a one-off and if the responsible person you just say look that just can never happen again

02:19:00 again or some of them will be caused by either an absence of something in the management system or the failure to do something properly so

02:19:11 so yeah so that's why splitting them out is so important and again it means then the responsible person can do a sensible action plan what what's the wrong in my organization

02:19:23 what's the wrong in my organization versus

02:19:25 versus what's the problem with the type of fire door i've installed

02:19:30 installed so it there it's yeah it's a very broad range of issues that cause risk levels to rise in a building and you're saying i think from your answer a minute minute or two ago that a fire

02:19:42 minute minute or two ago that a fire risk assessor in the position of carl stokes who had a view of very many buildings within his instructions could was in a better position to form a clear view about fire safety management

02:19:53 clear view about fire safety management yeah i mean he's in in my mind he was in a great position because what one of the most one of the really useful things when you're doing a risk assessment is actually getting to talk to people who have responsibilities

02:20:05 to people who have responsibilities day-to-day and by my experience also talking to residents and you get to hear about the reality of things as opposed to the nice policy written on the paper and

02:20:16 the nice policy written on the paper and mr stokes got to see all different types of properties got to meet all different types of people and he he could form a re he he

02:20:27 people and he he could form a re he he should have been able to form a really thorough view on how the organizational arrangements were genuinely being implemented in each

02:20:39 were genuinely being implemented in each property yes can we then stick with this page of past 79 and look at roman 3 on this page in the left hand column it says the action plan is an inventory of

02:20:51 says the action plan is an inventory of actions normally prioritized and time restrained to devise maintain or improve controls it when it says time restraint what did what do you take that to mean there

02:21:03 what do you take that to mean there so time resigned means there is a start and finish date and that's relevant to this issue of risk acceptance which i think is very important to bring a point

02:21:14 think is very important to bring a point to bring out yes so what would you say was the purpose of adding a time scale a time limit because that risk may only be suitable to carry for a very specific period of time

02:21:27 for a very specific period of time yes and

02:21:29 yes and and to ensure sorry also to ensure you know that you can't carry the risk longer that than that time frame and if i come back and find it again now we're entering into very different territory

02:21:42 entering into very different territory because it means your fire safety management system is not able to close out these issues when they're notified to you so that's the point of having these deadlines but the deadlines

02:21:56 having these deadlines but the deadlines being sensible as a function of the hazard yeah so the time the time the deadline it would be an indication would it have the gravity of the or the seriousness of the risk the seriousness of the risk

02:22:07 of the risk and the practicality of dealing with the risk because some risks are extraordinarily complex to deal with

02:22:15 deal with now on that note would a fire risk assessor normally take account of the expense

02:22:19 expense of the remedial action when recommending a deadline when recommending a deadline in my mind the deadlines i i work with the responsible person to

02:22:32 i work with the responsible person to derive deadlines for very complex issues

02:22:36 issues and complexity can be driven by cost constraints as one parameter driving right um complexity yes and what about complexity of the remedy yeah but that's what i mean

02:22:48 the remedy yeah but that's what i mean so the remedy may be very expensive and time consuming and so it has to be planned out as a function of budget availability etc right yep i see

02:23:01 budget availability etc right yep i see and that would produce a particular risk and then the question is this right that for the responsible person is whether that risk should be carried for that period or whether there should be some mitigation measure so then if you've agreed the earliest i can get this thing

02:23:13 agreed the earliest i can get this thing sorted out is three years but you've told me it's causing let's say

02:23:19 say medium to high it may cause medium to high harm to the people in my building it might be might be for that three year period you need to introduce another control into the building

02:23:32 control into the building until that particular action is closed out

02:23:36 out yes thank you and if you um look please at uh roman four a little bit lower down the screen if you can just scroll up um to see the rest of roman four on the same page in past 79 um item c

02:23:50 on the same page in past 79 um item c there

02:23:52 there and also

02:23:54 and also roman five on the right hand side of the page i'll show you in a moment it says um that the the frm stopped the most cost-effective solution the question has the most cost-effective

02:24:06 the question has the most cost-effective solution been chosen um

02:24:09 um and if you go to roman five on the right-hand side of the page it also makes the same point there in the

02:24:17 the second sentence the fire precautions proposed ought to be the most cost effective available um would that mean that an otherwise urgent remedial action should get a longer period for cure for

02:24:28 should get a longer period for cure for purely financial reasons sorry say that last year yes

02:24:34 does the reference there to looking for the most cost effective solution possible yeah mean that it would be reasonable for the responsible person or the fra

02:24:47 person or the fra um to allocate a longer period for remedy

02:24:50 remedy for financial reasons um on what is otherwise an urgent remedial action oh yeah i i'm not sure i agree with that you see what does cost-effective mean i mean you know

02:25:01 cost-effective mean i mean you know anyway sorry so cost-effective is more than how much cash i'm going to spend i mean in my mind in a risk assessment it has to be balanced with consequences

02:25:14 balanced with consequences okay

02:25:15 okay so the solute there will be different ways to solve a problem um

02:25:21 um you see we have to be careful about what problem we mean but i if if that's meant to read and i don't read it that way that you must always pick the cheapest solution i don't agree

02:25:32 solution i don't agree cost is of your cost effective has other parameters associated with it if if an action can cause extreme harm

02:25:45 can cause extreme harm and it's genuinely going to take a few years to resolve then other control measures will be required and they will have cost associated with them

02:25:57 have cost associated with them i see can we then look at mr stokes's time scale in his action plans for grenfell tower in december 2010 and 20 and november 2012.

02:26:07 2012. um

02:26:08 um first cst403165 page one this is his 29th of december 2010 action plan and if you look at page one there you can see that his time scales there are high two to three weeks

02:26:21 scales there are high two to three weeks medium one to two months low three to six months you see that yeah and then if we go to um the november 2012 action plan it's cst four zero three zero eight

02:26:32 plan it's cst four zero three zero eight three page one you can see there that they are now high one two to three weeks medium two to three months low um six to 12 months so the medium and low have

02:26:44 12 months so the medium and low have been extended out a bit and from one to two months to two to three months and from three to six months to six to 12 months those changes there in the medium and the high

02:26:55 the high sorry medium and low were those time scales recommended by any government guidance or or any version of past 79 that you know about yeah like i think the government some of the guidance

02:27:06 the government some of the guidance documents

02:27:07 documents suggest some some time frames yes but i think they're all very clear that it well my understanding of them is they're still quite clear

02:27:19 they're still quite clear that they're not you know everything can't fit into those time skills okay the perhaps we're excitedly across purposes

02:27:26 purposes mr stakes

02:27:27 mr stakes told us for our references this is that day 137

02:27:31 day 137 at page 34 and 36 that that that he got the 2010 time scales from the sleeping guide and the 2012 times girls from the lga guide yeah um we're not sure we can

02:27:42 lga guide yeah um we're not sure we can find those that's correct you help us with whether he's right about it no i don't know how we would find them right

02:27:49 so you don't know about that um our time scales or were time scales routinely

02:27:56 routinely something for the decision of the individual fire risk assessor on a case-by-case basis yeah like that that would be that would be my understanding i mean some risk assessors have a today band

02:28:09 have a today band so they say before we leave today this has to be resolved so i i think

02:28:17 i i think there are no rules on timing for the very good reason the hazards you know it depends what's happening in the building i see are you able to help us

02:28:28 able to help us uh on whether there is any government guidance at all or any other document which would have prompted a change in the time scales between 20 december 2010 and november 2012. i don't know i

02:28:40 2010 and november 2012. i don't know i haven't thought about that i'm really sorry i'll have to go and read i i'm not i i didn't think about the change and i didn't check if it came from somewhere right now i can't answer that question right um

02:28:51 can't answer that question right um colin todd mr todd was told us that he wasn't aware of any such yeah like i mean i i'm not aware day today i mean but i i'm not aware of a change in the

02:29:02 but i i'm not aware of a change in the rules for timing because there are no rules for timing right can i just ask do you have any comment on what

02:29:10 what might appear to be a rather mechanistic way of

02:29:13 way of setting these tight limits i mean i understood the force of what you said about

02:29:19 about making the responsible person aware of the risk that's being carried yeah and so on that would suggest that each risk ought to be considered individually yeah and a time

02:29:30 considered individually yeah and a time scale for its remedy being based on the nature and severity of that risk that's correct she's rather inconsistent with having a sort of

02:29:41 with having a sort of locks like this but is this the common way of doing it so so so i agree with you fully and and that's why we do them individually okay

02:29:51 okay um

02:29:53 um i i think

02:29:55 i i think there are there are examples of time limits to get actions closed out in other people's risk assessments yes but

02:30:06 but they

02:30:08 they there are time limits but i think i said earlier i mean over 90 percent of mr stokes

02:30:16 mr stokes actions on grenfell tower were high priority you know all the time and that's where this system falls down without thinking about the individual

02:30:29 without thinking about the individual risk items i mean one might have thought that

02:30:33 that there would be a process of consultation in that the virus assessor would say i've discovered this problem exactly i think it ought to be done fairly soon yes then have a discussion with the responsible person

02:30:45 discussion with the responsible person about the nature of the risk exactly either agree on the time limit or if the responsible person doesn't agree with the fire risk assessor he knows his ex exactly

02:30:56 ex exactly and yeah exactly and that's exactly what we do and you know i've had plenty of arguments with people about timing and that's when cost comes in and this is

02:31:07 that's when cost comes in and this is why this whole thing about risk acceptance is so important we might say we strongly advise you to get this thing done in two years the responsible person

02:31:18 done in two years the responsible person would say you just don't understand i cannot get it done in less than four years okay for whatever reason and you have to describe that and you

02:31:29 and you have to describe that and you say

02:31:30 say if you go past two years we strongly advise you to implement this control mechanism responsible persons will say no or sack you if you know if there's agreement can't

02:31:42 if you know if there's agreement can't be reached okay so it is a very interactive process it should be between the responsible person

02:31:51 person and the risk assessor and for the kctmo with the

02:31:56 with the at the grenfell tower and what it was part of

02:31:59 part of that was something that could have been enormously beneficial to them right thank you very much so i'm sorry i rather interrupted your flow mr millet but

02:32:09 but it may be that's a point at which we could interrupt it overnight uh we we could that gives rise to a number of questions which will take we'll take about five minutes to finish off the line but we've gone past the hour and i can happily do it in the

02:32:20 hour and i can happily do it in the morning and we're making good progress are we yes well you probably wouldn't mind stopping at this point all right well um

02:32:29 um we'll stop there for the afternoon we'll resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow please and we'll see you then thank you

02:32:44 right well thank you very much mr williams i'm sorry if i'd rather may not um truncated your question no you can come back to the fresh yes we're shy tomorrow thank you very much thank you 10 o'clock tomorrow please

02:32:55 thank you 10 o'clock tomorrow please thank you

↩ All hearings