FRA Expert Evidence - Wednesday 8th September 2021 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:27 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing

00:00:30 hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from dr barbara lane would you ask dr lane to come in please

00:00:50 [Music]

00:00:56 good morning dr lane morning it's it makes self-consciousness yes settle in yep

00:01:06 yes we're sorry when you're ready mr chairman thank you good morning good morning members of the panel dr lane good morning to you morning um yesterday we were talking about time scales

00:01:15 scales and levels of priority actions in light of risk yes can we go back to that topic yes and i'd like to show you next please cst 4031

00:01:28 this is carl stokes's october 2014 fra action plan and if you look at with me at the priority time scales here you now see high two to three weeks medium two to

00:01:40 high two to three weeks medium two to three months low six to twelve months and then in brackets after it it says to start to action any works now mr stokes's evidence was that the

00:01:52 now mr stokes's evidence was that the newly added qualification in the brackets that we can see there yes applied to all of the time scales listed and

00:01:58 and what he said that it meant and i'm paraphrasing his evidence that if possible the work should be completed within the time scale but if that wasn't possible for example for financial reasons then the work had to

00:02:10 financial reasons then the work had to be started within the time scale um but not necessarily finished and for our references that's day 130 at page 40 yeah to

00:02:18 yeah to page 41

00:02:20 page 41 at 9 13. now um my question for you is is that caveat qualification to start any action to start to action any works uh found in any government guidance or

00:02:33 uh found in any government guidance or the 2012 version of past 79 at the time to stars works in a time frame no not that i'm aware of no was it part of any training that you would have expected

00:02:44 training that you would have expected fire risk assessors to be prepared absolutely not and if it was in someone's training and i wasn't there i think it was the wrong thing to train a fire risk assessor to do right and was it

00:02:55 it something consistent with or approved by the competency criteria oh i don't no i don't think so at all no do you agree with this proposition that the

00:03:06 you agree with this proposition that the consequence of the caveat being applied to the time scales for the actions meant that

00:03:11 that actions even if high priority actions could be left to continue indefinitely once started no i think that's the the exact opposite intent of the order

00:03:23 of the order and carrying out a fire risk assessment in your experience was the application of a qualification like this to start any action works within six to twelve months a common practice not that

00:03:36 twelve months a common practice not that i've seen in in my you know in my own work and people i have their work i've reviewed right and outside arab as well sorry just should be clear so when i've reviewed other

00:03:48 be clear so when i've reviewed other people's work outside arab i don't consider that to be common practice right and i would advise that it was entirely incorrect if it was written in a risk assessment right and if it was as

00:04:00 a risk assessment right and if it was as we can see here written in a risk assessment do you in your opinion would that fall below the standards of a reasonably competent fire risk assessment yes it does yes thank you now carl stakes told us that it was for

00:04:11 now carl stakes told us that it was for janice ray to judge the completion date would you expect a reasonably competent fire risk assessor to leave that decision to the client the responsible person

00:04:20 person without advising them about the risks of not completing remedial actions within the recommended time scale no i wouldn't and we talked yesterday about this really important role the responsible

00:04:32 really important role the responsible person has working with the fire risk assessor about forming pragmatic time scales for very complex if there's a complex

00:04:43 very complex if there's a complex problem in the building and you say in your report and i think i can summarize it without going to it it's paragraph 9.12.23 and chapter 8 page 221

00:04:54 and chapter 8 page 221 blarp250 0 27 page 221. you say that mr stokes failed to describe in his assessment what the impact on the risk level would be should the kctmo fail to undertake these actions in the timeframe

00:05:05 undertake these actions in the timeframe specified

00:05:06 specified can you tell us what is in your opinion what is the significance of that omission

00:05:11 omission so

00:05:12 so um we

00:05:14 um we we touched on this yesterday so the response it means the responsible person doesn't know and they're meant to know having been given the risk assessment

00:05:25 having been given the risk assessment what risks to life exists in their building

00:05:29 building and remember that also there's another function there too about the vulnerability of people so the risk to life

00:05:37 to life is also a function of

00:05:41 of you know the occupancy profile in the building as well and the responsible person has to understand that when contemplating this caste problem we talked about

00:05:52 this caste problem we talked about yesterday and the practicalities of fixing something that might be complex many things are very easy to fix so that's

00:06:01 so that's not relevant yes thank you um can i look at a different action plan with you then yeah adair tower this one is dated uh 11th of november 2015. that's cst four zero is nine zero

00:06:13 2015. that's cst four zero is nine zero four six

00:06:14 four six and i'd like in that document to go with you to page five

00:06:20 and on page five you can see that at the top of the page it says

00:06:26 it says 12i

00:06:27 12i strong advice priority strong advice yeah and if you go across the page you can see under identified risk or hazard the flat entrance doors in this building have rising butt hinges on most of them

00:06:39 have rising butt hinges on most of them a good percentage of the flat entrance doors in this building to be changed for new doors item 12c above and then he's under the heading actions to be taken you can see he writes i

00:06:50 to be taken you can see he writes i would recommend that any flat entrance doors in this building that do not have self-closing devices fitted to them have self-closing devices fitted tmo action tmo accepts this recommendation and is committed to

00:07:01 recommendation and is committed to progressing the installation of self-closing devices as a matter of urgency

00:07:07 urgency now strong advice i just want to ask you about that am i right in thinking that that wasn't defined in the priority time scales either on page one of the his standard form action plan or in

00:07:19 the his standard form action plan or in past 79. that's correct yes are you aware of any published guidance supporting the use of that term no

00:07:27 no um

00:07:29 um are you familiar at all with its use outside the guidance

00:07:35 well people will people will use the phrase strong advice if they're communicating but in terms of i mean i think this shows just just several fundamental

00:07:47 just several fundamental technical errors in a risk assessment just this row so the risk the door closers and the door set pose is not explained to the

00:07:58 door set pose is not explained to the responsible person

00:08:01 strong advice has no meaning in the context of the risk to life and then the timing is it urgent you know is it strong advice that this is

00:08:12 know is it strong advice that this is completed in four weeks or it's my strong advice that this is such a risk to life if i you know the following needs to happen so

00:08:23 happen so the phrase strong advice is used but it doesn't communicate risk or timing no thank you absolutely and to your um the best of your experience of knowledge

00:08:35 of knowledge is

00:08:36 is the expression strong advice a known category of risk um prioritization no no it isn't if people use it i would ask why and even if you go back to the base

00:08:47 why and even if you go back to the base document

00:08:49 document i think it's triple h zero which past 79 is based on which is actually a very informative document you can read at another time they provide lots of really helpful

00:09:00 they provide lots of really helpful information on those grades and what it means and how costs can be factored in yes okay and just for our our note triple eight zero yeah is it

00:09:12 our note triple eight zero yeah is it british standard yes and it's referred to from the past and actually mr stokes refers to it himself in his own risk assessments now um can i just ask you to look at an email from the time this is

00:09:23 look at an email from the time this is 20th of november 2015 yeah um some nine days after the document that we're looking at and this is uh cst

00:09:34 3026445 and if i start at the bottom of page one in this document over to page two

00:09:39 two uh you can see it's an email from barbara matthews very bottom of page one there 20th of november to to carl stakes although you can't see that copy to janice ray and if you go over to page

00:09:51 to janice ray and if you go over to page two at the very top

00:09:54 barbara matthews says to carl stokes carl when we met yesterday when we met we agreed that high priority items are stated such as such due to the legal or regulatory requirement to undertake the

00:10:06 regulatory requirement to undertake the action as this is not the case with retrofitting self-closers i'm not sure why you would be stating it as a high priority we've agreed internally that we will arrange for a program of self fitting self-closers on existing doors

00:10:17 fitting self-closers on existing doors to be undertaken quickly however as we are unable to enforce this for leaseholders we would be unable to action them as currently described our program will concentrate on tenants doors and we'll strongly advise

00:10:29 doors and we'll strongly advise leaseholders to follow suit we do not want this to be in a position with the lfb that they can issue a deficiency notice for all doors as we would be unable to fully action this we would be giving the fitting of self-closers where we can a high

00:10:40 self-closers where we can a high priority and to note that all new doors fitted would have self-closures fitted anyway hopefully you can now at least downgrade this priority to a medium if not low

00:10:51 not low that's what she asks him to do and then his reply you can see is on page one if we scroll up to that please you can see uh that

00:11:01 uh uh after an interview an inter-read intermediary email uh his reply at the top of page one barbara correct please see attached to sent back to jan it's now called item

00:11:13 sent back to jan it's now called item 12i and that's what had strong advice in it yeah as opposed to a high priority now um mr stokes agreed in his evidence that that appeared to show that the tma had placed pressure on him to downgrade

00:11:24 had placed pressure on him to downgrade his advice from high to strong advice whatever that meant that's day 138 page 201 at lines 12 to 14. my question for you dr lane is

00:11:36 you dr lane is were carl stokes his actions in downgrading a priority action and one herself as important to self-closing devices on flat entrance doors something you would expect a reasonably competent fire risk assessor

00:11:48 reasonably competent fire risk assessor to do

00:11:49 to do no i wouldn't you wouldn't now um can i then turn to a slightly different topic which is review of fras can we go back to past 79 please cta

00:12:00 can we go back to past 79 please cta 703 page 62 clause 20.2 and i want to look with you at the left hand column

00:12:11 um and under recommendations which

00:12:17 20.1 deals with what the fire risk assessment should be subject to review when things happen and you've identified those yeah earlier in your evidence yes if we look at 20.2 uh it says uh when the fire risk

00:12:29 uh it says uh when the fire risk assessment is reviewed it should be confirmed where the work recommended in the original action plan has been carried out that's correct and if you look at the commentary uh on page 61 we go back a page

00:12:42 uh on page 61 we go back a page please to little roman five uh second paragraph under on the right hand column can you read that yes yes it says when the fire risk assessment is

00:12:53 says when the fire risk assessment is reviewed consideration needs to be to be given to the extent to which the original action plan has been implemented work that has not been completed needs to be identified now that last sentence there i just want to

00:13:04 that last sentence there i just want to ask you about it yeah on the basis of that guidance yes where some or all of the actions haven't been undertaken would you expect that fact to be expressly documented in the next fra for

00:13:17 expressly documented in the next fra for that building yes i would because it's a it's a sign that the fire risk management system is not being implemented if it's been recorded correctly

00:13:28 recorded correctly is not being implemented because the responsible person hasn't either bothered or been able to close out the actions and that affects the risk level in the building and would

00:13:40 the risk level in the building and would that include the fact that uh the item the fra action has gone past the due date in other words the deadline yes and that's why the due date

00:13:52 yes and that's why the due date being

00:13:53 being let's say fair and reasonable is so important yeah yes thank you now um if we look at the template to pass 79 annex e at page 112 of this same

00:14:06 annex e at page 112 of this same document please

00:14:09 we can see that

00:14:12 that the the template actually picks this point up i'm i'm saying that we could see it action on previous action plan towards the bottom of the screen have all previous recommendations been satisfactorily addressed yes no

00:14:25 satisfactorily addressed yes no brief details of recommendations not yet implemented now in your report

00:14:31 report you say and i'll show this to you blarp 2 5 0 27 page 59. this is chapter 8 uh and i want just to look at

00:14:42 uh and i want just to look at paragraph 5.5 5.5.10

00:14:45 there it is middle of the screen you've um

00:14:50 i set out this extract from past 79 and xe there under figure 5.3 and under it you say the input of actions to the previous action plan and to the new

00:15:01 previous action plan and to the new action plan is critical as in either case it is a record as to whether the implementation of the action plan would reduce fire risk to or maintain it at the following level trivial or tolerable yeah

00:15:12 trivial or tolerable yeah now um

00:15:14 now um this sounds like a a slightly silly question but in the light of what you said but could you just explain to to us what is the importance of including that information yeah in the fra action plan

00:15:26 information yeah in the fra action plan the action plan because you're trying to communicate to the responsible person first of all what the actions are why they're a risk to life why they need to

00:15:37 they're a risk to life why they need to be included in a certain time frame and the consequences of it can't consequences in the context of a risk to life if they're not closed out yes okay so it's to help the responsible

00:15:49 yes okay so it's to help the responsible on person understand i keep saying about risk acceptance they have to know the risk they're carrying in that building and causing the relevant people and would you expect

00:16:00 the relevant people and would you expect to see this box in this template you've set out here reproduced in mr stakes's fire risk assessments or in his action plans well not necessarily this box because lots of us you know communicate

00:16:11 because lots of us you know communicate that a diff in a different style right but the the purpose of it which is i've checked

00:16:18 checked eight of the ten actions were not closed out eight of them were a substantial risk to life so so that means now i need to in my next risk assessment i cannot

00:16:31 in my next risk assessment i cannot accept that this is a responsible person who has a fire safety a fire risk management system i can rely on for for controlling hazards in the building that's the that's a stark

00:16:45 building that's the that's a stark description if the actions are serious yes and in the light of that if a fire risk assessor had not either included this box or advice something something with the intention

00:16:56 something something with the intention yeah yes if they've not done that um

00:17:00 um and it failed to

00:17:02 to identify whether previous recommendations had been satisfactorily addressed or identified as those which had not how in your opinion could a fire risk assessor adequately assess the fire risk in the

00:17:15 adequately assess the fire risk in the building concerned they can't they can't and that's why the word review is used in the order and in my technical opinion politics yeah and would it follow from that that

00:17:26 yeah and would it follow from that that in your opinion any fire risk assessment which did not contain either the information as indicated in this box or equivalent not be suitable and sufficient

00:17:37 not be suitable and sufficient yes it is my opinion thank you yes i'm agreeing and does it follow from that that failure to put to to include that information would fall below the standards of a

00:17:50 would fall below the standards of a reasonably competent fire risk it should do yes yeah yes now um if we look at a document in october 2016 this is after

00:18:01 this is after uh the final fire risk assessment done by carl stokes for grenfell tower in june 2016. this is cst403137

00:18:12 cst 40313 this is a letter dated 19th of october 2016 in which mr stakes identified 23 actions that were outstanding from the previous fire risk assessment of 20th of

00:18:23 previous fire risk assessment of 20th of june 2016. now

00:18:26 now all of those were identified as high priority and therefore should have been completed on his own time scale yes within two to three weeks is that something that you would have expected mr stakes to have commented on

00:18:37 expected mr stakes to have commented on or advised on in this letter oh absolutely yes yeah and particularly how the outstanding fra actions fed into the risk rating for the building yes and it meant his risk assessment wasn't being

00:18:49 meant his risk assessment wasn't being dealt with as he required because he set that deadline it meant it wasn't being dealt with as he's required and i would like to know what that meant in terms of the risk to life yes and and would that

00:19:00 the risk to life yes and and would that have an impact then on the adequacy of the advice so far as it affects the tma's fire risk management systems yeah absolutely absolutely and the circumstances where a pharah's cassette becomes aware of a particular fire risk

00:19:12 becomes aware of a particular fire risk to premises outside the visit for the purposes of fire risk assessments because he's been told something on a separate visit yes for example he picks up information that people are removing self-closing devices yeah would you

00:19:24 self-closing devices yeah would you expect that person to check uh any of the specific risks that had been identified when doing the next fra yes because yes yeah yes

00:19:36 yes because yes yeah yes and would it follow from that that if those items are outstanding and impacted on by new information that would need to be recorded yes it would because if if if the high priority items were a risk

00:19:47 if the high priority items were a risk to life and i you said there that mr stokes said everybody knew high priority meant statutory breach that i haven't found that written down anywhere

00:19:58 found that written down anywhere but but if that was the case if if the high priority actions were statutory

00:20:04 statutory breaches and a significant risk to life which door closers and faulty doors can be

00:20:11 be and

00:20:12 and you know six months on or a few months on the responsible person is not controlling that risk your next risk assessment you you have

00:20:23 your next risk assessment you you have to now consider increased harm to all the different types of relevant person because the fire risk management system is not providing the controls a fire

00:20:35 is not providing the controls a fire risk assessor should be allowed to rely on

00:20:39 on okay yes thank you can i then turn to a different topic which is mr stakes is training qualifications and experience now um can we start with with um past 79

00:20:50 now um can we start with with um past 79 cta 703 page 24. and let's look together at the commentary on that page uh under clause 7.

00:20:58 7. particularly the roman numeral 5 bottom right hand part of your screen which says in general other than other than in the case of a simple low risk premises fire risk assessors

00:21:09 risk premises fire risk assessors particularly those offering their services on a commercial basis eg consultants need and there are there are then five

00:21:17 then five uh

00:21:18 uh items identified there i i don't need to read them to you um a to e um

00:21:25 um i'm going to assume you're familiar with those requirements yes yes now keeping those in mind and looking at mr stokes's training can we go to your report at chapter 8 blarp

00:21:39 we go to your report at chapter 8 blarp 2

00:21:40 2 5 0 27 page 88 chapter 8 paragraph 6.5.23

00:21:48 you say there top of the screen therefore there is evidence that by 2010 when tendering for kctma's medium risk program mr stokes had undertaken a range of fire safety

00:22:00 undertaken a range of fire safety relevant training courses is it your opinion that mr stokes had in general sufficient training as contemplated by past 79 as we've looked at just now

00:22:11 at just now bearing in mind that this edition was published in august 2012 to carry out fire risk assessments when he was appointed as tmo's sole fire risk assessor in september 2010

00:22:27 i think that he he i think

00:22:32 i think if i

00:22:33 if i was the reader of the list of the courses he had attended it would be reasonable for me to assume that he had sufficient training

00:22:44 that he had sufficient training i i sorry i'm probably i just it's really hard for me like i have you know or i'd have to review all the courses and understand what he learned so i think i'm probably taking it a bit

00:22:55 so i think i'm probably taking it a bit too far

00:22:56 too far but he he had attended courses relevant to the duties to his duties and those identified in past 79

00:23:07 and those identified in past 79 i

00:23:08 i mr millet i haven't done a big list of training courses and equated them over to those five bullet points and you know i'm a bit thorough that way so i haven't done that

00:23:18 done that um i haven't done a big cross check but i think his training courses were useful to him it's hard for me to give a view on that now because of all that i've learned

00:23:30 now because of all that i've learned about how he worked okay so it's hard for me to give a view without factoring that in um all right i mean impressionistically without having impressionistically i

00:23:41 without having impressionistically i think it was a good list right okay but i think that's a bit of a glib thing for me i understand yeah i understand now in respect of his experience to be a fire risk assessor we heard in his evidence that he that by the time he was

00:23:52 that he that by the time he was appointed uh to be the tmos fire risk assessor for the medium risk buildings in september 2010 the only fire risk assessment he'd carried out while at um oxfordshire um frs were for

00:24:05 while at um oxfordshire um frs were for fire stations that's day one three six page fifteen yeah 95 to 16. yeah um but apart from that he was in the role of auditing other people's fire risk assessments that's what he said yeah um

00:24:17 assessments that's what he said yeah um on the same page of the transcript um and he didn't audit or conduct a fire risk assessment of a high-rise block of flats yeah and he also told us that by the time he retired from oxford fire and rescue service he

00:24:29 from oxford fire and rescue service he had three years of fire safety experience as auditor and less than two years experience as a certified fire risk assessor day one three six yeah page twenty lines one to seven yeah now

00:24:40 page twenty lines one to seven yeah now i i've laid that out for you at some speed i can go back no no that's okay i understand the point yeah the question in light of that is given his evidence is it your opinion that carl stokes had sufficient experience to carry out fire

00:24:52 sufficient experience to carry out fire risk assessments of high-rise residential blocks no it's no i don't think he did

00:25:00 now can we go to your chapter 11 blarp 25040 page 16.

00:25:11 i'm sorry to interrupt i just wonder whether we ought to leave that answer just there i mean could you just explain to us what it is

00:25:22 could you just explain to us what it is yeah well what is required in relation to a fire risk assessment of a high-rise residential building that was outside the scope of mr stokes's experience as you understand it

00:25:33 stokes's experience as you understand it to have been yeah well actually i was asked specifically about high-rise or answered that question yes okay um so i i have views um about training

00:25:48 um so i i have views um about training i have professional views about training and experience so i think

00:25:55 i think we can go on all sorts of training courses and they're very informative but i don't think that solely places you in a position to carry out a suitable and sufficient

00:26:07 to carry out a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment and that's a professional opinion of mine because there's quite a deep understanding as we've seen in this you know this huge analysis of what's

00:26:19 know this huge analysis of what's happened at grenfell tower in understanding fire safety provisions and how buildings are constructed and on a training course to carry out a fire risk assessment in all good faith

00:26:32 fire risk assessment in all good faith you can't transfer all you know that extent of knowledge on a simple you know and it's good to do the training but you can't get that level of understanding of

00:26:43 can't get that level of understanding of buildings on a training course okay if you'd asked me if mr stokes or any person

00:26:50 person who had done some training and didn't have experience in either design

00:26:58 design hazard assessment or the operating side of a building hazard assessment and they're sent off to carry out a fire risk assessment of i you know i

00:27:10 a fire risk assessment of i you know i think grenfell tower was a complex building i don't think they're in a position to do that and i'm aware that others are of that view too okay but i don't want to denigrate training because i think it is very

00:27:21 training because i think it is very important

00:27:22 important but competence is knowledge skill experience and training that was a bit of a long answer but anyway that's just my opinion based on

00:27:33 anyway that's just my opinion based on all the things i've seen for a long time it suggests to me that in your view a person should not take sole or primary responsibility for

00:27:44 responsibility for the fire risk assessment of a high-rise residential building yes without having previously acted in an assistant or secondary capacity for an assessment of that kind

00:27:56 capacity for an assessment of that kind yes

00:27:57 yes yeah yes i do because certainly for me i have learned being on the job and you know seeing how other people

00:28:09 and you know seeing how other people risk assessed the same hazard and everything that comes from that and you need that breadth of experience to end up being sure that your judgment

00:28:21 to end up being sure that your judgment you know there's there there is whether people like it or not risk assessment is where a lot of judgment comes in because

00:28:30 because you know every building is different every operator is different you know there isn't always a consistency in in every building and to have sound

00:28:41 in in every building and to have sound judgment at the end of the day even if i use paths or i use the lga or i use everything i may make an error or exercise judgment

00:28:53 i may make an error or exercise judgment that will be found wanting in certain circumstances is that okay so but i know lots of people totally believe in training i think it's only one strand of becoming

00:29:04 i think it's only one strand of becoming competent

00:29:05 competent thank you yes thank you yes um can we look please at chapter 11 of your report which is blarp25040 page 16.

00:29:17 blarp25040 page 16. and the paragraph 6.1.21 we're on it foot of the screen you say that on that basis i do not consider

00:29:26 consider and the basis is the basis you've set out in the previous paragraphs i do not consider mr stakes to have demonstrated a higher level of knowledge regarding higher risk or more complex premises as past 79 would

00:29:38 premises as past 79 would require um what

00:29:41 what can you explain what higher level of knowledge you would have expected carl stakes to have when carrying out fras of of higher risk or more complex well i think i've kind of answered that

00:29:52 well i think i've kind of answered that question already now haven't i i don't well i think i have what well

00:29:58 well do you mean like another course or something is that what you're trying to ask well let me let me try this what would the fire risk assessor confronted with a building like grenfell tower generically higher risk or more complex

00:30:09 generically higher risk or more complex need to know that you wouldn't that he wouldn't need to know when assessing a lower risk building

00:30:16 or is it just a question of judgment and experience what does he need to know well okay so let's take the example that we spoke a lot about yesterday so in a high-rise residential building

00:30:29 so in a high-rise residential building this whole issue of internal walls and external walls look how complex it's become yeah okay but actually it was always complex and so

00:30:38 and so you you the risk assessor and actually i i didn't make something very clear yesterday

00:30:45 yesterday the the risk assessor needs to be able to understand the fire safety provisions and i don't think they're simple for high-rise residential buildings i think they're very interconnected and there's all sorts of different

00:30:57 and there's all sorts of different balancing

00:30:58 balancing they're entitled to be given information about those fire safety provisions they don't need to go off and work out all the problems on their own the first day but they need to understand high-rise

00:31:11 but they need to understand high-rise residential buildings and the complexity of the fire safety provisions made for them under the building regulations when they arrive to carry out their fire risk assessment and i personally

00:31:23 risk assessment and i personally don't think that simple right i see that you may have answered this question in that last answer but let me see if i can just tease it out in simple terms what

00:31:35 in simple terms what did mr stokes not have by way of a higher level of knowledge which if he had had it would have equipped him properly to assess grenfell tower

00:31:48 i don't know how to answer that question okay um

00:31:53 again it's really hard for me to think about mr stokes at that time because i've studied what he's what he did for such a long time here

00:32:04 what he did for such a long time here okay but if i take the paperwork made available to me about that time i i don't know how much experience he had

00:32:17 how much experience he had in

00:32:18 in looking at high-rise residential buildings or high-rise buildings and the myriad of fire safety provisions that are relied upon to make them safe

00:32:29 that are relied upon to make them safe i i don't i don't know i don't know that

00:32:34 so i think probably i can't help you with that question yes i mean you said in your in this part of your report that you don't consider mr stokes to have demonstrated a higher level of knowledge regarding higher risk or more complex

00:32:46 regarding higher risk or more complex premises

00:32:48 premises my question is really just what what is it that's missing it was in i think you need to read all the sentences which culminate yes to there yes

00:32:59 culminate yes to there yes oh let's see so so let's let's just re if you look at the italics it requires a higher level of knowledge and experience on the part of the fire risk

00:33:10 experience on the part of the fire risk assessor that's what it says up there yes okay and i think i've spoken at length about knowledge and experience and i i couldn't see that mr stokes had that knowledge and

00:33:22 that mr stokes had that knowledge and experience from the paperwork at that time right that's all i meant so you take knowledge and experience as a single composite idea rather than knowledge of

00:33:32 of and experience as a separate matter oh i think there are two different things right so when you deal with knowledge in paragraph 6.1.21 what knowledge

00:33:43 6.1.21 what knowledge we've covered experience which you've given us an opinion on what is it that you didn't know oh how am i meant to know that i never have never met the man i can't i can't say that i i think that the

00:33:54 the i the words i chose in that last sentence are to do with the italic text above and i've explained to you that beyond training

00:34:05 beyond training and

00:34:06 and knowledge so knowledge probably this is better knowledge comes from training from experience from observing the work of others

00:34:16 of others and from you know carrying out tasks you gain knowledge that way that's my understanding of knowledge okay now in respect of cpd continuing professional development

00:34:28 continuing professional development would you expect a fire risk assessor who will not certify um certificated or registered with a professional body to carry out continuing professional development if they're not certified yes safari's

00:34:40 they're not certified yes safari's cassette who was not certificated and it was not registered with a professional body nonetheless would you expect them to carry out continuing professionals i think any person

00:34:53 person giving safety advice it's absolutely imperative that they participate in cpd and other

00:35:04 that they participate in cpd and other activities that provides them with sufficient skill and knowledge to carry out their role whether they're registered or not because it's such an important role and

00:35:16 because it's such an important role and it impacts people so much yes

00:35:20 yes is that your knowledge uh a standard [Music]

00:35:25 [Music] um quantity of time number of hours that a an average competent fire risk assessor would undergo annually yeah we spoke about this before i mean in terms

00:35:36 spoke about this before i mean in terms of pub you know published hours you know pop if you want to refer to a document to try and find the number of hours the

00:35:45 the the ife for risk assessors and for fire safety engineers i think it's 25 hours a year the body i'm in at the moment actually it's a mandatory 35 and you're not even allowed to pay for

00:35:57 and you're not even allowed to pay for your membership unless you can prove you've done them so there's no one number right okay but it is about in my mind it's about demonstrating commitment

00:36:09 demonstrating commitment to benefiting from other people's knowledge

00:36:13 knowledge and making sure your skills are up to date and if as a matter if as a matter of fact and i stress the word if yeah carl stokes did not do 25 hours per year of cpd would

00:36:26 not do 25 hours per year of cpd would that

00:36:27 that failure uh be a departure from commonly accepted standards i mean in its own right you mean if it was 20 hours instead of 25 hours or nothing as opposed to let's try about 20 hours yeah not i i've

00:36:40 let's try about 20 hours yeah not i i've just like i said i think there's there's more to competence than fixed

00:36:46 fixed fixed learning such as cpd if any person had done 20 hours instead of 25 hours i wouldn't write a you know a big

00:36:54 a big essay on that i think if someone's not participating at all

00:37:00 at all in in any activity that allows them to you know assess their own skill and improve their own knowledge as a result of interacting with other people particularly in in safety professions

00:37:14 particularly in in safety professions i i think that that is not as a signal of competence now yes thank you um can i then ask you some questions dr lane next

00:37:26 ask you some questions dr lane next about

00:37:27 about audit and quality assurance and peer review we can look at your um report at chapter eight if we can blarp two five zero twenty seven um page eighty eight um which is within this um

00:37:40 um which is within this um report blarp two five zero is twenty seven

00:37:47 uh and we need to look at page eighty eight paragraph 6.5 0.26

00:37:53 0.26 and 27. now at 6.5.26 you say i note also that section 3.2 of the consultants brief page 4 of cst 705 also required that's a july 2010

00:38:06 705 also required that's a july 2010 document you'll remember that the consultants to be able to satisfy the provisions of a quality management system has set out in bseniso 9001

00:38:17 9001 and then at term paragraph 6.5.27 you say i've seen no evidence that mr stokes could satisfy that aspect of the brief yeah

00:38:27 yeah and

00:38:29 and that's what you say there and his evidence on day 136 at page 86 lines 11 to 21 is that that question never came up for discussion as between him

00:38:40 came up for discussion as between him and the tma in your

00:38:44 in your examination of the material have you seen any evidence that

00:38:49 that um

00:38:51 um his

00:38:52 his work was peer reviewed no i oh peer reviewed by his by on his request yes well it was reviewed later on

00:39:03 later on have you seen any evidence that was reviewed by do you mean do you mean the day-to-day peer review yes work sorry no i haven't seen any evidence of that except there's there's two times

00:39:14 there's two times when he worked at salvas yes but when he was offering his services now no i i haven't seen any evidence where anyone ever reviewed his work before it was given to the tmo

00:39:25 work before it was given to the tmo right uh have you seen any evidence that it was audited either by the tma or anybody else his work

00:39:32 his work well there as a matter of course by the tmo no

00:39:38 no but i did give that one incident i found of some of his risk assessments being sent off

00:39:45 sent off but i wasn't able to establish why that happened but as a matter of course as part of quality

00:39:54 quality processes at the tmo for example his work was not i could not see his work was checked would it be normal practice in your experience for a fire risk assessor to

00:40:05 experience for a fire risk assessor to have no quality management system and no system for audit or peer review of their work did you say is a common practice would it be normal practice common practice so let's

00:40:16 normal practice common practice so let's talk about acceptable practice it isn't right have i am i aware of other people who operate the same way as mr stokes yes i am right so it might be it might be common but it

00:40:28 so it might be it might be common but it would not be acceptable i i just you know i i come and i'm happy to do a survey of the whole industry and come back and give you proper expert advice on that but anecdotally there are people

00:40:41 on that but anecdotally there are people who operate on that basis and there are lots of people who do not

00:40:46 does that mean that um a person who wishes to

00:40:54 set up a business as a fire risk assessor on his own as what's the case with mr stokes can never satisfy a requirement for peer review no you can you can make an arrangement

00:41:05 no you can you can make an arrangement can't you i don't know oh well i mean that's what i do if i you know if after the inquiry i leave arab or something and i decide to operate on my own i i i was a sole trader as far as i'm

00:41:18 i i i was a sole trader as far as i'm concerned i would still have to be able to demonstrate to the responsible person their satisfaction satisfactory checks of my work and that would mean i would need to pay

00:41:29 need to pay you know a competent fire risk assessor maybe i might make arrangements once a year or something i don't think that's a difficult thing to do and then you can satisfy your own professional integrity

00:41:42 satisfy your own professional integrity and also

00:41:43 and also start to comply with you know in a lot of those bids there's some quite harsh rules about management so i think that's an easy thing to resolve and in your experience is that what some sole traders do

00:41:55 is that what some sole traders do or do you just not know i

00:41:58 i am

00:41:59 am i

00:42:00 i i think it would be

00:42:04 i i hate kind of saying everyone and all and no well it may not be within your mind i i'm aware of very small companies

00:42:15 very small companies who for example might ask somebody like me to do a check occasionally is that a massive part of my work and does everybody do it i don't think so

00:42:26 does everybody do it i don't think so okay thank you very much but acceptable practice and common practice it's there are two really important differences for in this inquiry yes indeed my professional opinion yes

00:42:37 yes indeed my professional opinion yes thank you yes

00:42:41 sorry is that okay yeah thank you yes helpful

00:42:44 helpful yes

00:42:45 yes now

00:42:47 if we go back on in this same document please to page 145

00:42:53 page 145 you say

00:42:55 you say uh

00:42:56 uh at paragraphs eight point four point four

00:43:00 four i'm sorry eight point four point five and eight point four point six of chapter eight you say this normal kc tmo monitoring the technical quality of what mr stokes was providing by way of his

00:43:11 mr stokes was providing by way of his by means of his fire risk assessment documents

00:43:14 documents and then at 8.4.6 for the scale of properties assigned to mr stokes a sole provider of fire risk assessments for kc tma's portfolio this was a significant decision

00:43:26 decision you use the word decision there can you help us

00:43:29 help us what decision are you referring to oh um so so if you're responsible for a large portfolio of buildings and you make the decision to invest all fire risk

00:43:42 decision to invest all fire risk assessment activity in one person i think that's a really big decision to make

00:43:50 make because any one person every person makes mistakes and every person needs their work checked

00:44:00 checked and um

00:44:03 and um even for example say if if arab was carrying out fire risk assessments for a portfolio of buildings it is it is

00:44:16 it is it is beneficial to the responsible person that they would get someone in after a few years just to make sure that we weren't

00:44:23 weren't you know

00:44:24 you know sink

00:44:25 sink getting lazy i mean i don't know if that's appropriate so having a large portfolio of buildings comes with it a body of risk

00:44:36 a body of risk and the decision you make about how that risk shall be assessed in every building over a large number of years i think it's a really important decision

00:44:47 it's a really important decision um

00:44:49 um and the decision is designed to stand is this right is the decision by the tmo to retain mr stokes without him having such a system as opposed to mr stokes

00:45:00 such a system as opposed to mr stokes deciding not to adopt one oh yes sorry i'm talking about the kct mode they decided to go with the sole trader

00:45:08 trader and if you've told me what mr stokes said

00:45:11 said um

00:45:13 um they did not think it was important or that's probably the wrong word they didn't think it was relevant to their decision

00:45:21 decision that there was no quality assurance processes in his business but i'm much more critical of the lack of checking by the kctmo

00:45:33 of the lack of checking by the kctmo of the assumptions and descriptions and mr stokes report which was very much for the kctmo

00:45:42 the kctmo to make accurate yes thank you now can i turn to a completely different topic evacuation strategy uh and particularly that for grenfell tower itself

00:45:53 tower itself can we start with the rro uh just because it's important i think to have the words on the screen so people can see what we're talking about yeah this is at inq

00:46:04 yeah this is at inq 3011327 page 10. and what i'm going to show you is article 14 emergency roots and exits and under

00:46:15 emergency roots and exits and under sub-article 2 it says the following requirements must be complied with in respect of premises where necessary whether due to the features of the

00:46:26 whether due to the features of the premises the activity carried on there any hazard present or any other relevant circumstances in order to safeguard the safety of relevant persons

00:46:38 relevant persons and then a emergency roots and exits must lead as directly as possible to a place of safety be and critically be in the event of danger it must be possible for persons to evacuate the premises as

00:46:50 for persons to evacuate the premises as quickly and as safely as possible now um

00:46:56 now um just taking this a little slowly first

00:47:00 first in your opinion was it the understanding in the fire risk assessment trade that in the event of danger using the word there the responsible person was required to

00:47:12 the responsible person was required to ensure that persons relevant persons could evacuate the premises as quickly and safely as possible without the assistance of the fire and rescue service

00:47:25 service without the resistance

00:47:30 i think you were asking sorry that was a very long question so you're asking me if fire risk assessors commonly understood that evacuation would be available without assistance from the fire and

00:47:42 without assistance from the fire and rescue services my understanding it so my my understanding is is that i cannot rely on the fire and rescue service when i'm preparing an evacu evacuation

00:47:55 i'm preparing an evacu evacuation and i

00:47:57 and i i don't think that other people thought they could rely on the fire and rescue services for evacuation particularly after the order came out

00:48:08 and was it the understanding that the obligation in

00:48:12 in 14 2b there applied regardless of whether the responsible person had a state put strategy for those premises well i think you've heard plenty of evidence here

00:48:24 you've heard plenty of evidence here that there's this common understanding that stay put means no one leaves a building in the event of a fire and i think i've been very very clear that that is completely wrong [Music]

00:48:36 [Music] so

00:48:38 so was it the view that even where a staple strategy was in place any resident of that building affected by fire and or smoke and therefore exposed to danger using the word in the

00:48:49 exposed to danger using the word in the article yeah should also be able to evacuate the premises as quickly and safely as possible

00:48:57 most people cite

00:49:00 cite exiting the building by means of the staircase

00:49:06 so yes you when you read other people's risk assessments on my own

00:49:12 own it will say um arrangements have been made to evacuate the building by by means please use the staircase by means of the staircase walk down the staircase

00:49:23 staircase walk down the staircase but leaving the stackers on one side and being more general my question was a general one even where you've got to state put strategy in place was it the was it the view in the trade that any

00:49:34 was it the view in the trade that any resident of the building who was affected by fire and smoke should be able to evacuate the premises as quickly and safely as possible no i can't leave the staircase behind because what what people commonly write for

00:49:45 what what people commonly write for high-rise residential buildings with the stay put strategy is persons affected by the fire can use the stairs to evacuate if you're asking me if it was commonly

00:49:58 if you're asking me if it was commonly understood that large numbers of people would evacuate down the staircase no it wasn't i think i'm not quite sure what your question really means or what

00:50:09 what your question really means or what it implies but where you've got somebody's got a fire in there flat yes and has to leave their flat yes was it understood in the industry that those persons should be able to

00:50:21 that those persons should be able to evacuate the premises as quickly and safely as possible in the fire risk assessments i've read it it always says people can walk down the staircase in the event of a fire in their flat so is

00:50:32 the event of a fire in their flat so is the answer to the question yes but i don't i think your question's more general than that all right um where you've got somebody who has to leave their flat because they've got a fire in there

00:50:44 fire in there was it the understanding of the of article for 14 2b that their safe evacuation from the building should not depend on the intervention of the fire and rescue service

00:50:56 service yes yes

00:50:59 yes yes uh

00:51:00 uh were you are you aware of and we touched on this to some extent yesterday but are you aware of a view in the fire risk assessment trade at least before

00:51:12 risk assessment trade at least before june 2017 if people in a high-rise block are in their flats in their private dwellings they are not on the premises and therefore are outside the protection

00:51:23 and therefore are outside the protection of article 14 altogether i i'm i'm not aware of that for you right

00:51:30 i've read i i i've never had it i've never seen it stated so factually referring to the order i have seen

00:51:42 i have seen people say um

00:51:49 that evacuation you know

00:51:55 that be um i don't know how to phrase this

00:51:59 this i've never seen anyone write down that in accordance with article 14 no arrangements need to be made was it your understanding is it your understanding that looking at

00:52:10 is it your understanding that looking at article 14 2b that

00:52:13 that in the event of danger it must be possible for persons to evacuate the premises as quickly and safely as possible whether or not they're in their flats at the time of the danger so so whether or not they're in their flats at

00:52:24 whether or not they're in their flats at the time of danger do you mean if they're standing out in the lobby no if they're in their living rooms for example

00:52:30 example within their flats

00:52:34 if they're in there okay so my my understanding of when a fire occurs in a flat those people have to be able to evacuate and as all the

00:52:45 to be able to evacuate and as all the all the guidance documents say anyone in the immediate vicinity who feels exposed to harm should also be able to evacuate and then anything more extreme than that

00:52:58 and then anything more extreme than that will be triggered by what there will be an intervention that's always been my understanding and that's only my understanding from reading published guidance documents yes

00:53:09 reading published guidance documents yes i understand um

00:53:14 i i i've never heard that

00:53:21 if people stay in the flat and don't come out it's got nothing to do with the responsible person before no if that's what you're asking thank you sorry okay i kind of find it hard to

00:53:33 sorry okay i kind of find it hard to it's a bit subtle sometimes uh uh i hope you got sort of subtlety introduced by me okay sorry yeah so i've never heard that before that you if you stay in the flat

00:53:45 before that you if you stay in the flat it's got nothing to do with the responsible person my reading of the guidance

00:53:50 guidance and my understanding as a fire safety professional of the order is that it's everything to do with the responsible person right

00:54:01 thank you now um i think i can move then to a slightly different question d d d was he

00:54:07 was he was it

00:54:08 was it your opinion

00:54:12 an an opinion put into practice by you yeah

00:54:15 yeah that article 14 and indeed the rro taken as a whole yeah doesn't at least

00:54:21 at least no one reads it distinguished between able-bodied and vulnerable persons so far as their treatment as relevant persons no it doesn't and that

00:54:32 relevant persons no it doesn't and that that just to be absolutely clear that's always been my view in my career not just since the fire at grenfell was it to your knowledge

00:54:44 was it to your knowledge the understanding in the fire risk assessment trade that it

00:54:49 that it even though it didn't draw that distinction implicitly a distinction should be drawn by

00:54:55 by those assessing building risks now distinctions should be drawn are very very strong words my

00:55:03 my my experience of how

00:55:07 of how that's why i was i kept mentioning what you know use the staircase that is always cited in risk assessments if you read them

00:55:17 read them my my understanding is is

00:55:22 is it's

00:55:23 it's omitted fully or left with the responsible person to resolve if they become aware of persons with vulnerabilities

00:55:34 with vulnerabilities i am happy to say based on my experience for a very long time

00:55:40 time that providing protection or

00:55:44 or evacuation to i think did you use what was the phrase you used

00:55:52 you said able-bodied and vulnerable and vulnerable to vulnerable persons is not something that is consistently dealt with or well received

00:56:04 received in certainly in my work

00:56:10 but i don't i don't think it's implicit i don't think you said something like it's implicit in the order or the reading i think you said implicit in the reading of the order i don't agree with that right but

00:56:21 order i don't agree with that right but i do think that it's something that is not dealt with very well at all consistently in the profession do i take it from that answer

00:56:32 do i take it from that answer which was delicately put that the profession tends in some quarters to regard vulnerable persons as apt to receive different treatment when

00:56:43 apt to receive different treatment when it comes to article 14 to be from able-bodied persons it's not for me to say that well i you you your last answer indicated that that might be your your experience and opinion i think that so

00:56:56 experience and opinion i think that so if if we

00:56:57 if if we if you take it back to risk

00:57:04 if the only

00:57:05 the only when the only way out of a high-rise residential building is down the stairs any percentage of the population that cannot do that is automatically exposed to more harm

00:57:19 is automatically exposed to more harm in the same building and so the risk level calculated for that percentage of the population is technically different it's higher

00:57:31 is technically different it's higher than the risk level calculated for the able-bodied population and where that's omitted or a solution can't be found

00:57:42 or a solution can't be found that causes yes a difference in risk level doesn't it in terms of

00:57:49 terms of where you sit in the occupancy profile and when you say in your answer a moment ago that in your experience for a very long

00:58:00 that in your experience for a very long time providing protection or evacuation to vulnerable persons yes was not something consistently dealt with or well received yes i've had yes can you explain what you mean i've had

00:58:12 can you explain what you mean i've had um i have i have had lots of professional experience where it's been very difficult for me um

00:58:21 um to reach an agreement

00:58:25 that the risk level is different and that may be an additional control or an additional protection as required that's my own professional experience but other people have to give their

00:58:36 but other people have to give their experiences too thank you very much that's very helpful and very clear now can i then

00:58:45 show you uh article 14 2 again and just look at some words there i've read them before it says the following requirements must be complied within respect of premises where necessary

00:58:57 necessary you see the words where necessary was it the understanding of the fire risk assessment trade the evacuation planning for residents was net was not necessary

00:59:08 necessary using the word there where there was a staple strategy

00:59:16 again i've never heard it described in such a clear way of the article okay because that would have been helpful

00:59:22 helpful yeah mr miller your question yeah rather assumed that there was a general view within what you've called the fire risk assessment trade i'm not sure that dr lane

00:59:35 i'm not sure that dr lane uh has said that she was aware of any general view one way or the other yeah you may be able to say that so you're being very very specific with

00:59:47 so you're being very very specific with me about words in article 14. i can safely say i've rarely heard an argument pieced together on the basis of of a clear reading of

00:59:58 on the basis of of a clear reading of article 14 because that would be quite thorough

01:00:02 thorough okay no no no very important it's very important

01:00:07 because the decision not to provide an evacuation means from a high-rise residential building when the fire

01:00:18 building when the fire because we're not talking about the extreme event that ended up occurring at grenfell at the moment when there's a fire in a flat it it

01:00:28 it it typically if in unsprinklered buildings it will stay in the flat it might spread to the flat next door so it's relatively localized

01:00:37 localized all those people have to be able to evacuate the building that's just in the you know this normal scenario

01:00:45 scenario when a responsible person takes the decision that anyone who can't get down the stairs somehow walking shuffling there's all sorts of in extreme measures

01:00:58 extreme measures things beyond walking are deemed acceptable any person who makes that decision knowingly

01:01:04 knowingly is leaving people in those the flack the the reasonable scenario flat fires without a means of escape actually i can't even remember what the

01:01:16 actually i can't even remember what the question was now sorry i feel i've gone off point completely no that is that is i think the answer to my next question it follows from i think what you said before so any risk assessor that doesn't make that clear is far that

01:01:29 that doesn't make that clear is far that that clear because sometimes it could be a very difficult problem to resolve i'm very very aware of that but any risk assessor that does not make that clear is not carrying out a

01:01:41 that clear is not carrying out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment because they've not expressed the different risk level to any person who can't evacuate in those let's call

01:01:52 who can't evacuate in those let's call them normal circumstances which requires walking down the staircase

01:01:59 yes yes thank you

01:02:05 so two things follow from that the first is is it an acceptable evacuation strategy simply to say stay put is stay put an

01:02:16 simply to say stay put is stay put an evacuation strategy stay put has been an evacuation strategy in this country since the 1970s it means people leave the building immediately in the event of a fire

01:02:29 immediately in the event of a fire in the fire zone and that the building is safe enough that the fire won't spread and that it will remain safe to stay in your flat

01:02:41 to stay in your flat that's what stay put means and does the responsible person need to make sure that the general fire precautions encompass everyone in the building regardless of whether they are or not

01:02:53 regardless of whether they are or not staying put that's my understanding that's my understanding others will have to come here about the order but that's as a practitioner that is my understanding of what's required and is

01:03:04 understanding of what's required and is that understanding the same regardless of any differences in that that person's abilities physical or mental abilities uh as far as they may affect their escape

01:03:15 escape it's relevant persons there's no you know there's no category of relevant person as a function of mobility now can i then ask you to look at article 15

01:03:26 article 15 just below this on the page we'll need to scroll down to it it's headed procedures for serious and imminent danger and danger areas yeah and it reads uh 15 1 the responsible person

01:03:37 reads uh 15 1 the responsible person must establish and where necessary give effect to appropriate procedures including safety drills to be followed in the event of serious and imminent danger to relevant persons and then b nominate a sufficient number

01:03:48 and then b nominate a sufficient number of competent persons to implement those procedures insofar as they relate to the evacuation of relevant persons from the premises and over the page at sea ensure that no relevant person has

01:03:59 ensure that no relevant person has access to any area to which it is necessary to restrict access on grounds of safety unless the person concerned has has received adequate safety instruction yes now according to that provision and

01:04:10 provision and this is my summary of it so it's could we go back so i can see a and b yes of course please go to the bottom on page 10.

01:04:17 10. yeah

01:04:18 yeah just look at that

01:04:24 but let me rather than interpolating that for for you is it your opinion uh uh and it was at your practice uh that that applied to everyone in the building regardless of their vulnerabilities or not yeah so

01:04:36 their vulnerabilities or not yeah so it's my understanding of the order and most of the guidance published about it that

01:04:44 that i have a duty to you know the responsible person has a duty to deal with that but i know it is not it is the one thing i

01:04:55 i know it is not it is the one thing i know that is not common practice to do it because you asked me about practice as well there yes so i think i i think it's a requirement and acceptable practice is to do it

01:05:09 and acceptable practice is to do it but i am aware of you know very many circumstances i have found myself in where it is not done but if it's not done was it your would you advise your clients that if they didn't do it

01:05:22 clients that if they didn't do it i i think i i think i have to explain

01:05:26 explain it it's as i said because the more vulnerable you are and if that vulnerability is is relevant to a building where the only way out is

01:05:37 to a building where the only way out is the staircase and one cannot use the staircase the responsible person has to understand the risk level is much higher to a particular portion of the relevant

01:05:49 to a particular portion of the relevant persons was it uh you we overspoke each other i'm afraid no that though it was both of us but do i understand it that if your client said

01:05:59 would you would well let me ask you this way would you advise a client that if they didn't treat all persons the same for the purposes of establishing these procedures and that they would be in

01:06:10 procedures and that they would be in breach of the regulation i have yes yes but it's not a very popular opinion no i'm sure it's not yeah this must be a question of construction of the order isn't it yes well i mean you can ask the witness about whether

01:06:22 witness about whether whether she's aware of any generally

01:06:25 generally accepted view within the industry but

01:06:30 but what the meaning of the order is surely is

01:06:33 is a matter of law yeah the meaning of the order is a matter of law the use of the order and the expert's understanding of it in her practice is a matter for her if you're going to ask her about a general

01:06:45 going to ask her about a general understanding within the traders who put it of the fire risk assessor she may or may not be able to tell us whether she's aware of any general

01:06:56 whether she's aware of any general understanding one way or another yeah well what i was asking him was the chairman

01:07:01 chairman what was her advice my question was would you advise a client well that's just telling us what she would do yes but that's relevant because the expert well she's an expert

01:07:12 because the expert well she's an expert she's been called as an expert in this field and what the expert customer really does custom really takes from the government all i'm seeking to is identify is that we're not at the

01:07:24 is identify is that we're not at the moment exploring any uh aspect of the general understanding okay so that's fine fire risk assessment no but she she's i don't need to because she told us that it's not popular that

01:07:35 she told us that it's not popular that was my next question was was it generally understood and i think the answer is no it was not accepted was it sorry saying what was your last question sorry what did you say was it uh your was it the general understanding

01:07:47 uh your was it the general understanding in in the fire risk assessment industry let me try it this way yeah the exp the advice that you would give uh about compliance to your club to your

01:07:58 uh about compliance to your club to your clients yeah when i'm paid to do so let's to put it that way so when i paid to give advice to clients yes which i am a lot yes yes is the advice that you customarily give about not distinguishing between vulnerable people

01:08:10 distinguishing between vulnerable people absolutely absolutely and and and

01:08:13 and i'm not unique in that regard okay i'm not unique in that regard i i've been saying since yesterday i can't do the big everyone does because i think it's wrong but i i am aware because of

01:08:26 wrong but i i am aware because of certain circumstances where i have been paid to advise responsible people that it can be difficult

01:08:36 to deal with this matter about having different levels of mobility or capability particularly to use a staircase so

01:08:47 particularly to use a staircase so high-rise residential building is quite unique in that regard other buildings

01:08:53 buildings have different ways to evacuate that's what makes a high-rise residential building so different it

01:09:00 it they typically have one staircase and if you can't walk down a staircase you're left with not very much else to protect you

01:09:13 protect you can we look at your uh report blarp25034 at page 16.

01:09:24 and i'd like to look at paragraph 2.3.11 at page 16 chapter 6 and you say at 2.3.11

01:09:34 2.3.11 this at the foot of the screen in the context of a residential building with a staple strategy the relevant persons considered for each scenario would as a minimum be a occupants of the flat of fire origin who make their escape and b

01:09:46 fire origin who make their escape and b occupants in any adjacent flats who initially remain in place unless their flat becomes affected from heat and or smoke

01:09:53 smoke and

01:09:54 and three if we get or see if we go over the page

01:09:58 page all other occupants in the building should a simultaneous evacuation strategy become necessary two questions first is europe is it your opinion that the responsible person must ensure that the relevant person can

01:10:09 ensure that the relevant person can evacuate for each of those three scenarios

01:10:16 i i i think they should be able to yes is it also your opinion that the responsible person must also establish appropriate procedures for each one of these three scenarios no

01:10:28 these three scenarios no not

01:10:29 not no because the the guidance is is very clear that that a and b are

01:10:37 are um i'm going to i'm going to use the word reasonable i don't think it's put in that terms but if something unusual happens it it may be called it may be called by the fire and rescue

01:10:49 it may be called by the fire and rescue services

01:10:51 services that a more substantial evacuation shall occur

01:10:55 occur so

01:10:56 so the the so-called simultaneous evacuation when it's described in in in any of the guidance documents that tends to be in circumstances where an intervention is required

01:11:08 an intervention is required so i wouldn't expect someone to necessarily plan for that right i can understand a and b because a and b are in essence part of the standard stay put strategy i think

01:11:21 the standard stay put strategy i think a b and c are part of the stateful strategy well looking at c why would it not be uh

01:11:28 not be uh reasonable uh well let me try it a different way where all other occupants in the building

01:11:34 building uh need to uh be considered where a simultaneous evacuation becomes necessary

01:11:44 what would you expect okay a a building owner yeah to put in place in that eventuality so we went through this in in huge detail in phase one that the whole issue

01:11:55 whole issue with triggering the total evacuation of a high-rise residential building in england before

01:12:03 before the ground for fire is there there's no means to do that unless the fire brigade do that and we've been through i don't think we need to go back to there's all

01:12:14 think we need to go back to there's all sorts of complexity there about building systems not being provided to enable that right so okay so i can't i i can't say you know i've never said to a client

01:12:27 you know i've never said to a client i you know therefore you need to plan for that anyway i've never done that so

01:12:34 so nonetheless th those persons falling in category c yeah namely anybody in the building yes um is not somebody is this your opinion is not somebody who is a relevant person for the

01:12:46 who is a relevant person for the purposes of articles 14 and 15 or are they are they relevant person

01:12:54 for the purposes of those articles i'm really not sure well if you can answer the question well i'm just going to say i mean i don't again i feel i'm being quite glib when do you switch from being a relevant person to not a relevant person in the

01:13:05 person to not a relevant person in the middle of a fire well so the reason i'm asking you that question is because you've said here the relevant person's would as a minimum be yeah

01:13:14 yeah and i'm interested in go

01:13:26 yeah so i i probably this is because i'm not not a lawyer you know i'm struggling a bit now but

01:13:35 but the you're i think in my mind i've never thought about this before but in my mind in a fire you're always a relevant person i don't think that ends at some point

01:13:44 point i've been very very clear in phase one that once you get to see provisions are not made in any building to enable c it has to be done by the

01:13:57 to enable c it has to be done by the fire and rescue services

01:14:02 and on that subject

01:14:07 is it your understanding of the practice in the industry that relevant that responsible persons should

01:14:16 should take all reasonable steps to enable the fire and rescue service to effect an evacuation of all relevant persons should it become necessary i'm not aware

01:14:28 necessary i'm not aware that i

01:14:30 that i i think

01:14:32 i think i'm not aware that

01:14:37 remember there's different types of high-rise buildings as well sprinklered and unsprinklered there's a whole series of features here that make a building high risk

01:14:45 high risk not all high-rise residential buildings are high risk but anyway and i am not aware that it's common practice and it's not my common practice

01:14:56 my common practice um

01:14:58 um to to make arrangements for a a total evacuation of a premises in the absence of the fire and rescue services

01:15:13 and i think i i just i think you're asking me to get involved on something that i shouldn't be now because the the total evacuation of a high rise residential building

01:15:24 residential building is meant to be a a rare and by definition you know an extreme event or when an extreme hazard has occurred

01:15:35 has occurred and the responsible you know the the fire safety provisions and then how the responsible person manages that building all together are meant to mean

01:15:46 all together are meant to mean it's by absolute exception you end up in that extreme event yes thank you that's very helpful mr chairman is that a convenient moment for everybody it probably is thank you yes we'll have a

01:15:57 probably is thank you yes we'll have a break now yeah dr lane uh no talking to anyone

01:16:01 anyone should you be saying client please thank you very much 25 to 12 please

01:36:08 thank you would you ask dr layne to come back in please okay

01:36:23 right dr lane ready to carry on yeah good i think um yes

01:36:28 yes you know that last exchange is very complicated and i probably want to be very clear that you know we all you know we all know what we know now but back then which is

01:36:39 what we know now but back then which is what we're meant to be speaking of um

01:36:43 um in terms of the a b and c had on the screen

01:36:46 screen remember the fire safety provisions are meant to be fit for purpose the responsible person is looking after them and controlling hazards

01:36:57 and controlling hazards and they're the steps they plan and organize

01:37:01 organize to make sure c is is never needed that is the the whole goal of

01:37:07 of the original stay put strategy okay

01:37:11 okay and i think that's all that is appropriate for me to say i follow thank you very much that's very clear thank you

01:37:17 you can we

01:37:18 can we uh

01:37:19 uh then look at the lga guide uh

01:37:26 uh uh at hom

01:37:28 uh at hom 3045964 page 27 and i want to look at section 18 with you which is entitled evacuation strategy

01:37:39 and under evacuation strategy uh paragraphs 18 1 and 18 2 explain the principles of compartmentation and then 18 3 says

01:37:48 18 3 says this is the essence of the stay put principle it has underpinned fire safety design standards from even before the 1960s when national standards were first drafted it is still the basis upon which

01:37:59 drafted it is still the basis upon which blocks of flats are designed today in the majority of existing blocks it remains entirely valid and then 1804 inevitably fires do occur in which for operational reasons the

01:38:10 in which for operational reasons the fire and rescue service decides to evacuate others in the building fires have been known to spread beyond the flat of origin to involve other flats or to spread across the tops of blocks through the roof voids in these cases

01:38:22 through the roof voids in these cases total evacuation of the block has sometimes been necessary fortunately these fires are rare they are usually the fault of failings in the construction now

01:38:32 now uh

01:38:34 uh when it says uh that

01:38:38 that they are

01:38:40 they are uh rare was it your understanding or rather as far as you can speak to it the trades understanding that although they were rare they were

01:38:51 that although they were rare they were not unforeseeable

01:39:01 so

01:39:12 i suppose it depends on this is where knowledge

01:39:18 knowledge becomes very important so

01:39:22 so i mean are you talking to me now about the years leading up to grenfell because i meant to be here talking about grandfather are you talking about the years before yes yeah so i've you know there are

01:39:33 so i've you know there are well-documented external wall fires you've heard all about that from other people here i've told you i have project based experience from 2013.

01:39:45 experience from 2013. so

01:39:47 so based on my experience and my knowledge my knowledge they while it's foreseeable

01:39:56 it it it shouldn't be what's the right word it's foreseeable in the event of inappropriate construction materials being used not foreseeable as a matter

01:40:09 being used not foreseeable as a matter of course

01:40:11 of course and i don't think it's for me to declare a kind of a foreseeability status for a whole profession okay but that does rely on knowledge and knowledge of past fires is

01:40:25 knowledge and knowledge of past fires is a very important part of maintaining competence

01:40:33 if well let me if compliment if compartmentation were either to fail in a widespread way or to be bypassed

01:40:45 in a widespread way or to be bypassed um would that constitute a serious and imminent danger to relevant persons yes it does it does do do you is it your opinion that the responsible person

01:40:58 that the responsible person should have a plan which ensures that a resident can evacuate as quickly and as safely as possible in the rare

01:41:06 rare but not unforeseeable event that compartmentation did fail i think the responsible person

01:41:15 needs to make sure the internal compartmentation together with the external wall remains reliable

01:41:25 reliable so that they are are not entering into the deeply complex territory of needing to plan for the total evacuation of a high-rise residential building i see so just to understand is

01:41:38 building i see so just to understand is it your opinion that in fact the the responsible person should not need to effect establish an effective procedure in the event of total failure of compartmentation because they

01:41:49 of compartmentation because they shouldn't get to that position in the first place yeah so their procedures should be look at you remember you know we've used the word practical and you know

01:41:56 know there's

01:41:58 there's yeah so their procedures should be focused on the maintenance of fire protection active and passive so

01:42:07 so that's the best means to prevent um the relevant persons ending up in the circumstances a total evacuation is required but i i just i don't want

01:42:20 required but i i just i don't want anyone to think that the fire risk assessor and the responsible person you know when they're left in the scenario where for example the external wall hasn't been handed over properly in

01:42:31 wall hasn't been handed over properly in the first place it's all interconnected okay

01:42:37 okay but they do need to know if the wall has become a hazard internal or external and that their compartmentation they're so reliant on is you know is

01:42:49 is you know is no longer as reliable as they need it to be and that's the best protection the best control instead of simply planning for a total evacuation right can i just show you then what mr todd said in his

01:43:01 show you then what mr todd said in his evidence on this subject before you do mr miller can i just try and

01:43:06 and tease that last answer out a little bit see if i've understood it correctly ultimately i think you would say we're always talking about risk here yes and would it be fair to say that

01:43:19 and would it be fair to say that in

01:43:20 in most cases the risk of a catastrophic failure of the building of a kind that would require a total evacuation

01:43:31 would require a total evacuation is too small to justify taking precautions against it should be well should be sorry it should be yes agreed so that that's exactly the point that you've

01:43:44 exactly the point that you've taken all these different steps to to bring the you know the the probability of occurrence and the cut because this is about consequences

01:43:55 consequences having to do a total evacuation you're you're taking all reasonable steps

01:44:02 steps to to limit the probability of that occurrence so that you don't have to deal with those consequences the consequence being a total evacuation of the building

01:44:15 a total evacuation of the building yeah

01:44:15 yeah okay so yes it's all about risk so so the the less fire safety provisions you have

01:44:22 have the more and more likely it's becoming that those serious consequences shall arise and one must be prepared all right that's very helpful thank you very much i'm sorry mr millennial you want to go

01:44:34 i'm sorry mr millennial you want to go on yes mia thank you can i please ask that the witness be shown day 167 page 95

01:44:41 95 i was going to show you just over a page of mr todd's evidence

01:44:48 evidence and we can start at page 95 line one day 167 page 95 line one

01:45:05 and in fact line one is an answer to a question which starts at the bottom of page 166 if we can just go to that sorry page 94 if we can go to that

01:45:16 sorry page 94 if we can go to that and at the bottom of 94 you could see that there's a question based on the passages of the lga guidance i've just shown you yeah question it looks from this lga guy that

01:45:27 question it looks from this lga guy that it contemplated the possibility of compartmentation failing yes sir that's correct question even if it was rare the question at line three do you agree that if compartmentation were to fail or

01:45:38 that if compartmentation were to fail or taking your word from yesterday bypassed be bypassed that that would represent that would present a serious and imminent danger to relevant persons in the building it could do yes do you agree also that

01:45:49 it could do yes do you agree also that the responsible person should ensure that a resident can evacuate as quickly and as safely as possible in the event the compartmentation either failed or was bypassed yes and that's why we have protected stairways protected lobby smoke control

01:46:01 stairways protected lobby smoke control and so on

01:46:02 and so on yes do you also agree that the responsible person was required to establish and give effect to a procedure to be followed in that eventuality even if rare yes and that's why the standard fire procedure notice would say what i

01:46:13 fire procedure notice would say what i said it would say question does that tell us that the responsible person was obliged to assess the means of escape both when the statement strategy is in force and when it was revoked because for example

01:46:24 it was revoked because for example compartmentation had failed or was bypassed answer yes it goes to the same thing the fire procedure and then if we turn the page question yes so was it not your

01:46:35 question yes so was it not your understanding and forgive the double negative or the understanding of the trade that the responsible person wasn't required

01:46:42 required to put in place any evacuation arrangement in the event the compartmentation failed was bypassed but would simply leave it up to the fire and rescue service to do whatever it needed to do by way of evacuation and he says

01:46:53 to do by way of evacuation and he says at line eight no because they would need protected stairways by which residents could evacuate or the fire and rescue service could evacuate people who could not evacuate themselves that's why we regard the staircase as sacrosanct

01:47:05 the staircase as sacrosanct now i've read you quite a lot of that is there anything in the passage i've read you that with which you disagree well can we go come back go back a page yes um i mean it's hard to do this without

01:47:17 um i mean it's hard to do this without talking directly to mr todd no but just so i'm i'm interested to read that's why the standard fire procedure notice would say what i said it would

01:47:28 notice would say what i said it would say

01:47:30 say did he say that the standard fire procedure notice gives information about what to do in the event of a total evacuation no i don't believe so yeah

01:47:41 no i don't believe so yeah so so i i i don't understand therefore what he what what he said and here

01:47:48 here standard

01:47:50 standard fire action notices don't as far as i'm aware address the total evacuation scenario they talk about

01:47:59 about the thing we mentioned right at the start in the event of a fire make your way down the staircase so i don't know if mr todd just simply means that instruction

01:48:11 means that instruction or he he was communicating that he uses

01:48:15 he uses fire procedure notices that give a total evacuation communication right let me see if i can ask you the question in a more succinct

01:48:26 ask you the question in a more succinct way then but rather than by reference to what his evidence was um do you agree with this proposition or disagree with this proposition that the responsible person should assess the

01:48:37 responsible person should assess the means of escape both when stay put applies in the standard way and when compartmentation fails

01:48:48 so i think i i think i hope i've been clear so far and i i can't say it differently now it's it's

01:48:57 it's it's much more

01:48:59 much more practical and reasonable to focus on the compartmentation and making sure that is reliable then then assume it shall fail and and

01:49:10 then then assume it shall fail and and make the really complex arrangements that will be required to deal with that event

01:49:16 event okay i actually this exchange as presented to me here i don't think it's actually touching on total versus some kind of partial evacuation that's not how i read it

01:49:28 that's not how i read it okay

01:49:29 okay i think well i shouldn't say what i think mr tub might mean he needs to say that no that's that's also

01:49:36 also essential yeah but fire action notices don't as a rule say in the event of a total evacuation order please do the following now can we then turn to the evacuation strategy for disabled persons

01:49:49 evacuation strategy for disabled persons specifically yeah and i want to look at this question in a little bit more detail

01:49:53 detail can we start by looking at bs 9991 from 2050. bf which is at bsi 6-0 is 59

01:50:04 6-0 is 59 this is page 1 and it's entitled fire safety in the design management and use of residential buildings code of practice

01:50:12 practice um did did that a british standard apply to existing residential high-rise buildings such as grenfell tower do you mean apply as in i mean

01:50:23 do you mean apply as in i mean it's relevant and it's available to read but i mean the order you know the order doesn't direct you to it i mean i think it

01:50:35 i mean i think it contains really helpful information for someone with an existing building right thank you yeah and if we look at page two we can see a bit of history if we go to page two you can see that it was first published in 2011 december 2011

01:50:48 first published in 2011 december 2011 yeah and then published in october 2015 as the second then present edition uh if we go to page nine under the third heading on that page it

01:51:00 under the third heading on that page it says relationship with other publications can you see that yeah and it says um this standard complements bs 9999 which excludes individual dwelling houses certain residential buildings and

01:51:11 houses certain residential buildings and specialized housing from its scope bs 9991 provides guidance on all these building types and on the same page if you look a little bit lower down under this

01:51:21 this at the section under the heading use of this document in the second paragraph um well the first paragraph it says there may be so it might be circumstances where it's necessary to use one publication to supplement another the care needs to be given when

01:51:32 another the care needs to be given when using a pick and mix approach as it's essential to ensure that an integrated approach is used in any one building and then it goes on to say as a code of practice this british standard takes the form of guidance and recommendations

01:51:44 form of guidance and recommendations and should not be quoted as if it were a specification and particular care should be taken to ensure that claims of compliance are not misleading any user claiming compliance with this british standard is expected to be able to

01:51:55 standard is expected to be able to justify any course of action that deviates from its recommendations now we can see that it's a code of practice

01:52:03 practice could you just help us what was its status

01:52:05 status as as a code of practice was it guidance was it binding who would enforce it well all british standards are non-statutory guidance documents i mean

01:52:18 non-statutory guidance documents i mean there's a whole there's a document that explains all of that would it be reasonable in your opinion for the tmo to have ignored it would have been reasonable to

01:52:29 would have been reasonable to ignore it

01:52:31 ignore it i don't think so i think i think i've been clear in my report i mean

01:52:37 mean personally i think it's good to read all the guidance documents so if you look at triple 9-1 and the lga together there are some very interesting

01:52:48 there are some very interesting decisions that need to be made as a result of reading them together there are

01:52:53 are so and that's all part of having enough knowledge to carry out your job i mean

01:53:00 i mean the tmo i mean

01:53:04 this is a really theoretical question isn't it because the the youth or not by the tmo of triple nine one hasn't played a massive part in

01:53:17 part in their didn't play a massive part in their day-to-day activities nor my analysis

01:53:21 analysis no

01:53:23 no do i think that miss ray and mr stokes should have known about this british standard and might like to have read it to understand the latest advice i think they should yes thank you now if

01:53:36 i think they should yes thank you now if we go to page 10 at the foot of the page you can see that one of the pieces of legislation that's referred to specifically is the rro yeah yes and if we go to page

01:53:47 is the rro yeah yes and if we go to page 33 and i'm just going to show you three pages or four pages from this document if we go to page 33 there's a section entitled inclusive design there and a a note underneath that and it says

01:54:00 and a a note underneath that and it says under in the note attention is drawn to the equality act 2010 which places a duty on all employers and service providers not to discriminate against disabled people it is vital to ensure that when making plans for the

01:54:12 ensure that when making plans for the fire safety and management of buildings the requirements of disabled people are properly taken into account at all times it is important to note the recommendations given in this british standard are for escape not access

01:54:25 standard are for escape not access um

01:54:25 um it

01:54:26 it is it your opinion that that obligation identified there applied to the responsible person and their duties under the rra

01:54:41 it's not for me to you know give a view on the equalities act all right but just so unclear i know from reading the approved document b and from reading standards like this

01:54:53 and from reading standards like this that it is a duty of other people and it causes a fire safety professional technically to have to consider

01:55:04 to have to consider any type of person in a building but i i can't give any expert opinion on that act

01:55:11 act can you help us to this extent do you know whether the industry understood the obligation as identified in this note that i've read to you

01:55:23 note that i've read to you between the years 2010 and 2016.

01:55:31 that the whole industry knew something for six years well to the best of your knowledge being a participant in this industry at the time yeah from what you knew was this

01:55:42 time yeah from what you knew was this something that was widely complied with or

01:55:45 or well i i answered those questions earlier i think didn't i it would just remind me just i told you that it's the area where i've had greatest difficulty

01:55:58 greatest difficulty in

01:55:59 in agreeing

01:56:01 agreeing that

01:56:02 that people with vulnerabilities need to be incorporated into both design and in protective measures in operation i can't say more than that when you say

01:56:14 i can't say more than that when you say agreeing do you mean buy-in from your clients i do mean that yes i see thank you

01:56:20 you now if we go on uh i'll just show you one or two extra bits here page 145 paragraph 54

01:56:32 evacuation of disabled occupants or occupants that require assistance to escape

01:56:39 and you can see note 1 under that it is the responsibility of the premises management to assess the needs of all people to make a safe evacuation when formulating evacuation plans an

01:56:51 formulating evacuation plans an evacuation plan should not rely on the assistance of the fire and rescue service this is an important factor that should be taken into account in the building design yeah and if we go to page 175

01:57:02 and if we go to page 175 you can see at page 175 it says there uh

01:57:12 under the heading management of additional needs and disabilities the penultimate paragraph fire safety management needs to take into account the full range of people who might use the premises paying particular attention

01:57:23 the premises paying particular attention to the needs of disabled people with permanent or temporary impairment and then if you look at the last paragraph under e2 people with mobility impairments assumptions cannot be made about the

01:57:35 assumptions cannot be made about the abilities of wheelchair users it can be helpful to produce a personal emergency evacuation plan peep to explore the level of need and what they are to do in the event of a fire in their own home or one nearby if direct escape to a place

01:57:47 one nearby if direct escape to a place of ultimate safety is not possible horizontal escape to another fire compartment can be explored yeah i'm sorry can i just interrupt you it also says the uk has an aging society with

01:57:58 says the uk has an aging society with increasing levels of interdependence into later years etc in standard residential accommodation who have a range of impairments which could affect their ability to evacuate or follow procedures

01:58:09 ability to evacuate or follow procedures yes so there's all these different categories of vulnerability clearly set out in triple nine one yes thank you absolutely now um the bit i've read to you the bit

01:58:20 um the bit i've read to you the bit you've also pointed out to us do you agree that that suggests that when the responsible person is planning for fire safety and

01:58:32 for fire safety and management of fire safety in a building including evacuation planning considerations should be given to that range of people yes i do

01:58:43 yes i do and

01:58:44 and do you agree that any evacuation strategy for disabled residents whether permanent or temporary would also need to take into account all three fire scenarios

01:58:56 all three fire scenarios that we looked at so far in the flat fire near the flat and all occupants in the event of an all-out

01:59:06 so i so i think the the evacuation method so how to leave is

01:59:17 leave is i

01:59:18 i how do i put this you know it's the same isn't us regardless of the fire scenario in in a way you you just need to be able to leave the building i i've been clear i i think you're

01:59:30 i i've been clear i i think you're trying to you know you know you're hoping i'll give a view on total evacuation planning for high-rise residential buildings and i have to keep saying because it's fair

01:59:41 fair you're not meant to end up in that position

01:59:44 position that as a matter of course you plan for such a complex evacuation but any person in a building in the event of a fire

01:59:55 event of a fire needs some way to exit

02:00:00 yes whether the fire is in their flat or whether the fire is in their neighbor's flat or in the rare but not unforeseeable instance that the fire and rescue service command exactly there's a

02:00:11 rescue service command exactly there's a there's the you're you're on the phone and you're told to leave yes thank you now can i show you the lga guidance

02:00:19 guidance hom three zeros four five nine six four page 120

02:00:23 page 120 paragraph 79.9

02:00:33 i'll read it to you in general needs blocks of flats it can equally be expected that a resident's physical and mental ability will vary it is usually unrealistic to expect landlords and other responsible

02:00:45 expect landlords and other responsible persons to plan for this or to have in place special arrangements such as personal emergency evacuation plans such plans rely on the presence of staff or others available to assist the person

02:00:57 or others available to assist the person to escape

02:00:58 to escape in a fire

02:01:00 in a fire now

02:01:01 now having

02:01:02 having looked together at the provisions of bsi 9991 of 2015 which admittedly is some four years after the publication of this guidance in july 2011. yeah are you able

02:01:15 guidance in july 2011. yeah are you able to help us reconcile what i've just read to you here in the lgi guide with the 2015 british standard yeah no no i can't help reconcile it and

02:01:26 yeah no no i can't help reconcile it and i've been clear about that in my report with triple 911 or any other guidance document are you able to shed any light on why they in your

02:01:37 to shed any light on why they in your opinion cannot be reconciled yeah so if we take a technical view as opposed to any other view so technically what this means

02:01:48 what this means is if

02:01:51 is if if responsible persons in this category here

02:01:54 here have decided it's unrealistic to what is a place special arrangements or to do

02:02:01 or to do peeps

02:02:03 peeps we're back to risk acceptance so the technical significance of this is that the risk caused by not making any other arrangement

02:02:16 by not making any other arrangement is an acceptable risk to the responsible person

02:02:22 person that's the the technical meaning of the words there

02:02:28 okay by not making any other arrangement a risk level is

02:02:35 is fixed in the building for for any vulnerable person who cannot use

02:02:41 use this say it's a single means of escapes there

02:02:45 there that's what that text is there i i am not able to explain the thinking or the consideration of risk acceptance

02:02:56 or the consideration of risk acceptance and risk levels that went into the agreement to write that text i'm not able to help you there and i i think it would be very helpful to understand why

02:03:08 to understand why that was concluded as an acceptable risk level um i'm going to keep saying in in in the technical context okay if that's okay

02:03:19 technical context okay if that's okay thank you

02:03:21 thank you now can i then turn to uh

02:03:25 uh a different topic a slightly different topic which is the responsibilities of the fire risk assessor to assess the means of escape can we start as we i think have now become

02:03:35 become uh habitually to do with past 79 cta 703 page 44 uh i'd like to go to um

02:03:47 uh i'd like to go to um well it's subheading roman 23 in the left-hand column on the in the second paragraph

02:03:55 and you'll see that when it comes up past 79 page 44.

02:04:01 [Applause]

02:04:05 no ct it's cta 703

02:04:10 yes and if you look at left-hand column roman 22

02:04:18 uh i'm so sorry roman 23 means of escape and it says this in in considering the likely consequences of fire the fire risk assessor needs to consider the likely effects of fire on

02:04:30 consider the likely effects of fire on escape routes c 3.20 during the escape time 3.21 taking into account the time for detection of fire and raising the alarm see commentary on clause 15 fire detection and warning this requires a

02:04:41 detection and warning this requires a thorough evaluation of the means of escape

02:04:44 escape so do you agree that the fire risk assessors assessment would include an assessment of the means of escape in a high-rise residential block yeah i think you know

02:04:55 yeah i think you know i i think they should understand say travel distance widths and what that means yes and we can see the five critical factors identified if you cast your eye to the right hand oh yeah

02:05:06 cast your eye to the right hand oh yeah yeah exactly 27 yeah those but yes those basic because there is an implication there about some very complex analysis but on the right the five critical factors are a reasonable expectation yes okay i just

02:05:17 reasonable expectation yes okay i just want to

02:05:18 want to focus on e yeah it says the ability of occupants to use the escape routes do you agree uh uh or disagree that a fire risk assessor should uh or perhaps must take

02:05:30 assessor should uh or perhaps must take into account uh all of these critical factors when assessing the means of escape yes i think they should yes and that would include e would it the ability of occupants yes to use the escape routes

02:05:44 occupants yes to use the escape routes yeah because it's the only way to establish the risk level yeah and does that include all occupants yes it does yeah and not only the able-bodied ones no there's no there's

02:05:55 no there's no there's well

02:05:56 well as far as i'm concerned i understand we've read the lga guide okay and what that says but my understanding and my reading of

02:06:07 but my understanding and my reading of every other guidance document is that it's everybody not some people thank you now if we look at the next paragraph down at roman 28

02:06:18 28 it says it can normally be anticipated that occupants with disabilities are or are likely to be present on the premises and consideration needs to be given to arrangements for their evacuation in the event of fire in most multi-story

02:06:30 event of fire in most multi-story premises designated refuges c 3.75 are likely to be necessary as temporary waiting spaces and there will be a need for arrangements to assist mobility impaired occupants to escape from the

02:06:42 impaired occupants to escape from the refuges during stay using staircases and or especially does designated evacuation lifts

02:06:47 lifts 3.22

02:06:49 3.22 or firefighting lifts which can be used to evacuate disabled people by people in the premises at least until arrival of the fire and rescue service yeah now

02:07:00 the fire and rescue service yeah now do you agree that past 79 recommends that the fire risk assessor assesses the arrangements for the evacuation of occupants with a disability yes i do basically what it says yeah no exactly yeah and it's very similar to

02:07:12 exactly yeah and it's very similar to what mr todd wrote in the risk assessments for grant full tire mr todd mr i'm sorry oh oh freudian slip mr spokes mr stokes massive apologies uh

02:07:26 mr spokes mr stokes massive apologies uh and do you uh agree that a fire risk assessor should also take into account all of those factors as i've identified to you in roman 28 when carrying out an

02:07:37 in roman 28 when carrying out an assessment for a high-rise residential block yeah i think they you know because the the the reality is not every block has all these facilities

02:07:48 these facilities okay

02:07:49 okay so it's important to explain the consequences when they're not there and then how your you can rely on them when they are there so they absolutely need to be clear

02:08:01 need to be clear on the availability of all the different protections listed there in that paragraph is there anything that you've seen or know about in this past

02:08:12 seen or know about in this past which says that you can take a different approach

02:08:15 approach uh if you're collect if collecting and maintaining information on who is disabled

02:08:19 disabled uh is too much of a burden for you that the past says if it's too much of a burden you don't need to know about it sorry to me that's that's a bit no i i

02:08:30 sorry to me that's that's a bit no i i haven't i haven't read that in the past i mean that's implied in the lga but it's not written in the past right now mr todd's evidence was that past 79 was focused on

02:08:41 was that past 79 was focused on non-domestic premises and he said it wasn't meant and i'm summarizing i hope fairly to apply to domestic premises um and he said that that was the majority of the

02:08:52 said that that was the majority of the opinion of the fire risk assessment trade that's day 167 page 102 5 to 14. and i hope i've summarized what he says there but yeah what he says there is his evidence as opposed to my summary of it

02:09:04 evidence as opposed to my summary of it but if i've captured that correctly can you comment on that well i mean i very unfortunately i i didn't get that memo or whatever so i did not know that

02:09:15 memo or whatever so i did not know that right

02:09:17 right and it doesn't say that in past 79. so i don't know how it became the commonly understood view when carrying out fire risk assessment that you couldn't use past 79 in in

02:09:29 that you couldn't use past 79 in in residential buildings and i'm also aware of

02:09:35 of all sorts of fire risk assessments for residential buildings that do refer to past 79

02:09:42 past 79 just based on my limited my limited ex you know experience relative to a whole trade

02:09:49 trade that's all i can say um

02:09:53 um mr todd also said that a fire risk assessor would know which parts of past 79 applied to high risk high-rise residential buildings and which were only for commercial premises because the fire risk assessor would

02:10:05 because the fire risk assessor would have the relevant training education and experience that's day 16 pages 105 blind 19-1 06 page 10.

02:10:15 page 10. can you

02:10:16 can you what what does what are you really asking me that you're trained to ignore disabled people uh that's a rather more blunt way but is what you're asking me let me

02:10:28 what you're asking me let me um

02:10:29 um well let's try that what's the answer to that question well so if if people are trained to ignore disabled people as so-called common practice i don't consider it to be acceptable practice

02:10:41 consider it to be acceptable practice and and i'm not aware that people are trained to not incorporate certain categories of people in a fire risk assessment now i'm not aware of that but probably you need to i think

02:10:53 that but probably you need to i think you've had all the evidence on that well let me just let i don't want there to be any misunderstanding about this can i then show you what he said it went too long day 167 please page 105.

02:11:06 let's go to line 19.

02:11:15 day 167 page 185 line 19 uh

02:11:21 uh and

02:11:24 and there's quite a long run-up to this the question i think probably starts at 15. do i take it from the answers you've been giving that although that's written it wasn't actually intended to be that way and in practice not understood that way

02:11:35 way answer there would be certain aspects that would apply to a high-rise block of flats so for example fire prevention keeping escape routes clear not having combustibles in escape routes all of these things would be applicable to a high-rise block of flats just as much as

02:11:47 high-rise block of flats just as much as to any other building so unfortunately it would be a bit of a cure its egg there would be bits of past 79 that would be entirely applicable to high-rise block of flats and there would

02:11:58 high-rise block of flats and there would be bits such as that on which you've honed in that would clearly not really apply to a block of flats question how would your average fire risk assessor know which bits to apply and which bits not to apply when going

02:12:10 and which bits not to apply when going along to a fire risk assess a building like grenfell tower answer because they had the appropriate education training and experience to apply the principles of fire safety can you comment one way or the other

02:12:21 one way or the other i mean it's not for me to kind of discuss um what mr todd said but my professional opinion is that when you have the appropriate education training and experience to apply the principles of

02:12:33 experience to apply the principles of fire safety you will very much understand that any vulnerability that impacts evacuation increases the risk level in a building and you will know that the order requires you to be clear on risk

02:12:46 order requires you to be clear on risk level to all relevant persons and you will very much do their you will very much incorporate them then in a classic fire risk assessment can we

02:12:57 in a classic fire risk assessment can we then go back to past 79 please uh and

02:13:01 and look at where we where we were uh which is page 44 and look at the next roman paragraph down 19 roman 19 at the bottom of the

02:13:12 down 19 roman 19 at the bottom of the page

02:13:13 page it says this disabled evacuation strategy and i emphasize those two words disabled evacuation strategy should not rely on rescue of disabled people by the fire and rescue service assistance with

02:13:25 fire and rescue service assistance with their evacuation is provided by persons within the premises the two-way speech communication system within the refuge might be necessary so that disabled persons can make their presence known and receive reassurance it might also be

02:13:36 and receive reassurance it might also be necessary for fire doors to be held open by automatic release mechanism c 3.5 to make the premises more accessible for mobility impaired people now would a fire risk assessors

02:13:47 now would a fire risk assessors assessment of the means of escape need to ensure that the relevant persons can evacuate without assistance including those persons with a disability without assistance from the fire and rescue service

02:13:59 fire and rescue service yes you're we we are all mentioned off yeah yes yeah were you aware of a predominant view uh or even if not a predominant view a commonly held view in the fire risk

02:14:11 commonly held view in the fire risk assessment trade yeah up to june 2017 that yeah to the effect that those provisions i've just read to you particularly roman 19 did not apply to disabled persons in

02:14:23 did not apply to disabled persons in high-rise residential premises no no i'm not i i don't think that at all i think the enforcing authority were very clear about that actually in my experience with buildings because there was a

02:14:35 there was a an older commonly held view um before the order came in and i went back and looked at my files the first few years

02:14:45 few years when the order was in practice still some responsible person still thought the fire and rescue service for example would come to the refuge and bring the people out in it from for evacuation purposes

02:14:57 purposes um but i i probably thought that we all knew that they didn't do that anymore and they i thought they communicated that quite widely but i mean i think you should look into that beyond my view yeah

02:15:11 were you aware of the view in the trade at the time whether predominant or or common yeah that

02:15:19 that in the case of a residential building particularly a high-rise residential building the responsible person didn't need to bother with roman 19 because it didn't have staff on the premises at the time to be

02:15:31 staff on the premises at the time to be able to assist with evacuation yeah so now we're getting to the real nub of the problem aren't we because not having staff on the premises is a decision the responsible person takes

02:15:43 yes and where you were and obviously um

02:15:47 um when you're trying to solve the problem of

02:15:52 of people who can't walk or get themselves downstairs it can typically end up relying on another person and where the responsible person

02:16:05 and where the responsible person makes the active decision not to provide that assistance again back to risk or just keeping it in the technical risk zone that has consequences with respect to the risk

02:16:16 consequences with respect to the risk level in the building

02:16:21 and we saw in roman 18 the reference to um

02:16:26 um assisting mobility impaired occupants to escape

02:16:29 escape into and out of refugees yes yes mr todd's evidence day 167 page 102 917-25 is that he's never never seen a block of flats with a designated

02:16:40 a block of flats with a designated refuge

02:16:42 refuge uh

02:16:43 uh what is your view about that um

02:16:47 i have seen high-rise residential buildings with refuges right but i yeah i think we're probably straying into the territory of a certain category of

02:16:59 territory of a certain category of high-rise residential building probably is where you're trying to get me to and that if people don't provide refuges there when they do in other types of high-rise residential buildings

02:17:10 high-rise residential buildings in england yes yeah as a matter of practice could a communal lobby serve as a refuge for a disabled person it would be better to use

02:17:19 use say if you look at grenfell tower when you open the stair door it would be better to if it was possible to find some space on the other side of that door

02:17:28 door yes okay but i don't want to get into redesigning the lobby of grenfell tower but there are ways to provide another little protected zone

02:17:40 another little protected zone but you still can't leave everybody there they have to be able to be evacuated

02:17:46 evacuated let me try and put it um slightly more colloquially would it be acceptable for a responsible person to say well i've got i have no staff on the premises and my building has got no refuges therefore

02:17:57 my building has got no refuges therefore i can ignore the need to pay attention to occupants with disabilities needs to escape no they can't say i can ignore they say i've decided that's a risk worth taking that's the risk i'm

02:18:10 worth taking that's the risk i'm imposing on this cohort of relevant persons and that's where we are but can we just get back to grenfell they had just done a pr a refurbishment of that building

02:18:23 a refurbishment of that building that touched on lifts very much touched on the lobbies and you know it it has to be considered in that regard

02:18:34 you know the opportunity to contemplate

02:18:40 a means for evacuation of people who required assistance in grandfather

02:18:48 and was that opportunity taken in we know that that opportunity was not taken and that's why it's important to to always bring this back to grenfell

02:18:59 to always bring this back to grenfell tower not keep asking me about you know thousands and thousands and thousands of buildings in this country at grenfell tower they had just finished a refurbishment which included works in

02:19:10 refurbishment which included works in the lobby and included the lifts and the risk assessment said the lifts could be used for evacuation of

02:19:19 of different types of people and to say that everybody's clear we will come back to literally okay good yeah okay now can i then turn to a subset of this topic which is identification of persons especially at risk

02:19:31 of persons especially at risk um uh if we stick with uh past 79 please and go to page 36 let's look at the commentary on clause 12.

02:19:44 this is about relevance of information about the premises the occupants and the processes and uh if you um cast your eye to the right-hand side the right-hand column

02:19:55 right-hand side the right-hand column and look at the bottom um there's a little roman 8 which says particular account needs to be taken of occupants who could be especially at risk in the event of fire and then in

02:20:08 risk in the event of fire and then in red note one attention is drawn to the relevant fire legislation which requires that other than in the case of certain very small businesses fire risk assessments record any group of persons

02:20:20 assessments record any group of persons especially at risk and then nine particular care needs to be taken to ensure that due account is taken of disabled occupants who are often especially at risk in the event of fire in view of the possible need for

02:20:32 fire in view of the possible need for assistance with evacuation or special warning of fire all forms of disability need to be considered including mobility impairment deafness blindness learning difficulties and mental illness

02:20:45 now

02:20:50 is it your understanding that persons especially at risk should should be

02:20:57 should be identified as part of a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment it's my understanding because i've read the order and that's what it says tells me to do that's your understanding of the order

02:21:08 that's your understanding of the order was it was it your experience that that was commonly understood in the industry this person's especially at risk yes i think people i think the average

02:21:20 think people i think the average fire risk assessor whatever that may mean

02:21:22 mean understands what person's especially at risk is on their duty to record them due to the record them and does that mean that they would need to be told

02:21:33 told of the occupants and their individual needs so they need to be told or they need to be asked or they need to warn what you know what assumptions they've

02:21:44 what you know what assumptions they've made

02:21:45 made in your experience um was it necessary let me ask it differently in your experience did the fire risk assessment

02:21:56 experience did the fire risk assessment trade uh or the responsible person the body of people comprising responsible persons

02:22:01 persons understand that they had to have in place a system to identify and record those persons especially at risk a system in place i i don't know that people understood they needed a

02:22:13 people understood they needed a system in place that's a bit that's a the next step right okay

02:22:19 okay regardless of systems of the or on the organization but anyway but it's

02:22:25 it's um yeah i think system's a different word sorry right well we'll come to system in a moment perhaps but were you aware of a view amongst fire risk assessors but up to 2017 june 2017 that it wasn't necessary

02:22:38 june 2017 that it wasn't necessary for them

02:22:39 for them or for the responsible person to collate information about individuals especially at risk in residential premises because it wasn't practical to collate and maintain that information

02:22:51 to collate and maintain that information yeah i'm aware that there is that body of thought but i'm also aware of another body of thought

02:23:02 another body of thought that you have to make some attempt to understand the persons in your building and there's actually when you read out that triple nine one for example this issue of the aging

02:23:14 example this issue of the aging population particularly and how things are changing you know how the

02:23:19 how the occupancy profile is changing in residential buildings is is something quite commonly discussed so

02:23:27 so there there has been an awareness that the percentage of people requiring assistance has been changing in the last few decades

02:23:39 okay so i um i think the question was again about an entire industry and i'm saying to you that there was a body of thought that they

02:23:49 that they didn't

02:23:50 didn't well they they simply didn't do it i don't know why but there are other um bodies that did try to do it that's my experience and if we go to page 37

02:24:02 my experience and if we go to page 37 let's look at the last paragraph on the left hand side which is roman 14 which says the most important purpose of considering and recording occupants

02:24:13 considering and recording occupants especially at risk in the event of fire is to ensure that adequate provisions are in place to protect such occupants from fire having recorded such occupants within within the fire risk assessment it needs to be clear within the

02:24:24 it needs to be clear within the documented significant findings that there are provisions to ensure the safety of occupant of these occupants yeah

02:24:32 yeah these occupants now um considering that guidance there um is it right that the responsible person to your understanding would need to ensure that there are adequate provisions in place to protect those

02:24:43 provisions in place to protect those occupants as i said yes yes and was it your understanding that that's not a generic requirement but that but on the other hand well to the contrary each and every individual occupant especially at risk

02:24:54 individual occupant especially at risk needs to be considered in a suitable and sufficient fra each individual archipelago yes

02:25:09 i think um that might not always be possible i think

02:25:15 think i think

02:25:16 i think that

02:25:18 that i would go so far as to say an awareness of say certain types of impairment and understanding what was possible

02:25:27 possible to protect someone with that impairment as a minimum getting into every single individual um

02:25:39 is the next level you say the next level is it something that was contemplated uh as as necessary the contemplation is necessary by all the people i've never

02:25:50 necessary by all the people i've never never met again i was going to say contemplated as necessary by past 79. yeah

02:25:58 if you look at i mean it doesn't say i think the focus of your question is about an individual well that's why i asked the question you see roman 14 yeah let's look at it again

02:26:09 see roman 14 yeah let's look at it again that says occupants yeah being recorded such occupants and uh my question is looking at the guidance was it was it the understanding of those words that that actually

02:26:20 of those words that that actually descended to the level of each and e each and every individual occupant yeah i think um my reading of that so it's recording occupants and to protect such occupants from fire my reading of that is

02:26:33 from fire my reading of that is there there tends to be i mean i set it out in in chapter six uh

02:26:39 uh a certain

02:26:40 a certain number of impairments that impact evacuation and you can do it at that level i don't think

02:26:49 think this particular paragraph says on a very individualistic and bespoke basis

02:27:01 do you agree that it's in looking at the other way around yeah it wouldn't be reasonably sufficient simply to recall the number of residents at risk as a as a lumped number i i think that

02:27:13 i i think that i think that's more helpful than doing nothing and if it's also incorporated into the the risk

02:27:22 the risk you know the risk level given at the end i'm being transparent about what it means for those particular individuals for sorry for that particular cohort

02:27:40 is a or was a personal emergency evacuation plan

02:27:45 plan one means of assessing what provisions are necessary to meet and occupants needs yes so when you're getting into you know

02:27:54 you know a very bespoke plan for a particular individual my understanding that's what a peep is for

02:28:02 for but i i think before you get to the individual level remember

02:28:09 remember mobility impairment causes certain issues

02:28:14 issues during evacuation

02:28:19 mental health issues certain types will cause a different type of impact in an evacuation so there's a i think it's important to understand there's a generic way to understand

02:28:31 generic way to understand the impact on evacuation for different impairment types long before you get to having to do one plan for one person

02:28:43 plan for one person if that makes sense so there's so there's plenty of help out there to understand the consequences of certain impairments when it comes to evacuation

02:28:56 you can't it's not only possible to understand that by doing a peep uniquely that's what i wanted to say right i don't know on the other side with the responsible person in your

02:29:07 with the responsible person in your opinion need to make sure that anybody identified as especially at risk by reason of having a disability yes should be considered for a personal emergency evacuation plan

02:29:20 should we consider for personal variety plan yes

02:29:25 plan yes yes i think so i mean

02:29:29 yes in the sense that they can describe to that person the provisions in the building and how to use them or what assistance will be provided to them does it follow from that that in fact the

02:29:41 it follow from that that in fact the responsible person leave aside the fire risk assessor for the moment but the responsible person at least

02:29:47 least needed to identify each and every individual occupant who need who was especially at risk

02:29:56 so i i i i'm trying to say to you that before you get to that point of every single individual [Music]

02:30:08 [Music] they're

02:30:12 you know the impact of you know generic types of impairment cause technical issues if you want to put it that way for evacuation planning

02:30:23 that way for evacuation planning so

02:30:24 so there's

02:30:25 there's you know that long before you get to talking to an individual you need to know the person's especially at risk to understand the scale

02:30:37 understand the scale of the issue in your building

02:30:43 and

02:30:50 to prepare a personal emergency evacuation plan for such residents should it be necessary should it be necessary

02:30:58 necessary yes i see

02:31:01 yes i see so

02:31:03 so can i put it just a bit more bluntly yes if

02:31:08 if if for example your

02:31:11 your if you have a building and the lift can't be used in the event of a fire yeah

02:31:16 yeah and a person is a wheelchair user and cannot get down the stairs in extreme circumstances in a way

02:31:24 in a way you know

02:31:25 you know you know you know the consequences of that before you sit down and speak with them about their plan i don't want to i don't want to say the only way anyone

02:31:36 i don't want to say the only way anyone can find out what's needed is by preparing a plan i think a plan is part of

02:31:42 of making

02:31:43 making arrangements for people i think i understand better i'm probably just trying to be a bit overly precise but i think it's very important because i think peep and the use of peeps has a

02:31:54 think peep and the use of peeps has a meaning on its own almost now culturally whereas the impact of impairment on escape technically is well understood and the consequences

02:32:06 is well understood and the consequences of it so so just going i think i understand what you're saying if you go back to

02:32:10 back to roman 14

02:32:13 roman 14 the the opening words are the most important purpose of considering and recording occupants especially at risk in the event of fire is to ensure that adequate provisions are in place to protect such occupants

02:32:24 are in place to protect such occupants from fire yeah i is your

02:32:28 i is your evidence your opinion that there is there's this staged process and the first process first part of the process is to work out what the risks are posed

02:32:40 risks are posed to occupants as a class yeah exactly there you know so if i for x category what does that mean why category what does that mean next step what is the scale of the issue

02:32:53 next step what is the scale of the issue in my specific premises so you might have a building yeah so sorry to interrupt you you might have a building where despite the fact that there is a substantial number of vulnerable persons in it that nobody is

02:33:04 vulnerable persons in it that nobody is especially at risk because of the design of the building exactly okay that's exactly it got it thank you that's very helpful now um

02:33:17 that's very helpful now um and therefore would follow from that that where you take a building which has

02:33:22 which has um active and passive fire prevention and protection measures which

02:33:28 which do

02:33:29 do for whatever reason present

02:33:33 mean that some of the occupants are especially at risk because of that and because of their disabilities they have to be taken into account specifically exactly and individually yeah exactly so you're

02:33:44 individually yeah exactly so you're meant to understand persons especially at risk

02:33:47 at risk you understand if there's any existing provisions that can help them they they have greater exposure to harm because of their

02:33:56 their disability or impairment you see what protection exists in the building and and what the resulting risk level is otherwise yes they remain persons

02:34:07 otherwise yes they remain persons especially at risk and

02:34:10 and you know something has to be done or we're back to accepting that the responsible person is doing nothing and would it follow from that and and the debate that we've just

02:34:21 that and and the debate that we've just had leading up to it but the fire risk assessor is the person where fire risk assessor is doing the fire risk assessment for the responsible person who must advise the responsible

02:34:32 person who must advise the responsible person

02:34:34 person what the risks are in the building which mean that there are occupants especially at risk which which mean that occupants with certain types of impairment will become especially at

02:34:46 impairment will become especially at risk because of the features in that building right and therefore would it follow from that the the responsible person is normally entitled to look to the fire risk assessor to advise it that it should be

02:34:58 assessor to advise it that it should be collating information on particular occupants

02:35:02 occupants because of the risks presented by the building because the risk presented by the building

02:35:09 yeah i'd like to think about that probably not no i think i think you see it depends on this is where you know the the kind of scale of the role the fire risk

02:35:20 scale of the role the fire risk fire risk assessor has and that's why i said earlier minimum war you know warn of the problem escalating up to if you are working

02:35:31 if you are working with a responsible person who does have a system

02:35:35 a system to collate information

02:35:38 then that's a different category in my mind okay

02:35:44 mind okay yes

02:35:45 yes and you've looked at that information yeah i'm going to come to that in just a moment

02:35:49 moment um

02:35:50 um what i was really trying to get to the bottom of is whether it's your opinion that the assessment of the building yeah the risks in the building yeah which would uh

02:36:02 mean that occupants especially at risk would have to be identified individually it's something that would be

02:36:10 would be a function of a suitable and sufficient file okay so i understand what you mean so if if you're in a building there's no lift let's say the fire doors are defective you're worried about the

02:36:22 defective you're worried about the internal wall and

02:36:25 and one of the many things you would you know notified a responsible person about is look you need to understand that anyone who can't get down the stairs swiftly in the event of a fire in this

02:36:37 swiftly in the event of a fire in this building is particularly exposed to harm because of the features of your building so again it's all about that risk level so yes they they need to warn the

02:36:49 so yes they they need to warn the responsible person and tell them what the risk the the extra risk level is for those people you can go on to say i strongly advise

02:37:01 you can go on to say i strongly advise you to look into your existing processes to understand the percentage of people in this property

02:37:08 property that cannot leave this building swiftly in a reasonable fire now um then coming to the information available to the tmo as a as the next

02:37:19 available to the tmo as a as the next sub-topic

02:37:20 sub-topic you

02:37:21 you um

02:37:22 um reviewed the tma's processes i think for gathering information about residents yes including their vulnerabilities and you covered that i think in

02:37:31 think in section 10 of chapter 6 can we look at a little bit of that please blarp 25034

02:37:39 25034 page 189

02:37:41 page 189 can i just be clear that the only reason i did that in case people are interested is because it was cited in the fire risk assessment indeed that's the only reason and i

02:37:52 indeed that's the only reason and i think it's really important that this particular fire risk assessor for this particular building did go to the trouble of citing a particular management

02:38:04 of citing a particular management process in the preparation of his risk assessment and that's why i looked at it because it doesn't happen everywhere now if you go to paragraph

02:38:16 now if you go to paragraph 10.8.36 this is under the heading summary of the recorded number of vulnerable persons uh and i know this may be the subject of amendment in a later report but um you say i've reviewed the evidence and

02:38:27 say i've reviewed the evidence and confirmed the following information yeah and and then that table continues over to page 190 yeah uh and yeah just to be clear that table is not

02:38:39 yeah just to be clear that table is not changing that table's not changing thank you that that's helpful um and it lists the type of information recorded by the tmo including in the first column yeah the system type and if we go go back to

02:38:51 the system type and if we go go back to page 189 you can see tp tracker yeah and then underneath that just reading it through civica w2 edmond edrms or capita housing ryden information gathering

02:39:02 housing ryden information gathering exercise david noble spreadsheet that uh on the night of the fire from crm or capita and then on the next page tenancy creational tenancy audit so those are the sources

02:39:13 the sources or systems are those all the systems of recording information that includes information about individual vulnerable residents that you saw with respect to the tmo respect to the

02:39:24 with respect to the tmo respect to the team in the evidence available to me that's all i could find would you

02:39:30 would you have expected janice ray as the competent advisor within the responsible person to review that information whenever a fire risk assessment was being carried out yes because janice ray

02:39:42 being carried out yes because janice ray um accepted mr stokes risk assessment every year and the statutory risk assessment stated it was relying on the tp tracker process yeah and would you expect janice ray as

02:39:54 yeah and would you expect janice ray as the competent advisor the responsible person to make that information available to mr stokes so

02:40:03 so if it existed yeah no exactly i mean this is a problem about talking about grenfell so if the the the competent person for the responsible person and the risk assessor said

02:40:15 person and the risk assessor said every time for grenfell and i think it's it's all the other high-rise buildings as well

02:40:20 as well every single time we're relying on x process and the following is the risk level

02:40:26 level absolutely every single time the risk assessment was done i would expect it was asked for or given i'm not going to give a view i think it's obvious that both should occur

02:40:38 both should occur otherwise you don't write it into your statutory risk assessment would it be and i need to be careful distinguishing between normal practice and acceptable practice but would it be normal practice

02:40:50 practice but would it be normal practice for a responsible person in

02:40:54 in charge of management of a high-rise residential building to hold records which did not contain up-to-date information about at least at least about the total numbers of vulnerable persons in their

02:41:05 numbers of vulnerable persons in their building would it be normal i can't have you come across that okay um [Music]

02:41:13 [Music] why you ask you're asking me about up-to-date records about the kctmos tenancy process or the vulnerable people living in their properties

02:41:27 i think i think i should answer i i think i think i shouldn't answer that question

02:41:32 question and i think that there's a really there's a very important point here and a piece of work that's needed you know to establish

02:41:44 well considered an evidenced common practice in that domain

02:41:53 i mean let me try the question yeah as a participant in the the fire risk assessment industry over a number of years yeah did you did you ever

02:42:03 ever get to

02:42:04 get to know that there was a practice whereby responsible persons didn't maintain up-to-date and i i have i have worked with people who are not sure or don't know

02:42:17 are not sure or don't know the you know the percentage of persons

02:42:22 that are especially uh that may be especially at risk in their premises and

02:42:29 and but i just i just want to be very clear where you do have a process which is the situation at grenfell which is not necessarily the situation everywhere i was asked to give a view on grenfell so

02:42:42 was asked to give a view on grenfell so for grenfell there was i'm going to call it a management process in the context of an organization it was referred to in the risk assessment and that brings it into that

02:42:54 assessment and that brings it into that field

02:42:55 field of of it having to be accurate i don't want to talk about it in any generic sense

02:43:01 sense all right well then let's look at what mr stokes did yeah can we go to chapter 6 of your report section 13 blarp 25034

02:43:11 25034 page 234

02:43:15 and you can see it paragraph 13.9.2 on that page

02:43:21 that page and this is part of your concluding points yeah uh you say

02:43:26 say uh

02:43:27 uh 13.9.2 as i explained in chapter eight despite mr stokes's pro former more or less being aligned with the pro former nxb of past 79 2012 he did not include the helpful table it proposes in the

02:43:39 the helpful table it proposes in the general information section of the pro forma

02:43:42 forma there it directs the user to provide numbers of disabled occupants young persons and loan workers and then you set out a figure 13.9 the excerpt from section 3 of nxb of past 79.

02:43:55 and you

02:43:58 you go on to say it paragraph 13.9.4 i cannot find which part of mr stakes's fire risk assessments takes account of people with any disabilities nor where it explains the so-called reasonable adjustments in

02:44:10 the so-called reasonable adjustments in order for those relevant persons not being placed at any substantial disadvantage would you expect this is my question would you expect a fire risk assessment to include a pro forma section

02:44:21 to include a pro forma section identifying occupants especially at risk from fire yeah so again i mean i'm not going to get hung up on the formatter style you know the style of the proforma

02:44:32 style of the proforma but in terms of recognizing the types of persons that may be especially at risk i would expect it to be set out and it's very commonly set

02:44:43 be set out and it's very commonly set out as i have seen have seen

02:44:49 whether or not in the form of a pro forma perhaps that doesn't matter would you

02:44:53 you say that a fire risk assessment that does not set out that information remain suitable and sufficient no because they've not they've not expressed the persons they

02:45:07 expressed the persons they understand to be especially at risk

02:45:13 mr stokes pro forma is

02:45:17 is you know a very expansive pro forma in the context of a lot of other pro formas that exist out there yes and he did have

02:45:30 yes and he did have a section

02:45:31 a section dedicated to disabled persons yes and we'll look at that now can we go to that this i'm going to show what i'm going to show you is uh his fire risk assessment for grenfell tower of the 20th of june 2016. okay

02:45:43 tower of the 20th of june 2016. okay that's cst 403145

02:45:47 403145 let's go to page 23 in that please this is his section 13 it was always section 13 which had a title disabled people you can see that on the screen there dr

02:45:58 you can see that on the screen there dr lane and it says it is considered that the building is provided with reasonable arrangements for means of escape for disabled people although it's expressed as a statement there's a question mark at the end it's clearly a question and answer tick yes

02:46:12 question and answer tick yes and under comments or observations he says this and i'll read it to you at the time of the risk assessment there was no evidence of any resident within the premises who suffers from a sensory impairment that would prevent them from

02:46:23 impairment that would prevent them from hearing a shouted warning of fire tma have introduced a comprehensive program to gathering information about tenants including any disabilities and their physical ability and mobility to

02:46:34 their physical ability and mobility to respond to any emergency situations can we turn the page please

02:46:45 in any emergency situations this information will be inputted on a tp tracker system and held centrally the additional information will be used to assess if residents may require additional devices to provide them with

02:46:57 additional devices to provide them with early warning of smoke straight fire in their home and or development of a personal emergency evacuation plan peeps both of the lifts in this building are firefighter strike evacuation lifts and

02:47:08 firefighter strike evacuation lifts and could be used as part of the evacuation strategy for disabled persons but if these lifts were used this would be under the control of the fire service if they were in attendance

02:47:19 attendance before the fire service arrived at this building these lifts could be used by the residents or perhaps tma stroke rbc staff

02:47:26 staff this policy is in accordance with the guidance given in the hm government risk assessments to document sleeping accommodation i'd recommend that the staff are trained on how to use these firefighter stroke

02:47:37 on how to use these firefighter stroke evacuation lifts and that any keys needed are kept reasonably available yeah um i've read that at length to you now now um so it's a very comprehensive set of provisions for disabled people

02:47:49 provisions for disabled people uh

02:47:50 uh now

02:47:51 now mr stokes told the inquiry in his oral evidence and this is day 137 at page 107 lines 5-15 and i'm summarizing it i hope fairly that he was not told

02:48:02 fairly that he was not told that the tp tracker subscription that the tmo had was discontinued in september 2013. yeah that's correct which is why he never removed the reference to it in his risk assessments

02:48:13 reference to it in his risk assessments thereafter we do see it thereafter in october 2014 april 2016 and yeah that's correct yes would you expect a reasonably competent fire risk assessor to ensure that the information recorded

02:48:25 to ensure that the information recorded in the fire risk assessment is current and up to date as at the time of the assassin yes i would would you have expected mr stokes to check with the tmo on each occasion that he conducted a fire risk assessment what evidence the

02:48:37 fire risk assessment what evidence the tp tracker held yes i would because he wrote that in himself now mr stokes i better show you mr stokes's evidence is day 137 page 95 we can just look at that i'm

02:48:50 page 95 we can just look at that i'm going to show you about three quarters of a page of transcript day 137 page 95. he says

02:48:59 he says that

02:49:00 that line eight um

02:49:03 um question i take it you didn't ask janice ray the question is there anybody in this building who is disabled answer i would expect them to tell me question when you say this information will be inputted on a tp tracker system

02:49:14 will be inputted on a tp tracker system can you explain why you didn't check the tp tracker system yourself to make sure that there truly was no evidence of any resident within the premises suffering even from a sensory impairment to their ears

02:49:25 ears well i'm not an employee of the tmo i was a contractor i couldn't just walk into their building and say can i look at your systems question but you could ask them answer well i would have i would have asked them as part of an ongoing and expect

02:49:37 them as part of an ongoing and expect them to tell me if they knew of anyone as well as and i expected if janice knew anyone she would tell me as well question you identify the system on which the information would be inputted did you not ask janice ray janice will

02:49:48 did you not ask janice ray janice will please will you go to your tp tracker system and tell me from it who at today is a disabled person for the purposes of my fra did you ask that question answer

02:49:59 my fra did you ask that question answer no question why not answer because it would be the onus would be on the occupier or the responsible person to tell the risk assessor that information question is that not a very inquirious

02:50:10 question is that not a very inquirious approach for a fire risk assessor answer no i don't think so

02:50:17 and i'll show you the next question and answer

02:50:19 answer so was your approach quite simply to assume that there were no disabled people in the building regardless of there being a system whereby you could find out or you could be told from it who they were until you were actually

02:50:30 who they were until you were actually told expressly in terms answer well i believe that's the criteria that's used in past 79 where in a general needs block of flats it's very hard to find out if anyone has got disabilities it's the landlord or the tenant management

02:50:42 the landlord or the tenant management organization or the managing agents of the building would have that information not the risk assessor now i've read that to you at length was mr stokes's approach

02:50:53 mr stokes's approach fox elaine has he's explained it there in that exchange a normal and accepted approach to fire risk assessment in my opinion it's not acceptable

02:51:05 it's not acceptable well

02:51:06 well i mean there that's his opinion so that's his opinion it's if

02:51:12 it's if for me it's contradictory because he's relied on that system by incorporating it into his risk assessment and then in his evidence he

02:51:24 assessment and then in his evidence he he's saying that he had i think really what i read here is he he didn't actually have access to it and he didn't know what it contained so he needed again to make that clear i i do want to

02:51:38 again to make that clear i i do want to make a point though that i think the reader of the fire risk assessment if they knew that system was obsolete they should have corrected the risk assessment and return it

02:51:49 assessment and return it and they should have known sorry excuse me

02:51:53 me if they knew that's not what the the fire risk management protocol and the kctmo was they needed to delete it urgently from their statutory risk assessment documents

02:52:04 assessment documents so it i don't see it as being all on mr stoke i'm afraid i'm saying todd all the time

02:52:11 time mr stokes and i think his oral evidence contradicts the you know the firmness of the words he wrote in his risk assessment thank you i think you just answered my

02:52:22 thank you i think you just answered my next three questions oh sorry i'm sorry i'm actually getting very tired i have to say

02:52:34 yeah it's been a hectic morning i'm sure and it's difficult following some of these questions yeah i understand that well

02:52:41 well we'll break now we'll come back at two o'clock please yeah i appreciate it and again please don't talk to anyone about anything to do with your evidence thank you good thank you very much

02:52:57 yes thank you mr miller i would say two o'clock thank you

02:53:11 you