Expert testimony on fire risk assessments, PAS 79 guidance, competency criteria, and industry understanding of external walls and cladding scope under the Fire Safety Order.
00:00:30 right yes would you ask mr todd to come back in please
00:00:42 thank you all right mr todd thank you ready to carry on yes sir thank you very much yes mr mr chairman thank you mr todd can we please go to cta 6011
00:00:53 todd can we please go to cta 6011 your main report at page 20.
00:00:59 and let's look together at paragraph 3.1 on that page this is under the heading legal requirements for risk assessments and 3.1 you say this article 91 of the
00:01:10 and 3.1 you say this article 91 of the fire safety order requires that the responsible person must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to which quote relevant persons are exposed for the purpose of
00:01:21 are exposed for the purpose of identifying the quotes general fire precautions close quotes he needs to not
00:01:39 fsa is available that's correct sir but you deal with the meaning of that expression suitable and sufficient i think on page 23 if we go there let's look at paragraph 3.21
00:01:50 let's look at paragraph 3.21 you say there accordingly for an fra to be suitable and sufficient and thereby compliant with article 9 1 of the fire safety order it is necessary for the fra to
00:02:01 order it is necessary for the fra to give consideration to each of the matters from article 4 of the fire safety order as set out in paragraph 320 above and just pausing there you can see uh what you've set out at 320. it's
00:02:13 uh what you've set out at 320. it's actually not on the screen if we can just scroll up to the top of that page just so that people can see it that's what you say there about what general five precautions
00:02:24 five precautions comprise
00:02:25 comprise yes sir you've got some seven or six rather six measures there including two at the end under f yes seven in total um now if you go back to 321 continuing
00:02:38 321 continuing uh you say to further assist by the inquiry and interpretation of the term general fire precautions in practice in my opinion the measures in question may be described in more common problems as follows
00:02:49 follows and then there's a list of bullet points i'll just read them to you measures to prevent the outbreak of fire compartmentation fire stopping eg of service penetrations in fire resisting walls and floors fire doors etc
00:03:01 walls and floors fire doors etc suitably protected escape routes and fire exits emergency escape lighting fire exit signage and smoke control fire extinguishers fire detection and fire alarm systems appropriately disseminated
00:03:13 alarm systems appropriately disseminated fire procedures instruction and training of employees in fire safety arrangements for management of safety now just looking at that list and each of them in turn should each of those
00:03:25 of them in turn should each of those matters be specifically tailored to the building under assessment yes sir the the general fire precautions uh by definition are those applicable to
00:03:37 uh by definition are those applicable to the building in question and the risk assessor uh looks at the building or rather looks at those precautions in the light of the particular building yes and and bearing in mind uh the provisions of
00:03:49 and bearing in mind uh the provisions of past 79
00:03:50 past 79 i mean we'll go to it if we need to but and have in mind particularly um page 18
00:03:57 page 18 um is it right that the fire risk assessor should express the current level of risk there's nothing in the fire safety order that
00:04:07 that requires the risk assessment to express in any way shape or form or in any particular form the
00:04:18 the level of risk but i think there's a general understanding within our profession sir that it's innate to the process of a risk assessment that assesses the risk
00:04:31 assessment that assesses the risk and
00:04:34 when the when passed 79 was first written in 2005 we wrote it because government policy at the time was they didn't want to tell people how to do a fire risk assessment
00:04:45 people how to do a fire risk assessment because they were in a sort of if i can describe it this way sir anti-prescriptive mode
00:04:51 mode um and so uh in drafting past 79 i suppose you could say we stole unashamedly principles from health and safety risk assessments because health
00:05:03 safety risk assessments because health and safety risk assessments have been a legal requirement since the 1st of january 1993. and so we thought well the health and safety profession must have got their
00:05:14 safety profession must have got their heads around it by now so let's have a look at what they do and we will parallel what they do and and since then in past 79 as you correctly said sir the
00:05:26 said sir the this the the paz recommends that the risk assessment should express the level of risk yes and indeed that's inherent in the nature i'm sorry if that's a very long answer no it's very helpful can i just see if i can uh crystallize four
00:05:38 just see if i can uh crystallize four things see if you agree or disagree first of all as you said you agree that the risk assessor should express the current level of risk um secondly do you agree that uh he or she should determine the adequacy of existing fire
00:05:50 the adequacy of existing fire precautions yes both yes to both of those yes and thirdly determine the need for and the nature of any additional fire precautions correct yes and then fourthly set out any additional fire
00:06:02 fourthly set out any additional fire precautions required in an action plan that's the normal way of doing it so that would be industry practice very good now can we go to page 78 of your main report please and let's look together at paragraph 8.26
00:06:19 the foot of the page you say this uh
00:06:22 uh in in this connection uh which is about completion certificates that's this is the context as you can see from paragraph 825 uh you say i consider it important to note that an fra is not a compliance
00:06:35 note that an fra is not a compliance audit in relation to for example the requirements of the building regulations yes now can you explain what you mean there
00:06:42 there uh
00:06:43 uh yes sir
00:06:44 yes sir it reflects what london fire brigade also
00:06:48 also it was minuted that they said early on in their relationship with rbkc
00:06:57 rbkc that
00:06:59 that you can't actually take the guidance under modern building regulations and apply it to an existing building uh because it's just not appropriate and that that has always been understood
00:07:10 that that has always been understood within
00:07:11 within the uh the fire sector might with the chairman's forbearance could i give an example possibly so if you could take grenfell tower we know that the current guidance under
00:07:24 we know that the current guidance under building regulations is that the maximum distance from a flat entrance door to the stairway shouldn't be more than 7.5 meters and that's an arbitrary figure
00:07:35 meters and that's an arbitrary figure but it's a figure it is what it is we work to it now at grenfell tower i i it was about 9 or 10 meters according to who measured it but let's call it 10 as a round number
00:07:47 but let's call it 10 as a round number sir and if you are doing a fire risk assessment you can't somehow shrink the building
00:07:53 building so that the distance becomes 7.5 meters and there's no point making any suggestions to that effect so you weigh up the the risk and
00:08:04 up the the risk and a non-compliance with current guidance does not always indicate any material risk because guidance moves on all the time
00:08:16 because guidance moves on all the time and if we tried to apply new guidance every time it came along which at the moment in the case of adb is it feels like every five minutes and then you'll be constantly going back to buildings
00:08:27 be constantly going back to buildings and knocking them around and changing them so a risk assessment is what it says on the tin it's an assessment of the risk not an assessment of compliance with
00:08:38 of compliance with anything in particular but in particular more particularly the current the guidance that supports current building regulations well you say not an assessment of compliance with anything
00:08:49 assessment of compliance with anything in particular that that's in a way the the core of my question because you say for example would you accept uh that an fra a fire risk assessment is
00:09:00 uh that an fra a fire risk assessment is a check on the compliance with the fsa by the responsible person yes let me let me rephrase that lenser it's not
00:09:09 it's not a check of compliance with the letter of any particular guidance document but it is a check of compliance with the
00:09:20 of compliance with the rather functionally based objectives of the fire safety order so when i said um it complies with anything you could take the lga guide you could
00:09:31 you could take the lga guide you could take the sleeping risk guide you could take the cars guide you could take a plethora of guides and the purpose of the risk assessment isn't to to go through those guys like a checklist and say complies doesn't comply
00:09:43 say complies doesn't comply but
00:09:44 but the one thing you can't get away from is the overriding objectives as expressed in articles 8 to 22 of the fire safety order such as adequate means of escape
00:09:56 order such as adequate means of escape indeed and you would you would would you accept this that a fire risk assessor does not assume that the art those articles of the fsa have been complied with would you accept that his very purpose is to ensure that
00:10:07 that his very purpose is to ensure that the responsible person has complied absolutely so yes yes thank you now you go on to say uh in the next sentence in any fra particularly fras carried out
00:10:19 in any fra particularly fras carried out prior to the grenfell tower fire it is not only reasonable but is essential to make assumptions regarding compliance with the building regulations unless there are obvious indications to justify
00:10:30 there are obvious indications to justify suspicion of non-compliance now just there when you say of non-compliance do you mean non-compliance with the building regulations that being the uh
00:10:41 regulations that being the uh um that being the example you're giving um possibly the regulations but possibly more the guidance that's the current guidance that supports the regulations
00:10:53 guidance that supports the regulations the approved documents yes but but even the regulations sir possibly and again would an example help sir if you think it would then you must be the judge of that okay thank you um so
00:11:05 the judge of that okay thank you um so you
00:11:07 you the building regulations have expanded in scope uh over a period of time uh and for example b5 was the the requirement b5 was the the most recent
00:11:20 requirement b5 was the the most recent um and so
00:11:21 um and so it would require that in all tall buildings there be dry rising mains let's use that as an example you will find some older buildings built before current building regulations uh where
00:11:33 current building regulations uh where there might not actually be a rising main and it might be over the the magic 18 meters so so it's not just guidance there there might even the functional requirement
00:11:44 even the functional requirement sometimes might not be quite satisfied the functional requirement of current building regulations but then the risk assessor has to decide what is reasonably practicable in terms of
00:11:57 reasonably practicable in terms of the the risk presented by non-compliances yes thank you does does that answer tell us that in your opinion a reasonably competent fire risk assessor would have at least a working
00:12:08 assessor would have at least a working knowledge of the building regulations at all times in force so far as they related to fire safety oh yes sir definitely and would that extend also to the approved documents approve document
00:12:19 the approved documents approve document b yes sir yeah and what education and training on the building regulations and the proof document be should a reasonably competent fire risk assessor receive and continue to receive in order
00:12:30 receive and continue to receive in order to enable him to have and to maintain that working knowledge yes um he may not have formal training if in the sense of
00:12:41 the sense of uh he went on a two-week course on building regulations uh he might it might be experi i can't say it experiential learning
00:12:52 experiential learning on the job as it were and so
00:12:55 and so one notices this in recruiting ex-fire officers
00:12:59 officers those who have been involved in building regulations consultation in the fire service as opposed to simply inspecting buildings always have a better insight
00:13:10 buildings always have a better insight into the building regulations and construction than than than those who have never been involved in building regs consultation that that would be an example yes in your opinion did mr stokes have such education and training
00:13:23 stokes have such education and training he had been involved according to his cv and that's a matter for evidence of fact and for the the accuracy of which is for the chairman to decide but he he says uh
00:13:34 the chairman to decide but he he says uh i think in his cv and you'll correct me if i'm wrong sir that he was involved in building regulations consultations uh when he was with uh oxfordshire fire and rescue service
00:13:45 service is it your opinion that a properly completed fire risk assessment or fra
00:13:51 or fra would point out any breaches of the building regulations which were reasonably evident to the fire risk assessor from his usual inspection of the building regulations i think he would focus on the fire safety order yes
00:14:03 would focus on the fire safety order yes and and the objectives would not be terribly different but uh the one thing that would excuse me would differ would be uh in relation to requirement b5
00:14:16 uh in relation to requirement b5 which
00:14:17 which under the building regulations is measures to assist the fire and rescue service
00:14:24 operational firefighters firefighters engaged in an operational task are not relevant persons within the fire safety order so there might be a little bit less focus on
00:14:35 less focus on uh on b5 but uh b1 b2 b3 largely uh
00:14:42 uh and and and perhaps less so on b4 but certainly b1 b2b3
00:14:48 b2b3 would all be fairly consistent with the functional requirements of the fire safety order in any case yes and leaving aside that qualification in relation to functional requirement b5 is it your
00:14:59 functional requirement b5 is it your opinion that mr stokes uh had this sufficient or reasonably sufficient education and training to equip him to be able to point out any breaches of the building regulations that would impinge
00:15:10 building regulations that would impinge upon fire safety from a from an ordinary inspection yes i think that's probably fair comment uh but but particularly bear in mind he he was
00:15:22 he was he was carrying out a fire risk assessment in pursuance of article 9 which would focus his attention on articles 8 to 22 of the fire safety order but that would be substantial
00:15:34 order but that would be substantial overlap as already said therefore with the functional requirements of the building regulations yes thank you can i now turn to the question of the competent fire risk assessor and questions of competence um
00:15:46 questions of competence um first is there any statutory or regulatory requirement for a fire risk assessment to be carried out by a specialist no nana tulsa in fact
00:15:57 no nana tulsa in fact government mantra at the time of reform of fire safety legislation was that this was not an undue burden on the business community because if they had the
00:16:09 community because if they had the competence to carry out a fire risk assessment they could do it themselves and taking a high-rise residential building would you expect a specialist such as a fire risk assessor an independently retained fire risk
00:16:22 independently retained fire risk assessor to be instructed or would the responsible person conduct that assessment i think i think the qualification i would make sir would be in relation to independent
00:16:34 in relation to independent because some local authorities for example employ an army of fire risk assessors uh competent fire risk assessors so um a specialist uh yes sir
00:16:45 assessors so um a specialist uh yes sir uh independent not necessarily all right would you expect the fire risk assessor to meet the standards of the reasonably competent fire as assessor whatever those are yes i would say and would you expect the responsible person to meet
00:16:56 expect the responsible person to meet the standards uh
00:16:58 uh would you expect the responsible person if doing the fra themselves to meet those self-same standards yes sir you would
00:17:05 would do you agree that the industry-wide criteria against which uh the competence of a fire risk assessor should be judged is set out in the competency criteria first published in december 2011. yes it
00:17:16 first published in december 2011. yes it continues to be quite widely used in our profession as a benchmark yes and you'd cover that as we've seen it a little bit but also paragraph 5.18 of your report at page
00:17:27 paragraph 5.18 of your report at page 42. i don't think there's a need to go to it
00:17:29 to it is it right that the competency criteria was drafted to address the something in the nature of a growing concern about the competence of risk assessors and the emergence of inadequate fire
00:17:41 and the emergence of inadequate fire risk assessments from premises that suffered
00:17:43 suffered a number of fatalities fake fires not not necessary i think the fatalities bit is is
00:17:52 is is the icing on the sorry it sounds that's a terrible thing to say i was about to say the ice on the cake the the fatalities bit would be the extra impetus
00:18:00 impetus but
00:18:01 but more generally there were absolutely so there was concern about the competence of fire risk assessors their their incompetence if i can put it that way happily did not always result
00:18:12 that way happily did not always result in fatalities but it did result in risk assessments that absolutely were not suitable and sufficient and that was a concern
00:18:20 concern can i can i just interject to ask you this the requirement i think under the order is there to be a is it suitable and sufficient yes sir fire risk
00:18:31 and sufficient yes sir fire risk assessment that is the pudding so to speak yes um is there a danger that in concentrating on competence we're concentrating on the cook rather than the pudding um
00:18:43 because even an incompetent cook can sometimes turn out a marvelous pudding fortuitously yes um yes the
00:18:51 yes the you you are right the the the acid test sir is what does the product do and and that is the the end to start from the concern that
00:19:03 end to start from the concern that council referred to was that the sector were seeing lots and lots of risk assessments that absolutely weren't suitable and sufficient and when you tracked back as to why it's because the
00:19:14 tracked back as to why it's because the risk assessor wasn't competent and and then we come back to the fact there was no statutory requirement for competence and that wasn't an oversight sir that was intentional government policy not to
00:19:25 was intentional government policy not to make it a statutory requirement and i suppose it's better to have an army of competent fire risk assessors than a plethora of possible prosecutions of
00:19:36 plethora of possible prosecutions of responsible persons for not having done proper virus and or the fire risk assessors themselves sir yes well that's something else you're going to help me on later on all right okay sorry is that answered yeah yes thank you
00:19:48 answered yeah yes thank you yes did the competency criteria codify in any way or enshrine in any way pre-existing principles of competence yes i would say it it probably did
00:20:02 yes i would say it it probably did because
00:20:03 because the
00:20:04 the the
00:20:05 the reform of fire safety legislation was not intended to as it were push back the frontiers of fire safety or introduce new principles it carried on
00:20:17 introduce new principles it carried on principles of fire safety that had been established for many years under the fire precautions act so people who were fairly competent under the fire precautions act should be
00:20:29 precautions act should be fairly competent under the fire safety order i see can we then look at the competency criteria see at cta 6011 page 109.
00:20:41 i want to look with you at the preamble to the the script this set of criteria under the word under the word forward at the top and if you go to six paragraphs
00:20:52 the top and if you go to six paragraphs done it's not numbered but it's about the middle of your your screen yes i i think i drafted quite a bit of this sir uh
00:21:00 uh it um
00:21:03 it um uh it's i think you need to scroll down a bit further actually the bottom half of the screen but do you see that it um it says uh in the and it's the fourth paragraph
00:21:14 uh in the and it's the fourth paragraph up from the bottom i think that's the best place to find it in the paragraph that starts as a result of these concerns however from any premises sir as a result of these concerns it says the fire risk assessment
00:21:25 it says the fire risk assessment competency council which comprises a broad group of relevant stakeholders etc etc and then in the last sentence it says this it is anticipated that these criteria will be used by professional bodies and third party certification
00:21:37 bodies and third party certification bodies who register or certificate fire risk assessors and by commercial companies providing fire risk assessment services
00:21:45 services do you agree that it was only those fire risk assessors who voluntarily applied to professional bodies and third party certification bodies whose competence would be checked against those standards
00:21:57 would be checked against those standards absolutely and so the certification scheme wasn't mandatory no not not in any way shape or form no did that mean that there were and indeed still are out there a number of fire
00:22:08 still are out there a number of fire risk assessors providing commercial services
00:22:11 services who had never had their competency checked or verified against those standards without wishing to take up the time of the inquiry sir could i just add something that might help the chairman on your last question um
00:22:24 not only was it not mandatory but government resisted all calls for it to be made mandatory but very very positively resisted it was that because of so-called burdens on
00:22:35 was that because of so-called burdens on business um i'm paraphrasing your evidence
00:22:38 evidence let me ask you why no you you were doing fine sir um the uh the government were very much in in deregulation mode uh
00:22:48 uh and
00:22:49 and uh during the the reform process uh and uh the it was held this this goes to the issue of why competence was not actually required
00:23:00 required and nowhere in the fire safety order does it require a fire risk assessor to be competent and the government were very clear that were they to have um
00:23:11 um required fire risk assessors to be competent it would apply imply to the business community that they'd have to go out and buy in the services of a specialist and the fire safety order was
00:23:24 specialist and the fire safety order was brought in in the name of reducing burdens in business so it would be a little bit difficult for the government to
00:23:33 follow a party line where we're reducing burdens on business and by the way you're gonna have to pay for a service that you got free before from the fire and rescue service so intentionally the
00:23:44 and rescue service so intentionally the comp the word competent wasn't included and the the sector constantly uh through professional bodies and trade associations uh bit around the ankles of
00:23:55 associations uh bit around the ankles of government if i can put it this way uh asking them to make it mandatory for fire risk assessors to be competent through a third-party registration scheme um and the example given was gas
00:24:08 scheme um and the example given was gas safe
00:24:09 safe you can't just have anyone come along and install your gas fire they'd have to be what used to be called corgi registered now gas safe why why can someone come along and do a fire risk assessment for
00:24:21 along and do a fire risk assessment for a terror block but but government weren't in would not buy that argument sir right um just just
00:24:29 just just by rising out of that and coming back to the chairman's question to you uh a little while ago about puddings uh article nine is is the article that
00:24:40 article nine is is the article that contains the expression suitable and sufficient yes can you tell us what was the origin of that expression oh my goodness
00:24:49 if it's a long answer no i'm sorry i am trying to shorten my answer sir um but let me ask you this way does it come from pre-existing english welsh or other united kingdom
00:25:00 english welsh or other united kingdom legislation or does it come from elsewhere i have a feeling it may have been in the fire precautions workplace regulations sir but you might have to just double check that right to your knowledge when it came into the
00:25:11 knowledge when it came into the regulation was it an expression which was in customary use in the trade i think we we understood it accepted it and went perplexed by it put it that way so would you would you say that when it
00:25:22 would you would you say that when it came onto the statute book in 2005's in fact it did that most people in the trade understood what what what the pudding was supposed to look like if i could put it that way they were beginning to get the hang of
00:25:35 they were beginning to get the hang of it sir right but i wouldn't say uh
00:25:40 uh we we used to joke that if you ask 10 fire risk assessors what's a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment you get 11 answers right is it a bit like the the scrutin elephant you you you you can't define it
00:25:51 elephant you you you you can't define it but you know what it looks like when you see it
00:25:54 see it yes well sometimes you don't even know we couldn't even agree what it looked like
00:26:02 we'd recognize it when we saw it that's why we we produced past 79 to try and establish some consistency but that only came out in 2005 so the industry was still probably feeling its way a little
00:26:14 still probably feeling its way a little bit right in terms of what would comply and what wouldn't well it leads me to another question given the efforts that you yourself personally had put into past 79 in 2005 and 2007.
00:26:25 past 79 in 2005 and 2007. why why why was competence trailing
00:26:29 trailing uh in 2011 so as to necessitate the comp the fire risk assessment competency council's document uh past 79 is a process
00:26:40 uh past 79 is a process um
00:26:41 um it also talked about the competence of fire risk assessors but there were a lot of fire risk assessors out there who would not necessarily be following pas 79 would not necessarily meet those
00:26:54 79 would not necessarily meet those competence criteria going back to what we said before we're not turning out suitable and sufficient fire risk assessors and everyone was becoming a bit worried by it right from your knowledge were the standards set out in the uh fra competency council
00:27:07 set out in the uh fra competency council criteria routinely applied by fire risk assessors even though they weren't registered or certified by any professional or third-party body well
00:27:17 well i suppose they would they would have to if they did use it they'd have to assess themselves against it and i don't think they did right were you involved in the drafting or development of the of the
00:27:30 development of the of the fire risk assessment competency councils document entitled a guide to choosing a competent fire risk assessor yes i was sir and that was first published in february 2013. it came afterwards yes
00:27:41 february 2013. it came afterwards yes it came afterwards yes
00:27:44 can you help us with how it was expected that responsible persons would use that guide once it was published what we as a sector were trying to promote sir was that government wouldn't
00:27:55 promote sir was that government wouldn't make it mandatory for fire risk assessors to be competent and their view was let the sector let business sort itself out and so we wanted to encourage
00:28:07 and so we wanted to encourage responsible persons to use on a voluntary basis third-party certificated firms rather than to put it crudely someone they met down in the pub do you know whether the the guide
00:28:20 do you know whether the the guide that we've just um that you were responsible for was generally used by responsible persons after february 2013 when choosing a fire risk assessor i would say gradually sir gradually well
00:28:33 would say gradually sir gradually well gradually after 2013 yes wars 2017 probably
00:28:38 probably right now in respect of past 79 can we go to page 39 of your main report please and let's look on that page at paragraph 511 at the foot of the page there you'll see
00:28:50 at the foot of the page there you'll see you say
00:28:54 in the the fourth line having referred to the other versions of past 79 you say past 79 is widely regarded as authoritative guidance on the subject of fire risk assessment it is now commonly
00:29:05 fire risk assessment it is now commonly specified in tender specifications for fras as well as setting out a process for carrying out fras as noted past 79 provides high level guidance on the competence required of risk assessors
00:29:18 competence required of risk assessors now you told us earlier that that that you in fact had drafted uh or at least cs todd and associates have drafted both the 20 2007 and 2012 versions of past 79. yes sir so can we take it that you
00:29:31 79. yes sir so can we take it that you approved uh everything in it yes sir everything in them yes can you confirm uh that both uh the 2007 and the 2012 versions of past 79 applied to fire risk
00:29:43 versions of past 79 applied to fire risk assessments in respect of high-rise residential buildings such as grenfell tower
00:29:49 tower um
00:29:51 um certainly
00:29:52 certainly in theory
00:29:54 in theory um if i'm honest sir um
00:29:58 um we probably would not have had those foremost in our minds in in drafting the uh the the past because much of the focus was on
00:30:10 because much of the focus was on commercial premises at the at the time because until lachenal house in 2009 which i appreciate is before 2012 there wasn't vigorous enforcement of the
00:30:22 there wasn't vigorous enforcement of the fire safety order in my experience in blocks of flats um
00:30:27 um and they were not high on the radar of of people
00:30:33 of people right um let's just look at past 79 then can we please go to it cta 703
00:30:41 page 9.
00:30:51 now uh
00:30:53 uh you'll see on the screen scope
00:30:56 scope and yes if we can scroll down to the footnote footnote one
00:31:02 yes uh footnote one says this fire risk assessments are however required for example in the case of common parts of houses and multiple occupation and blocks of flats in england and wales and
00:31:13 blocks of flats in england and wales and for licensed houses in multiple occupation in scotland this pass is applicable to such fire risk assessments as you go on about construction sites
00:31:24 construction sites and then you say construction sites are outside the scope of this pass
00:31:31 now that footnote there although it's a footnote
00:31:35 footnote made it pretty clear didn't it that past 79 was to be regarded as applicable to blocks of flats in england and wales yeah yes they weren't excluded but although
00:31:46 although the point i was making sir was in practice they say much the same as the sleeping accommodation guide uh technically could apply to blocks of flats although not high rise
00:31:58 blocks of flats although not high rise but if you were to do a word search in the sleeping accommodation guide for flats you won't find many references because they were focused on commercial premises such as hotels and um i can't
00:32:10 premises such as hotels and um i can't remember in fact i'm not sure if i've ever looked to see how many references there are to flats in here but a lot of the focus would have been on commercial premises
00:32:18 premises um
00:32:19 um i understand but but i think we we can agree this much that that there's no dispute that past 79 applied and was intended to to blocks of flats
00:32:28 flats applied to fire risk assessments for anything yeah let's go to paragraph 512 of your main report at page 40. uh at the top of the page there you say uh
00:32:39 uh accordingly pass this paragraph i'll start again accordingly paragraph 7.2 of past 79 2012 page 17 recommends that all fras should be carried out by a
00:32:50 that all fras should be carried out by a competent person who need not possess any specific academic qualifications but should and then you've got a long list of things they should do you could see there yes understand the relevant fire
00:33:01 there yes understand the relevant fire safety legislation have a thorough knowledge and understanding of the government guidance document relevant to the premises in question have appropriate education training knowledge and experience in the principles of fire safety have an understanding of fire
00:33:13 safety have an understanding of fire development and the behavior of people in fire understand the fire hazard fire risks and relevant factors associated with occupants especially at risk within premises of the type in question understand the causes of fire and means
00:33:24 understand the causes of fire and means for their prevention understand the design principles of fire protection measures have a have an appropriate training or experience in carrying out fras
00:33:32 fras yes uh i've read it out aloud just to give the uh really the impression of the length of the list but is it also right that you would expect a competent fire risk assessor to follow the guidance contained in past 79
00:33:46 that's what we we would have hoped but past 79 wasn't mandatory and there were some competent fire risk assessors who like to do their own thing
00:33:57 assessors who like to do their own thing so
00:33:59 so the acceptance by the sector the past 79 is the place to go again was a gradual thing
00:34:10 place to go again was a gradual thing so i wouldn't like to say that that there were no competent risk assessors who chose not to use pass 79 pardon the double negative right
00:34:21 negative right uh
00:34:21 uh is it right that fire risk assessors could use the template in annex b or e uh to pass 79 depending on whether they were carrying out a new fra or a review
00:34:32 were carrying out a new fra or a review of an existing fra yes they could but the important thing to understand about the template is that it's in an informative annex yes which means it's not actually part of the paths
00:34:43 paths so the paths is a process the template is uh here's one we've done earlier you can use it if you want but if you don't want to you can still comply with the pass
00:34:52 pass yes but would you accept that a fire risk assessor would need to ensure that all the recommendations uh of the current past 79 in other words that current at the time were satisfied we
00:35:04 current at the time were satisfied we that's how we would regard it certainly yes can we then go to page 89 of your of your main report and and look about look to see what you say about the template
00:35:15 say about the template okay paragraph 8.79 there the top of your screen you say this in this connection a major objective of the past 79 template is to drive fire risk assessors to consider all relevant
00:35:27 risk assessors to consider all relevant matters if any relevant matter is overlooked the template cannot be completed in respect of testing and maintenance to assist fire risk assessors the appropriate frequencies for testing and maintenance of the most commonly encountered fire protection
00:35:39 commonly encountered fire protection systems and equipment are set out in the template that's correct yeah yeah now do you know where um the relevant standards in the template were derived from
00:35:50 template were derived from the what the testing maintenance frequencies yes from the particular product or equipment standards are these british standards uh british or european sir yes i mean we didn't
00:36:01 or european sir yes i mean we didn't make them up we we chose them so for example for lifts and doors or the aov you might look to the british standards or the european equivalent that's correct i see
00:36:12 european equivalent that's correct i see now um
00:36:13 now um to page 88 we go back a page please you say this at paragraph 877.
00:36:21 you uh you say you've examined the adapted past 79 template used by mr stokes and compared it with the template included in the 2005 2007 and 2012 versions of past 79 from this
00:36:33 versions of past 79 from this examination i'm satisfied that the template used by mr stokes was adapted from the 2007 version yes uh now just pausing there recognizing that a fire risk assessor is not required to
00:36:44 a fire risk assessor is not required to use any particular template uh would you expect that for the fras completed after publication of the 2000 of the 2012 edition of past 79 in august 2012 a
00:36:55 edition of past 79 in august 2012 a competent fire risk assessor would have used that version some people were still using their own templates that were not even the past 79 template
00:37:05 template and and
00:37:06 and and that was that that was their choice it's become a sort of industry standard now uh but um i knew i know some very competent fire risk assessors who who
00:37:18 competent fire risk assessors who who actually didn't like that template and they used their own yes um really what i'm seeking to get at is that if mr stokes had used uh the 2007 template as the basis for his own
00:37:30 template as the basis for his own taylormade template would it be why would he not use the 2012 version of the past 79 template to revise his old template yes
00:37:41 template to revise his old template yes i think that's that's a good point if he if he
00:37:44 if he pinned his colours to the mast of that template then one would expect him to to keep using it and updating it and is it fair to say that the risk of not
00:37:55 it fair to say that the risk of not using the most recent template even as the basis for your own is that the fire risk assessor won't necessarily be following the principles set out in the most up-to-date british standards or industry guidance it could theoretically
00:38:07 industry guidance it could theoretically not be driven to look at the right things
00:38:09 things there wasn't much difference between 2007 and 2012. in fact the purchasers of 2012
00:38:17 2012 moaned quite a lot that they bought it and they didn't see that very much of a difference there was a difference between 2005 and 2007 and one one thing that may interest the inquiry is
00:38:28 that may interest the inquiry is 2005
00:38:30 2005 was following the fire precautions workplace regulations which didn't deal with the maintenance of equipment uh for the fire and rescue service article 38 of the fire safety order did so we we
00:38:42 of the fire safety order did so we we put a lot more emphasis as there was more emphasis in the fire safety order on the testing frequencies for example yes and this was to help one-man bands who would uh sold traders who would not
00:38:54 who would uh sold traders who would not necessarily um purchase all the different british standards which are very expensive so to help them we extracted the frequencies from the relevant standards and incorporated it
00:39:05 relevant standards and incorporated it in the template but i i sense from your answers that you would not regard the use of the continuing use of the 2007 template
00:39:18 the 2007 template as evidence of a lack of competence no i wouldn't sir right thank you if we go to paragraph 5 12 of your report
00:39:29 report uh
00:39:31 uh yeah i don't you need to go to it um i read it to you a moment ago you say that a competent fire risk assessor should have a thorough knowledge and understanding of government guidance of the government guidance document
00:39:42 the government guidance document relevant to the premises in question now for the purposes of mr stokes's fras would you expect him to have a thorough knowledge of i'll give you a list first of all um
00:39:52 of all um the document you call it the sleeping guide hm government fire safety risk assessment sleeping accommodation published in 2006. yes sir yes second
00:40:02 second the hm government guide entitled fire safety risk assessment means of escape for disabled people published in march 2007.
00:40:10 2007. yes ideally it wasn't as well known and used but yes it was a valid document to to be aware of yes um what about the lay calls uh housing fire safety guidance on
00:40:21 calls uh housing fire safety guidance on fire safety provisions for certain types of existing houses only if he were carrying out fire risk assessments for properties that would fall within the scope of the cars the
00:40:32 fall within the scope of the cars the course was not intended to apply to high-rise blocks of flats but it would apply to
00:40:39 apply to houses multiple occupation and that included
00:40:43 included um section 257 of the housing act uh conversions of old houses a long time ago into into blocks of flats that wouldn't meet the current standard then
00:40:54 wouldn't meet the current standard then you went to the cars so if you were doing that type of property he he would need to be familiar with the cars yes and to your knowledge were there such properties in the tmo housing stock
00:41:07 properties in the tmo housing stock i think they had some what they called street properties yes and that that would tend to fall within the cars yes next uh is the lga fire safety and
00:41:18 next uh is the lga fire safety and purpose-built blocks of flats published in initially in july 2011. yes definitely definitely would you expect him also to be familiar with with relevant british standards
00:41:29 with with relevant british standards specifically bs 9991
00:41:33 bs 9991 published i think earlier than 2015 but certainly republished in 2015 fire safety in the design management and use of residential buildings code of practice yes to a degree but
00:41:44 practice yes to a degree but significantly less so than the other guidance documents you've just referred to because treble name one applied to new buildings and unless you were involved with new buildings you might not have as intimate
00:41:57 buildings you might not have as intimate knowledge what about quadruple nine
00:42:01 again if you would like even less because sorry are we talking about housing sir uh or all
00:42:09 uh or all uh oh oh um still less so because uh double nine double nine is an alternative approach to approve document b and probably ninety percent of
00:42:21 ninety percent of buildings would be designed in accordance with adb at that time perhaps five percent in accordance with double nine double nine and five percent as fire engineering solutions yes i see
00:42:33 as fire engineering solutions yes i see can i then turn to a different topic which is scope the scope of a fire risk assessment and the practical steps about scope
00:42:41 scope um and i want to look at the scope of a fire risk assessment for a residential high-rise building yes can we start by looking at your main report at page 69 please
00:42:56 you say paragraph 7.21 towards the bottom of your screen under the heading lga guide on fire safety and purpose-built blocks of flats yes
00:43:07 uh you uh you you say there would you introduce i should say appendix 2 of the lga guide in the second part of that paragraph you see that i don't think i
00:43:18 paragraph you see that i don't think i need to read it all out to you but you agree it sets out the steps to be taken in undertaking a fire risk assessment yes and the appendix 2 is it is referred to by part d of the lga guide isn't it
00:43:30 to by part d of the lga guide isn't it that's correct and that defines i think four different types of fire risk assessment doesn't it that's correct and in summary is what you say at paragraph 7.23 over the page on page 70. you just
00:43:41 7.23 over the page on page 70. you just go to that just to pick that up and there uh you uh identify those and at paragraph 7.24
00:43:49 7.24 you say uh this a type 1 fra is the is the basic fra required for the purpose of satisfying the fire safety order and then at 7.25 you say the scope of a type
00:44:02 then at 7.25 you say the scope of a type 1 fra is limited to the common parts as these are the areas that fall within the scope of the fire safety order as previously discussed in my experience fire risk assessors would not consider
00:44:14 fire risk assessors would not consider the external walls or cladding of a building to constitute common parts and this is consistent with the opinion of the the then dclg now mhclg in the
00:44:25 the the then dclg now mhclg in the immediate aftermath of the grenfell tower fire yes i i just want to focus on that a little bit are you saying here mr todd that the fire risk assessor trade
00:44:36 todd that the fire risk assessor trade at the time actually considered they actually thought about whether external walls or cladding fell within the scope of the fso and decided that they didn't
00:44:47 that they didn't it's probably more by default the the
00:44:51 they would have fallen within the scope in
00:44:54 in uh non-housing premises but the the attention paid to that would have probably been relatively token if i'm honest
00:45:03 honest and
00:45:05 and if your question is did they think about the external walls and then reject the the
00:45:11 the the premise that they were within the scope i'm not sure it'd be as formal as that they weren't considered to be part of
00:45:18 of they wouldn't have included them as part of it's the would have that i'm having trouble with i'm just trying to get to well they didn't it didn't okay i mean i was wondering whether your view here is hypothetical no no no no no sorry this
00:45:29 hypothetical no no no no no sorry this this is reflecting custom and practice one hundred percent so
00:45:33 so your view is that the fire risk assessor trade did not consider that external walls or cladding fell within the scope of the fsa but my question is was that opinion arrived at consciously as a
00:45:44 opinion arrived at consciously as a result of a an empirical process ending with the decision or was it just the way they felt about it no it would be their understanding of common parts i i can't claim that there
00:45:55 i can't claim that there there is some fire risk assessor that i don't i'm not aware of who who saw it differently but certainly i can i can confirm that if not universally very close to universally right the the
00:46:06 very close to universally right the the common parts were not considered to include the external wall but there was no
00:46:11 no thought process that led to that particular conclusion i followed did you yourself personally actually consider this question uh when drafting or supervising the drafting of the lga guide or
00:46:23 the drafting of the lga guide or past 79. we did yes
00:46:27 did yes excuse me sir um we did sir because we considered that uh within two days of appointment uh to write the guide uh the cladding should
00:46:39 write the guide uh the cladding should be a matter of which would give a warning to people and i think you've seen evidence of that sir which i was attached to my my witness statement
00:46:52 but we didn't consider that that was part of the fire safety order and therefore
00:46:59 therefore it wasn't referred to in the section on the lga guide on fire risk assessment we were more concerned about people over cladding buildings and the risk that would arise from that
00:47:11 would arise from that we'll come to that shortly as i can imagine
00:47:13 imagine you would anticipate that yes um before we do can you just help me could you explain
00:47:18 explain the rationale for the understanding that you just described namely the rationale for why at least before the grenfell tower fire fire risk assessors understood or would
00:47:30 fire risk assessors understood or would have considered that the scope of a fire risk assessment should exclude external walls and the cladding of a building yeah unfortunately that there's a list uh but i will try to be succinct yeah
00:47:43 uh but i will try to be succinct yeah there was nothing in guidance to fire risk assessors that would lead them to a contrary opinion so the sleeping accommodation guide referred to sandwich panels
00:47:54 panels but that was because of concern over sandwich panels after uh deaths of a death of firefighters involving sandwich panels and cold storage facilities
00:48:06 panels and cold storage facilities so
00:48:07 so other than that there was nothing in the sleeping accommodation guide there was nothing in guidance note number one which was the guidance to enforcing authorities as to what they should be
00:48:19 authorities as to what they should be considering in their enforcement of the fire safety order the
00:48:24 the concept of the common parts which is only an abbreviation for the long term contained within the fire safety order namely
00:48:35 within the fire safety order namely parts of premises used in common by the occupants of more than one private dwelling and that's such a a long phrase that people tend to call it common parts and that inclusion we were well aware
00:48:47 and that inclusion we were well aware was because of concern by government that europe might consider the common parts of blocks of flats to be workplaces in which case we could be
00:48:58 workplaces in which case we could be regarded as in breach of european directives on health and safety that apply to all workplaces are applied to all workplaces throughout europe
00:49:10 all workplaces throughout europe and
00:49:11 and i think the general opinion was it would be slightly purile to call the external walls of a building a workplace uh in contrast to the common parts that were cleaned decorated perhaps had a
00:49:23 were cleaned decorated perhaps had a concierge walking around so they were they were very much understood to be within the scope but the external wall people didn't regard that as a workplace
00:49:35 people didn't regard that as a workplace um and there was nothing really to lead them to a contrary opinion sir i follow
00:49:42 follow you so i think in a nutshell are you telling us that the origin of the understanding that the external wall should be excluded from the scope of the fsa was that it would it wouldn't be a workplace
00:49:54 that it would it wouldn't be a workplace that's that's or it wouldn't be parts of premises used in common by the occupants of more than one private dwelling yes i want to try and i need to get in a little bit to
00:50:05 and i need to get in a little bit to this to the to the nuts and bolts of this understanding that existed at the time certainly now can we can we look a little further into it can we go to your main report at page nine please paragraph two
00:50:17 i want to see i want to look at your executive summary here yes uh requirements for fras and do you say it um
00:50:24 um look at paragraphs 2.1 to 2.5 all of that is relevant um
00:50:30 um just summarizing it am i right that in summary here you say that until the grenfell tower fire in june 2017 and even after that the prevailing view in the fire risk
00:50:41 prevailing view in the fire risk assessment trade was that the exterior wall of a residential high-rise building with a stay put policy was that it fell outside the scope of the fsa correct yes and therefore would not fall to be risk
00:50:52 and therefore would not fall to be risk assessed by the fire risk assessor correct
00:50:55 correct or indeed the responsible person correct right
00:50:58 right do you also say that by parity of reasoning
00:51:00 reasoning uh
00:51:01 uh it uh
00:51:03 it uh it
00:51:05 it it wasn't governed uh by the fire safety order or the rro more broadly at all uh that that that would that would be the the prevailing view sir okay if not
00:51:17 the the prevailing view sir okay if not the fsa what legislation did govern the assessment of the external wall for fire safety to the extent that anybody ever did
00:51:24 did and and they wouldn't have done in all honesty in an existing building you were left to scratch around for something and the something that you come up with when you scratch the round
00:51:35 come up with when you scratch the round would have been the housing act 2004 and that was government's view after the grenfell terror fire occurred was it deliberate that um
00:51:45 that um responsible persons or those appointed by them to conduct a fire risk assessment would be left to scratch around for something in order to identify the basis of their responsibility for the fire safety of an
00:51:56 responsibility for the fire safety of an external wall of a high-rise building i i think the thinking would have been and i'm not sure that ever anyone ever articulated it with this analytical
00:52:07 articulated it with this analytical detail but the thinking would have been that the external wall was part of building regulations
00:52:16 excuse me having complied uh
00:52:19 uh until you did some alterations uh then and building regulations kicked in again it sat there minding its own business as it were and the fire safety order was really
00:52:31 and the fire safety order was really trying to pick up after building regulations had finished with a building that nobody messed up the fire precautions inbuilt in the building by poor housekeeping in the common parts
00:52:44 poor housekeeping in the common parts fire doors uh becoming ineffective self-closures being ineffective and so on whereas the external wall really fell into a somewhat different category i can't i'm not quite sure i
00:52:56 category i can't i'm not quite sure i understand why it would though given that uh
00:52:58 that uh all the art measures in uh articles five two uh 22
00:53:05 two uh 22 uh would also be covered by the building regulations
00:53:09 sorry ask that question again well there's an overlap i think we thought we would oh absolutely in the trade again we're trying to get to the rationale for i think trying to get to the rationale of parliament might be a rather
00:53:20 be a rather yeah well let's uh let's i'll i'll i'll take i'll take this yeah by government chairman i meant the civil service well the rationale of the civil service is even more remarkable
00:53:32 is even more remarkable i think i think probably we ought to try and confine ourselves to your understanding of how the the trade if i can sector would have looked at the sector yeah so the sector had an understanding
00:53:49 yes i'm trying not to go into a long history lesson sir but it's quite difficult the the separation between building regulations and the legislation that applies to
00:54:01 and the legislation that applies to existing buildings goes back to 1970 and the holroyd report and there was an understanding that building regulations were building regulations once the building was built correctly
00:54:12 once the building was built correctly other legislation came on board to make sure that you managed the building correctly and that you did not undermine the fire precautions installed under
00:54:24 the fire precautions installed under building regulations there was no expectation that in the
00:54:29 in the other than very rare exceptions that you would be
00:54:33 would be requiring additional fire precautions to those required under building regulations now if we take that as the starting point um rightly or wrongly in terms of
00:54:45 in terms of other areas of the building people put storage in the common parts there that has to be picked up in the risk assessment i mentioned fire doors are becoming ineffective things go wrong in
00:54:57 becoming ineffective things go wrong in the common parts and are picked up in the risk assessment and these things that go wrong have affected the strategy adopted under the building regulations there's not a lot to go wrong with the
00:55:09 there's not a lot to go wrong with the external wall provided you leave it alone
00:55:11 alone right um can we then look at paragraph 2.2
00:55:15 2.2 within this section of your report you say there for a block of flats the scope of the fire safety order heads the fras includes the common parts and non-domestic areas such as plant rooms
00:55:26 non-domestic areas such as plant rooms but does not include the flats themselves to be clear are you recording there the prevailing uh views or understanding of the fire risk assessor trade or is this your
00:55:37 risk assessor trade or is this your personal opinion of the meaning of the legislation it would be both sir both now um if you're as i think you are recording the prevailing views were you aware at the time that there
00:55:48 were you aware at the time that there were those in the trade fire risk assessment trade uh uh who did regularly undertake fire risk assessments of the external walls of high-rise residential buildings uh no sir i must admit i never
00:56:00 buildings uh no sir i must admit i never came across that you never came across them
00:56:03 them were you aware at the time that the view that the external wall fell outside the fso was not universally held but was controversial
00:56:14 held but was controversial i was well you've asked two questions sir um taking them in turn uh i wasn't aware that it wasn't universally uh held and uh i certainly don't believe it was
00:56:26 and uh i certainly don't believe it was controversial right did you check your um your statement at paragraph 2.2 against the text of the fsa um
00:56:40 i don't think i did an explicit check sorry no now bearing in mind that what the chairman's warning um about not asking you to interpret legislation i'm not i don't want to do that the aim of
00:56:51 not i don't want to do that the aim of the questions that follow is to try to understand the rationale for the apparently universal view that external walls of high-rise residential buildings fell outside the scope i'd
00:57:03 buildings fell outside the scope i'd like to understand how how it comes about
00:57:06 about um
00:57:07 um we've seen the definition when you've referred to the definition of
00:57:12 of domestic premises let's start with that but before we do do you agree that there is no expression in the fso common parts or non-domestic
00:57:23 in the fso common parts or non-domestic areas that you've used in your report that's correct yes now let's take it in stages because i'd like to try and understand the logic can we go to the rr the the fso itself now this is at inq3011327
00:57:39 and i just want to trace it through if i can
00:57:42 can if we go to page 7 in that document we look at section or regulation 6 a and we can see under 6a
00:57:53 that actually probably want the bottom of page six for this i apologize bottom of page six uh application to premises yes six one this order does not apply in relation to
00:58:05 this order does not apply in relation to and then if we turn the page to page seven a domestic premises except to the extent mentioned in article 31 10 and that's about enforcement we don't need to get into that
00:58:16 need to get into that so it's clear from that i think the domestic premises are excluded from the scope of the fsa altogether that's correct yes so far so good now let's then look at what domestic premises are which is page three
00:58:29 which is page three and the there's a definition there let's look at that page three uh just about a quarter of the way down the page domestic premises means premise is occupied as a private dwelling
00:58:41 is occupied as a private dwelling including any garden yard garage outhouse or other pertinence of such premises which is not used in common by the occupants of more than one such dwelling
00:58:51 dwelling so
00:58:52 so was it understood that the premises occupied as a private dwelling are out yes yes and it would was it also understood that any pertinences
00:59:03 any pertinences not used in common by the occupants of more than one dwelling would also be out well once we'd used once we looked up a pertinence in the oxford english dictionary indeed and perhaps you'd like to give us the trades understanding of
00:59:14 to give us the trades understanding of that word
00:59:18 other um ancillary i suppose ancillary
00:59:23 ancillary facilities yes
00:59:26 now does that tell us that those parts was the understanding that those parts which are used in common are not excluded and are therefore in that's
00:59:37 excluded and are therefore in that's correct right and not only if there are pertinences of course and if they're pertinent to a private dwelling of course uh
00:59:48 uh i didn't mean to obscure that in the question but that no no but the difficulty is with this sort of statutory construction that
00:59:55 that it's possible i wouldn't put it any higher than that that a pertinences has to be understood in the light of the words that precede it indeed
01:00:03 it indeed uh gardens yards garages out houses etc yes that's right uh do would you agree well let me ask you was the understanding in the trade
01:00:14 understanding in the trade that
01:00:15 that the parts that are used in common there
01:00:20 there would include communal areas like lobbies stairs and lifts yes well absolutely yes now you include in your report as i read to you paragraph 2.2 the plant room yes how is the plant room
01:00:31 the plant room yes how is the plant room occupied as a dwelling or used in common by any occupant
01:00:37 well it's not it's not a dwelling i i think
01:00:40 think if the paragraph says that the plant room should be included within the scope of the fire risk assessment it does yeah well i'm not keen to know how how the understanding trying to understand the understanding as it were sure the understanding was
01:00:52 as it were sure the understanding was that plant rooms in high-rise blocks are included what what by what logic
01:01:00 um because
01:01:02 because you wouldn't regard a plant room so as domestic premises
01:01:07 it's a it's a workplace quite it's not domestic so
01:01:16 so in other words there are parts of the building like grenfell tower like the plant room which were which are within the scope of the fsa but but not occupied as a private dwelling
01:01:29 yes yes so if that's the case if you can include plant room in there why not the external wall
01:01:37 wall it goes back to what i said sir the plant room will be separated from the common parts so if i can use that term by far resisting construction by a fire
01:01:49 by far resisting construction by a fire resistant door which will need to be checked to make sure that it's still far resisting self-closing it's very common for storage to build up in plant rooms and therefore you have a fire hazard
01:02:00 and therefore you have a fire hazard within the plant room you would want to check the means of escape from the plant room because of that would be covered under article 14 provided you except that the
01:02:12 article 14 provided you except that the plant room is part of the fire safety order premises um and uh i'm not sure well in fact i know that there was never any contention over plant rooms uh
01:02:24 any contention over plant rooms uh being part of of what a fire risk assessor would need to look at in in a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment right did the fire risk assessment trade uh in your experience understand that the
01:02:36 your experience understand that the external wall formed part of the premise is occupied as a private dwelling and therefore outside was that the reason can you just follow just let me follow that logic again sir
01:02:48 just let me follow that logic again sir yes i mean in your experience did the fire risk assessment trade treat the external wall as domestic premises because i see what you mean yeah um
01:03:01 did they treat its domestic premises i think their i i think their uh view was it wasn't being used i don't i don't know they thought it through
01:03:12 thought it through as as definitively as you're putting it now you come to to analyze it um i think it's just more that they they just didn't consider that that was
01:03:23 didn't consider that that was something that would need to be considered in a in as part of the fire safety order in the fire risk assessment and
01:03:31 and why not they they well
01:03:34 well if if if that were not so the rhetorical question would be why did guidance talk about plant rooms so if i were to look up the sleeping accommodation guide it would tell me
01:03:46 accommodation guide it would tell me about looking at plant rooms it most certainly wouldn't tell me about looking at the external wall and there was never any suggestion for authorities
01:03:57 for authorities in my view but there may have been some that are exceptions but fire authorities were not looking at external walls they weren't trained to look at external walls
01:04:06 walls fire risk assessors the average fire risk assessor on top of the clapham omnibus certainly wouldn't be competent to examine external walls and and even if they were um
01:04:17 if they were um they probably wouldn't really be able to i mean they might be able to get o m drawings
01:04:22 drawings or manuals but from a visual inspection you wouldn't be able to tell anything about the external wall yeah i mean did anybody ever
01:04:31 ever ask themselves what the basis of excluding the external wall from the scope of the fso actually was i would doubt that sir right i mean did anybody ever ask themselves did any anybody ever
01:04:43 ever ask themselves did any anybody ever suggest to you in your experience that the reason for doing so was because it formed part of the the domestic premises privately occupied i i never heard that expressed
01:04:54 heard that expressed and i i never knew anyone looking at it analytically until after grenfell terror and in my experience the overwhelming
01:05:05 in my experience the overwhelming majority view post grenfell was well the external wall is not part of the the fire safety order uh there was a little bit of attention paid to it sir after shepard's court
01:05:17 shepard's court uh and i think the public inquiry have heard about its court
01:05:24 yes we're going to come to the yes okay sorry now i'm interested in your evidence about that but but i think so far what i'm getting from you is that people assumed is this right that the external
01:05:35 assumed is this right that the external wall was outside the scope of the fsa without really ever thinking about it that's
01:05:40 that's that may be a little unfair to to some colleagues in the profession but i i i think it's probably a reasonable assertion sir yeah
01:05:51 assertion sir yeah and would you accept that the exterior wall of a high-rise block of flats
01:05:58 is not occupied as a dwelling any more than the plant room um
01:06:04 um it's not occupied as it's not occupied as a dwelling any more than a platform yeah no
01:06:09 yeah no no
01:06:11 no uh
01:06:14 and indeed let me see if i can just understand it go back to workplaces why is the external wall of a high-rise block of flats not a workplace for example for people being sent up
01:06:25 for example for people being sent up there to clean it or repair it
01:06:30 i think probably the view would have been taken that when you're erecting scaffolding uh and doing work on the external wall you're probably better covered by the health and safety at work act now
01:06:43 health and safety at work act now i'm not saying that's written anywhere i'm just giving you a and off the top of my head opinion
01:06:56 do looking at it a slightly different way and i think this is maybe the way dr lane looks at it uh do you
01:07:04 do you uh well let's start with paragraph 3.21 of your report on page 23 i say start it just continues better work if you go to page 23 of your
01:07:16 better work if you go to page 23 of your main report let's look at 321 on 321 you you list there the bullet points we saw earlier in other words what it is that uh a fire risk assessor needs to needs
01:07:27 uh a fire risk assessor needs to needs to uh
01:07:29 to uh understand by way of general fire precautions and in the second one you say compartmentation there yeah see that that's so compartmentation is one of the general five precautions uh do you agree or do you disagree that
01:07:40 uh do you agree or do you disagree that the external wall of a high-rise residential block forms part of the compartment um
01:07:48 um for the purpose of compartmentation i would disagree you disagreed yes so when you define a compartment you exclude the external wall here i
01:07:58 i would not regard the external wall as part of the compartmentation of a flat i i don't know if we'd help you sir if i could explain why yes please do well i would suggest three reasons
01:08:11 in support of what i've just said so
01:08:15 so taking them in turn if we consider the meaning as defined in british standards of the term protected the word protected sorry i'm am i teaching the inquiry to
01:08:27 sorry i'm am i teaching the inquiry to suck eggs
01:08:28 suck eggs certainly not this no you should make no such assumptions no well i i didn't know if you'd heard uh chairman about the the concept of protected the term protected has a
01:08:39 protected the term protected has a special meaning in fire protection if we describe a stairway a route a corridor or whatever is protected we mean that it's enclosed by fire resisting
01:08:51 that it's enclosed by fire resisting construction such that anybody using that stairway route or corridor is protected from a fire in adjacent accommodation and so protected has is defined in the
01:09:04 and so protected has is defined in the standards um council mentioned chairman at bs treble nine one for example if we were to look up protected in bs treble nine one it would tell us that uh a
01:09:16 nine one it would tell us that uh a protected route is enclosed in fires listing construction other than the external wall or any external wall so if you think about a stairway chairman
01:09:27 chairman think of a stairway as a vertical compartment because it's enclosed in fire resisting construction but a protected stairway doesn't have to have any fire resistance on its external wall
01:09:39 any fire resistance on its external wall so if if that's a compartment if the stairway is a compartment just as a flat is a compartment the stairway external wall is not part of the fire
01:09:50 external wall is not part of the fire resisting enclosure by definition therefore why would the dwelling be any different that would be my my first point sir
01:09:57 point sir um my
01:09:59 um my second point would be that um
01:10:04 um the walls
01:10:05 the walls and floors and ceilings of a block of flats are part of the compartment we know that
01:10:12 know that and they'd have a minimum fire resistance of one hour there is no requirement for external walls to have fire resistance uh under uh the guidance that supports building regulations
01:10:24 building regulations and and even if they're aware if the external wall where part of a compartment then every building in the country
01:10:35 then every building in the country would have multiple multiple breaches of compartmentation because the windows would be
01:10:41 would be a breach in compartmentation so if you were to find sir a window if you walk up the stairs of a block of flats you find a window to some flats and believe it or not in some old
01:10:53 flats and believe it or not in some old blocks you can actually find that you're horrified
01:10:57 horrified and and that's an urgent recommendation because it's a breach in compartmentation but the fact that the flat has a window uh to the outside that that's not a
01:11:08 uh to the outside that that's not a breach in
01:11:09 breach in in compartmentation so and the
01:11:14 the the
01:11:15 the so so
01:11:17 so so really the next point i suppose is is a matter of semantics but i think it's quite important semantics it is said that in the early stages of the fire at grenfell tower compartmentation was
01:11:29 grenfell tower compartmentation was breached
01:11:32 breached at the risk of of offering a contentious view i don't think it was breached at all it was bypassed and that's a completely different thing it may sound like semantics sir but the
01:11:44 it may sound like semantics sir but the compartmentation of the walls and the floors was there but the external fire bypassed it to allow it to spread from flat to flat and in fact bs treble 9 1 in its discussion
01:11:56 in fact bs treble 9 1 in its discussion of the hazards of cladding actually points out not that hazardous cladding can breach compartmentation it describes it as bypassing compartmentation well you
01:12:07 bypassing compartmentation well you breach the principle anyway you you've undermined the principle yeah that's true sir yes so triple nine one is that is that paragraph 18.2
01:12:18 um i would need to read it to sir well we'll see um can i then ask you just just picking up on that answer which is very helpful so i'm just breaking it up a little bit can i take you to past 79
01:12:29 a little bit can i take you to past 79 2012
01:12:31 2012 please at cta 703 page 41 clause 15. uh
01:12:38 uh under clause 15 i'm sorry i'll just oh wait mr chairman it's three almost 3 15. i've got about five minutes on this line well i think we could put up with another five minutes i'm sure you could contribute oh
01:12:50 minutes i'm sure you could contribute oh yes indeed sir yeah that's convenient so under clause 15 assessment of fire protection measures do you look at little roman five on the right-hand side um it's it says fire development and
01:13:01 um it's it says fire development and spread can be passively limited yes by fire protection measures c3 239 such as fire resisting walls and floors uh etc into a number of different
01:13:13 uh etc into a number of different separate fire compartments for example to satisfy the requirements of building regulations for compartmentation c313 yes it will often be relevant therefore for the fire risk assessor to take account of such fire resisting
01:13:25 account of such fire resisting construction and to consider its maintenance for example the adequacy of fire stopping often by inspecting sample areas of construction yes so do you accept from that that complementation as a fire protection
01:13:38 complementation as a fire protection measure felt was something that would fall within the scope of general fire precautions 100 yes and therefore would fall within the scape of the fire risk assessor's task yes yes um do you agree that any change
01:13:51 um do you agree that any change in the
01:13:53 in the elements of construction which meant that the external wall no longer provided
01:13:58 provided either no longer provided effective compartmentation or compromise the integrity of the compartmentation that otherwise existed in all flats would be a failure in that
01:14:10 in all flats would be a failure in that protective measure
01:14:14 it would be if if the external wall where in breach of b4 for example the functional requirement then uh
01:14:26 uh then it would be an issue yes
01:14:29 yes when are we getting into questions of construction again was that a question about the understanding of the trade
01:14:36 the trade it's a question about the understanding of the trade because it's a question about what it how a fire risk assessor is to understand little roman five yeah many people in the the sector sir would
01:14:49 many people in the the sector sir would have understood that if you put extremely flammable cladding on the outside of a building it's a problem which little uh w
01:14:58 w w which little um pocket you put it in as it were to describe it and and if you're talking about shepherd's court later sir i'll i'll not mention that again no no we can well
01:15:11 that again no no we can well we'll do that but just said i'm clear did the trade understand that fire risk assessors indeed the responsible person itself
01:15:19 itself uh had to assess any change to the external wall that might compromise otherwise effective compartmentation oh a change to the external wall
01:15:32 without being pedantic if we could say a change to the external wall would affect the fire strategy for the building and the fire safety of the building and it had the potential to do that and then i think we're at eden sir very good and
01:15:44 think we're at eden sir very good and just finally on this mr stokes told the inquiry at day 136 page 34 line 13 to 35 line two that uh his training of external fire spread was very relevant
01:15:57 external fire spread was very relevant to compartmentation would you agree with that
01:16:00 that his training of of external fire spread was relevant to compartmentation yes and that was his rather succinct i should say evidence but yes i'm not sure how the words compute
01:16:12 i'm not sure how the words compute terribly well but well but um there's evidence uh yeah quite um would he would he would need an understanding that you need to be careful about about over cladding walls
01:16:24 careful about about over cladding walls put it that way yeah and he would have read that in the lga guide because we we gave that specific warning to people well this is what i wanted to get clear from yes whether it's your view that
01:16:37 from yes whether it's your view that a competent fire risk assessor
01:16:41 assessor in let's say 2012
01:16:45 should have been alert to the dangers or risks
01:16:50 or risks [Music]
01:16:52 [Music] imposed by changes to the external wall of the building the the year that you mentioned chairman is important if you said 2010
01:17:02 said 2010 i might have said it was a moot point but in 2012 we told people in the purpose-built flats guide to in two different places be very careful if you
01:17:13 different places be very careful if you over-clad a building because you can create risk if people were carrying out fire risk assessments after the lga guide was published in 2011 they should have known the purpose-built flats guide
01:17:25 have known the purpose-built flats guide and so the the short answer to your question is by virtue of having read the purpose-built flat sky they should be aware
01:17:31 aware and they should have taken that into consideration regardless of the what i'll call the common parts debate uh yeah yes if they knew there was alterations it's this is this point in
01:17:43 alterations it's this is this point in alterations i think is the important thing sir well it's very helpful thank you yes
01:17:49 you yes mr todd that takes us neatly to the lga guide which i would invite us to pick up after the break thank you sir mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i'm sure it is just a minute i want
01:18:01 yes i'm sure it is just a minute i want to make a note of that well mr told you as you know we have a break during the afternoon and this seems like a good time to have it so we'll start now we'll resume at 25 to 4 please and again please don't talk to
01:18:13 please and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence of course sir thank you thank you very much
01:18:28 thank you very much 25 to 4.
01:37:10 yes would you ask mr todd to come back in please
01:37:22 yes do sit down mr todd i'm sorry we've kept you waiting a few minutes i'm afraid your evidence was so interesting we got embroiled in a debate amongst ourselves anyway we're ready to carry on if you are of course sir yes just a minute yes mr
01:37:35 course sir yes just a minute yes mr chairman um the lga guide hom 30 is 45964 please page 111 paragraph 72.1 now this falls within part f which was
01:37:47 now this falls within part f which was written by malcolm hor i think um
01:37:50 um remind me what part f is sir uh no
01:37:54 uh no um
01:37:55 um not off hand not this time um 72 external fire spread uh oh yes yes 72.1 uh external fire external facades
01:38:06 uh external fire external facades uh of
01:38:07 uh of blocks of flats should not provide potential for extensive fire spread when assessing existing blocks of flats particular attention should be given to any rain screen or other external cladding system that has been applied to
01:38:19 cladding system that has been applied to applied and to facades that have been replaced and then 72.2 says this the use of combustible cladding materials and extensive cavities can present such a risk particularly in high-rise blocks
01:38:30 risk particularly in high-rise blocks restrictions are normally applied to the to the nature of such materials and in particular their surface spread of flame characteristics cavity barriers are also required in some circumstances assistance from specialists may be
01:38:41 assistance from specialists may be required to determine if the external surfaces of walls are satisfactory and whether there is adequate provision of cavity barriers yes now first can we tell you that you approved this passage
01:38:52 tell you that you approved this passage in the lga guidance when it was being drafted yes sir yes and can we take it that this was included um because of your view at the time that external walls of blocks of flats fell within the scope of the fsa or
01:39:04 scope of the fsa or no i the the the guide generally sir is not is not simply a guide for supporting the fso they we took a much broader view that this is about keeping people safe
01:39:16 that this is about keeping people safe in blocks of flats and
01:39:20 and those particular paragraphs i don't think we can claim the original idea for we we you find i think it's over the page sir
01:39:31 you find i think it's over the page sir um we we have a an example of of um an alteration to be alert for uh that that uh can put people at risk which was
01:39:43 that uh can put people at risk which was a landlord uh applying rain screen clouding you may be coming to that sir i think
01:39:49 think my record my best recollection sir is that at some stage in the drafting we were contacted by someone called andy cloak
01:40:01 someone called andy cloak who represented the chief fire officers association and
01:40:06 and um my further recollection is that some of the things some of the the impetus for andy contacting us came from a very talented young fire engineer
01:40:19 from a very talented young fire engineer in london fire brigade called lindsay seal
01:40:22 seal but
01:40:23 but whatever the source they wrote and and said that
01:40:26 said that people were applying uh
01:40:29 uh cladding to buildings because of energy conservation and there was concern about that and could we they didn't use these words but so i'm paraphrasing beef up what we had to say
01:40:41 paraphrasing beef up what we had to say and 72 1 and 72 2 were the result of of that request i follow so is is it your evidence today uh your opinion today that
01:40:54 uh your opinion today that in fact what i've just read to you here under 72 external fire spread is guidance to the fire risk assessor whether or not the external wall
01:41:05 whether or not the external wall strictly speaking fell within the scope of the fsa yeah 72 isn't aimed specifically at the fire risk assessor sir um i think you said you're an f um and fire risk assessment is in d
01:41:18 um and fire risk assessment is in d so we didn't put anything about cladding and external walls in d directed at the fire risk assessor this was more general guidance that would also help the rp or
01:41:30 guidance that would also help the rp or anyone just anyone giving advice we wanted to get it out there that this was a a hazard whether it was in the scope of legislation or not no i think we're agreeing i'm not i'm not suggesting that
01:41:41 agreeing i'm not i'm not suggesting that it's specifically aimed at the following all right alone it's aimed at the owner of the building sure and as the as the owner of the building or somebody with control of the building you would have expected them to to observe 72 1 and 2.
01:41:52 expected them to to observe 72 1 and 2. correct and therefore the f is this right that the fire risk assessor assessing the the the risks the building in order to perform a suitable and sufficient assessment would have to have regard to those paragraphs yes they
01:42:03 regard to those paragraphs yes they ought to have an awareness yes thank you yeah
01:42:05 yeah now can we go to past 79 yes appendix h so past 79 cta 703 page 73
01:42:15 73 and can we look at 73 and then go over to 74. 73 should be appendix h fire protection and if you look at h1 passive fire
01:42:26 and if you look at h1 passive fire protection on the right hand side
01:42:31 ahead of the right hand column yes it says uh the fire risk assessor should have a knowledge and understanding of the role in the provision of fire safety including the types of fire performance requirements
01:42:42 requirements and load bearing capacity integrity insulation reaction to fire performance etc the following and then the third item down
01:42:49 item down is compartment walls and floors the location in the building from documentation but where none is available from a survey of the building uh and then it goes on the need to maintain the fire resistance above any
01:43:01 maintain the fire resistance above any suspended seedlings below any reverse raised floors where they are penetrated by services etc may i just say something that might help the inquiry what what you're looking at sir is actually what
01:43:12 you're looking at sir is actually what you described earlier as the competence standard all right so what we did was with the permission of the fire risk assessment competency council we just lifted lock stock and
01:43:23 council we just lifted lock stock and barrel the competency standard and put it into this annex verbatim this is an appendix as opposed to an annex and therefore no it's important i think because they're part of exactly what you're just saying which is part of the
01:43:34 you're just saying which is part of the competency you'd find i don't mean to ban the words but i think you might find that it's an appendix because it's an appendix in the competency standard but it sits within
01:43:46 competency standard but it sits within an annex in part in past 79 yeah yeah exactly um and and that is right if you go to page 74 though picking this up a little further
01:44:00 uh you go on to see on we can go to page 74
01:44:05 74 uh under
01:44:06 uh under uh
01:44:07 uh left hand column final section if we go down to the bottom yes it says the building on the building envelope yeah uh for example fire resisting external walls curtain walls
01:44:19 resisting external walls curtain walls yes the significance of their role in protecting escape routes of boundaries significance of any immediately visible damage importance of remedying and immediately visible damage in sandwich panel constructions using combustible
01:44:30 panel constructions using combustible insulating cores yes and just looking at that can we agree that that a the reasonably competent fire risk assessor ought to have been sufficiently qualified and educated to to examine the
01:44:41 qualified and educated to to examine the external wall at a building like grenfell tower and assess it as part of its fire risk assessment no we can't quite agree that sir why is that um because
01:44:52 because this isn't asking for a general assessment of the building envelope i remember this this this going in and having great discussion about it this is a very
01:45:03 discussion about it this is a very restricted consideration of external walls so would it help the chairman if i went through the three bullet points in turn i'm not sure it's a more general question um
01:45:17 it's a more general question um i think you're extrapolating this into something it's not that's the point so when we see the building envelope for example fire resisting external walls you don't say that that's something that carl stokes should have examined
01:45:30 carl stokes should have examined uh only uh as as is stated here um the significance of any immediately visible damage uh
01:45:39 uh and visible damage in sandwich panels which it wasn't i see uh and um if i could explain or perhaps you don't need me to leave well i think perhaps you better yes i think i think it's necessary okay thank
01:45:51 think i think it's necessary okay thank you um so
01:45:52 you um so um
01:45:53 um there was a suggestion at the time well we we need to ask them to look at external walls i remember the discussion really well that well but what to do with external walls because um they're not going to go into
01:46:05 because um they're not going to go into any detail in external walls and i remember someone saying yes but the external wall might need fire resistance to protect an escape route could i give you an example
01:46:17 escape route could i give you an example chairman of the the situation where that might occur if you were to have a warehouse
01:46:23 warehouse warehouses tend to have fire exits like all over the place because they're big buildings and you've got to limit the distance people can travel to get to an exit so you tend to have them right
01:46:34 exit so you tend to have them right round the perimeter now what you might have is a fire exit coming out the side of the the warehouse now imagine if you will chairman and it's coming down uh once you come out
01:46:46 it's coming down uh once you come out you're walking down a path in which you're constrained to walk immediately adjacent to the building because there's a big fence so this path is between a fence and the building now if there's a
01:46:57 fence and the building now if there's a fire in the building then clearly that path is at danger from the building so the windows of the building would need to be made far as this thing and although generally there's no requirement for external
01:47:09 there's no requirement for external walls to have fire resistance you would have here and that's what it means the significance of their role in protecting escape routes at boundaries do you see what i mean and the next two points are just has
01:47:20 and the next two points are just has somebody taking a big hack out of the external wall and then the third one isn't relevant because it's sandwich panels so this is quite a narrow consideration uh
01:47:30 uh sir so rather than extrapolating it into a complete inspection of external wall so you you tell us
01:47:38 tell us that in fact the three bullet points define the inspection of the words in red above it not so much the inspection the competence of the individual what he needs to know yes i
01:47:50 individual what he needs to know yes i follow now um given that you uh given what you've told us about the general consensus about the external wall of a block of flats falling outside the fsa yes
01:48:02 the fsa yes um are you able just to give us in in simple terms uh the the way you would reconcile that general consensus with both those parts of past
01:48:14 consensus with both those parts of past 79 that we've been looking at and section 72 of the lga guide how do they sit together um
01:48:23 um i
01:48:24 i i don't see any inconsistency if you could help me if you do see some if you could help me with that sir and pat 79 says you've got to look at compartmentation
01:48:36 to look at compartmentation and
01:48:37 and we my view is that the external wall is is not part of the the the compartmentation as as such and because it has no fire resistance
01:48:48 resistance compartment walls and fire resistance um uh
01:48:51 uh so so past 79 says look at fire compartmentation so it's telling you that when you're going around the inside of the building look for cables going into flats with poor fire stopping
01:49:02 into flats with poor fire stopping cables going into the staircase and so on so that deals with the the pad 79 point the 7273
01:49:11 7273 of the
01:49:12 of the lga guide was more general advice for for everybody uh be careful about about cladding of buildings particularly when you over clad but it wasn't
01:49:24 you over clad but it wasn't particularly directing the fire risk assessment to examine the external walls in a fire risk assessment right at all events perhaps we can agree to this extent that
01:49:35 extent that that you would expect a reasonably competent fire risk assessor to
01:49:41 to assess the fire safety uh of a cladding system being applied to a high-rise block
01:49:48 block they wouldn't normally be competent to to do that they would need to point someone in the right direction to
01:49:57 to have a specialist look at it or ask the right questions but they wouldn't be able to assess it themselves i follow that that's a slightly different uh
01:50:07 exactly different concept but so far as the responsible person is concerned yes you i think accept that the responsible person would have by himself or by a
01:50:19 person would have by himself or by a third party specialist or otherwise to produce a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risk which would include the risks of applying cladding to a high-rise residential building
01:50:31 i think we're talking about two different things and forgive me if i've misunderstood that
01:50:39 that i think if you have a building that's sitting there perhaps over cloud a couple of years before and the risk assessor went to see it
01:50:49 it he would take the view well this will have been done under building regulations uh and
01:50:55 uh and there's there's probably nothing for me to do because of what the views i expressed earlier i think if as was the case with carl stokes he saw cladding going on
01:51:07 he saw cladding going on at some stage it might be a reasonable question to ask in fact it would be a reasonable question to us is is that cladding going to comply with the building regulations
01:51:18 the building regulations but the the average fire risk assessor would not be competent to to understand the the fire performance of materials and cladding materials such as to make
01:51:29 and cladding materials such as to make as an assessment that is why at the moment sir we're writing a new path double nine eight zero which is for appraisal of external walls and and it that's with government funding and it's
01:51:41 that's with government funding and it's very clear the people who will be applying that are not the norm the average fire risk assessors leaving aside the question of the who let me see if i can leave this with you this way for the for present because
01:51:52 this way for the for present because we'll come back to the competence later uh that at all events looking at the lga guide
01:51:58 guide section 72 1 and 2 which we've looked at
01:52:05 one of the risks to be analyzed in order to produce a suitable and sufficient risk assessment would include the risk presented to those in the building by the addition of cladding to
01:52:16 building by the addition of cladding to the exterior would you accept that only with qualification sir when when you're actually doing the additional work when you're actually adding the
01:52:28 work when you're actually adding the cladding
01:52:29 cladding then
01:52:30 then the rp would need should have been alert to the far performance of it um
01:52:38 um but i'm not sure a risk assessor would so i'm not sure we're entirely id them so help me to whom is the advice in the guidance that section 72 1 and 2 of
01:52:50 the guidance that section 72 1 and 2 of the lga guide director directed there's a big list sir at the beginning
01:52:58 but it would include rps yes and the rp ultimately bears the responsibilities so the rp should certainly be alert to any alterations and their effect on on
01:53:11 any alterations and their effect on on fire safety where they get their advice from in a way is down to them indeed can we then look at the sleeping accommodation guide rbk3036722
01:53:23 yes
01:53:29 and i just want to examine with you section
01:53:32 section uh two sorry section 1.12 on page 51. you've got page one i think in front of you there if we go to page 51 1.12 relates to insulated core panels yes
01:53:43 relates to insulated core panels yes this is about sandwich panels exactly
01:53:47 exactly and
01:53:48 and if you
01:53:49 if you uh
01:53:51 uh look a little bit further down you can see the description of of panels and a photograph and a and a photograph and on the right hand side of the page at the very top it says the use of combustible panels in
01:54:03 says the use of combustible panels in areas of buildings with high life risk for example where large numbers of people are present should be carefully considered your fire risk assessment may need to be revised to
01:54:14 assessment may need to be revised to ensure that any increased risk resulting from this type of construction is considered now just taking that in stages is it right that this guide applied from 2006 onwards
01:54:27 2006 onwards uh
01:54:28 uh yes it did yes but it wasn't any use really for high-rise blocks of flats but but aside from that point um you need
01:54:37 you need with the greatest of respect sir to be slightly cautious about taking that sentence out of context right because you're in a section called insulated core panels
01:54:49 core panels and if you scroll down the left hand column sir oh below the photograph yes let's do that yeah uh it is difficult to identify the type of core the panels have etc etc this this was because there
01:55:02 have etc etc this this was because there was a great concern within the profession again you have to put this in context there's a great concern in the profession after the the sun valley fire in which firefighters were killed uh
01:55:13 in which firefighters were killed uh because of um insulated core panels as i said often used in the food industry and because of that quite rightly the authors of this guide wanted to draw
01:55:24 authors of this guide wanted to draw attention to that i i don't believe sir personally for a minute that they're talking about acm cladding what about infill panels of the kind used at
01:55:36 infill panels of the kind used at grenfell tower um
01:55:40 um i i don't believe that's the sort of thing they had in mind if i'm honest if you go back to the very start of the uh
01:55:47 uh um section yes because we can be scrolling up to the top of the page uh 1.12 under the words insulated core panels it says many buildings have insulated core panels as exterior
01:55:58 insulated core panels as exterior cladding yes they do so what i'm just trying to understand why you say
01:56:05 because it's not the kind of thing because an insulated core panel is a different product you can see it there it's it's a thick layer of insulation and the danger is particularly
01:56:17 and the danger is particularly internally of of delamination where the
01:56:21 where the the
01:56:22 the metal containing the insulation delaminates and if you have combustible insulation you you you have a problem i don't i don't think
01:56:33 don't think and i stand to be corrected of course sir but i don't think they had in mind the the matters that were relevant to the grenfell terror i don't think that's what they were talking about at all i mean if if you go
01:56:45 talking about at all i mean if if you go to the end of it you see sir um
01:56:48 um it refers you to further guidance and its guidance produced by the international association of cold storage contractors because this is about insulated panels used particularly
01:56:59 about insulated panels used particularly in cold stores yes i mean you could extrapolate it i i know uh with with hindsight but i don't think that's what was intended either way you don't your view is it is is it that even
01:57:11 don't your view is it is is it that even though
01:57:12 though uh it says many buildings have insulated core panels as exterior padding and they can be combustible that wasn't a gut piece of guidance you would expect a fire esca routinely to use not unless
01:57:24 fire esca routinely to use not unless well if you came across a factory with insulated core panels i would yeah in assessing a high-rise um no no no
01:57:33 no now
01:57:34 now can i then ask you to look at the lfb letter that we you referred to earlier in your evidence cst403138
01:57:46 um this is a letter we've looked at with a number of witnesses in this module of this inquiry uh it was written to laura johnson dated the 6th of april 27th yes i'm familiar with the left dan daley and
01:57:57 i'm familiar with the left dan daley and you're familiar with it yeah and you'll also
01:57:59 also remember that it's entitled tall buildings external fire spread yes and being familiar with it um let's just look at the second page of the letter last paragraph first two sentences
01:58:11 two sentences um
01:58:13 ac daily signs off as follows i would therefore strongly urge that you consider this issue as part of the risk assessment process for premises under your control i suggest you make sure all relevant information about any
01:58:25 sure all relevant information about any replacement window and facade schemes is fully available to fire risk assessors yes when a reliable information is available for a given property it is our general expectation that a strategy to
01:58:36 general expectation that a strategy to assess the risk and when necessary implement short medium and long-term actions to address the risk this assessment will need to take account of other fire safety measures already in place in the building as well as potential mitigation measures to
01:58:48 as potential mitigation measures to ensure that any potential fire spread does not pose a risk to health and safety i've read that all to you but um focusing on um the words facade schemes being
01:58:58 being relevant to the risk assessment process yes um first are you aware of any view prevalent among fire and rescue services at the time and the lfb in particular
01:59:09 at the time and the lfb in particular that the external envelope of a building did fall within the scope of the fso
01:59:16 fso i didn't i don't i didn't personally come across that sir there was a lot of discussion about this letter um i'm very familiar with shepard's court because uh lbh for
01:59:27 shepard's court because uh lbh for clients um uh and uh in indeed after shepherd's court occurred we had quite a lot of discussion uh amongst ourselves were these spandrel panels where they
01:59:39 were these spandrel panels where they part of a window or were they part of a wall
01:59:42 wall uh and and it's it's an interesting debate uh something similar to came up to what came up after la canal house uh in the end uh i i took the view
01:59:53 in the end uh i i took the view personally to pull rank and i didn't care what they were you just can't have fire splitting up five floors so it didn't really matter it was academic what they they actually were for the purpose of legislation um but
02:00:05 purpose of legislation um but i wasn't aware of fire authorities who took the view that generally in blocks of flats external walls were part of the fire safety order so did does that tell
02:00:16 fire safety order so did does that tell us mr todd that this letter represented a shift at the time in lfb's thinking i think it was mission creep that would be the best way to destroy the creep well that's how i would describe it and i
02:00:27 that's how i would describe it and i think with and i don't mean that in a critical way really i think with the best will in the world uh a bit like myself who does it matter what what it's called does it matter whether it was within the scope before
02:00:38 whether it was within the scope before we we've seen these spandrel panels go up however many floors was at five and they weren't cladding they were spandrel panels and they tend to go up in a ribbon
02:00:47 ribbon but it's it's a very uh unacceptable thing to happen and and nobody disputed that i mean in the light of the paragraph of the letter i've just read to you
02:00:58 the letter i've just read to you would would you accept that at or perhaps by that time 6th of april 2017 there was at least a well-held view among enforcement bodies lfb
02:01:09 enforcement bodies lfb lfe being the example that external facade schemes were to be included in a fire risk assessment by a responsible person i don't think
02:01:21 i don't think that was i don't think it was as definitive as as that sir in fact the um what's the date of that letter again sir april 2017
02:01:32 sir april 2017 2017. yeah um perhaps perhaps by then there was what you uh described as a shift sir i know the officer who carried out the last
02:01:43 the officer who carried out the last audit for london fire brigade at grenfell tower only a few months before said in her witness statement we are we were not required to consider uh external cladding because it's not
02:01:55 uh external cladding because it's not part of the fire safety order so um that that was the view of the the auditing officer of london fire brigade uh four or five months before so if
02:02:06 so if if
02:02:07 if it was the the the view of london fire brigade that that was incorrect then by definition it was a shift but i think i've referred to my supplementary report to quite a senior officer of london fire
02:02:19 quite a senior officer of london fire brigade uh on social media who said uh not that long ago uh before the the fire safety act came into force external cladding is not yet part of the fire safety order so clearly this wasn't
02:02:32 safety order so clearly this wasn't definitive sir
02:02:37 right
02:02:41 you say it wasn't definitive uh it's it reads pretty definitively yes it does and it's addressed to a wide audience yes
02:02:50 yes um and my question really was does this represent
02:02:53 represent a
02:02:54 a significant shift in the stance of a major enforcement if dan daly is correct that that was the position to take and was now to be adopted that would be a shift
02:03:06 adopted that would be a shift no doubt
02:03:08 no doubt right
02:03:09 right so at the time of the grenfell tower fire
02:03:12 fire which happened only um three months or so after the date of this letter yes is it right to say that the the general opinion namely external wolf and facade schemes fell outside the
02:03:23 and facade schemes fell outside the scope of the fsa was beginning to change and indeed had changed so far as the fb is concerned i think that would be a matter for evidence from lfb sir
02:03:34 evidence from lfb sir well that that's a fair point but from your perspective i wasn't aware that there was a definite change i thought it was quite sensible to draw people's attention to this
02:03:46 people's attention to this and in the view a view of what had happened and i know um rbkc passed this to carl stokes who then said that's why i asked whether the cladding was
02:03:58 the cladding was uh
02:03:59 uh whatever he word he used fire rated i think higher rated fire rated uh so so i know
02:04:05 know to close the loop of the story janice ray received this she passed it on to carl stokes he said that's why i asked about the cladding um
02:04:15 um and and he was right to ask we'll come back to that later yes i realized that might be going on a bit far so it's okay we'll come back to that because again we're going to look at his fire risk assessment short uh well it
02:04:26 fire risk assessment short uh well it won't be shortly but uh later in your evidence moving away then from external uh
02:04:32 uh facades
02:04:33 facades um i i just want to ask you about one or two other
02:04:37 two other matters of scope yes sir now if we go to your main report please at page 72 i'd like to look with you please at paragraph 7.37
02:04:50 yes now uh under the heading at the top of the page we'll need to scroll up we'll see the heading practical steps for an fra for a high-rise block of flats yes
02:05:02 high-rise block of flats yes and then at paragraph 7.37 you
02:05:07 you you say
02:05:09 you say as in the case of any fra the matters to be considered by a fire risk assessor can be broadly grouped into three distinct categories namely fire prevention measures to prevent the occurrence of fire within the common
02:05:20 occurrence of fire within the common parts fire protection measures to maintain the safety of the common parts in the event of a fire within the common parts and within any flat and management of fire safety yes just pausing there
02:05:32 of fire safety yes just pausing there your reference to common parts there are we to understand that in the in the light of the evidence you've given earlier this afternoon namely that it's a shorthand yes that's correct everything that was
02:05:43 yes that's correct everything that was that's within the scope of the fso including things like the plant room or the roof oh yes or the lightning condition absolutely yeah yes now um if we go on to the bottom of the page
02:05:57 um we can see paragraph 7.40 you say with you say this with regard to fire protection matters that should be considered include
02:06:09 and then you set out a list of matters that should be considered as part of fire protection measures yes and then at 7.41 you say
02:06:18 you say uh
02:06:19 uh uh
02:06:20 uh this with regard of management of fire safety matters to be considered include and then you give a further list of matters to be considered under the management of fire safety yes would you also agree that the matters to be
02:06:32 you also agree that the matters to be included in the fire risk assessment are those that are set out in recommendations 5 and 12 of past 79 i know you're familiar with those we can go to those if you want to you'll have
02:06:44 go to those if you want to you'll have to help me with okay all right to be fair this isn't an exercise trying to test you on your own document let's go to past 79 it's uh at cta
02:06:55 go to past 79 it's uh at cta 60703 page 21.
02:07:00 recommendation 5 and
02:07:06 uh five is recommendations uh five two
02:07:17 uh five is recommendations uh five two if you go down to item e yes looking at looking at the top of five two it says every documented fire risk assessment should explicitly set out the significant findings of the assessment including information on the following
02:07:28 including information on the following matters
02:07:30 matters it says approximate number of occupants yes and then uh if you go over the page rather across the page
02:07:40 we'll have to i'm afraid we're going to have to scroll up that's it under i on the right-hand side top of the column occupants especially at risk yes 3.67 in the event of fire for example sleeping
02:07:52 the event of fire for example sleeping occupants disabled occupants those working in remote areas and young persons yes yes and then if we go to page 37 recommendation 12
02:08:04 do you uh you agree that under recommendation 12.2
02:08:12 12.2 it it says this while it is not normally necessary to document the manner in which every factor to which 12.1 refers
02:08:20 refers uh
02:08:21 uh uh affects the fire risk assessment there should normally be explicit information within the assessment regarding appropriate measures to protect occupants who are especially at risk in the event of fire yes yes
02:08:33 risk in the event of fire yes yes uh and occupants especially at risk i think is a phrase isn't it taken from the fso itself it is yes now can we look at one of carl stokes's fire risk assessments um i want to show you the one from april
02:08:45 um i want to show you the one from april 2016 and this is at
02:08:49 six cst403161 three one six one and within that please go to page 22 section thirteen
02:09:00 he's got a a heading middle of the page disabled people yes you see that yes now uh this it's right isn't it that this section doesn't specifically appear in the past 79 template does it no it
02:09:12 the past 79 template does it no it doesn't yeah would you agree that it was a useful adaptation to the past 79 template to ensure that the means of escape for disabled people were specifically considered i think the
02:09:23 were specifically considered i think the there's not a separate section but is that
02:09:27 that question not in the 2012
02:09:31 the 2012 template
02:09:33 template and the question is it just doesn't have a different section yes i'm not uh disagreeing with that all right in fact building on that point but just to to invite your agreement that
02:09:44 just to to invite your agreement that the way carl stakes went about um went about that task was to give himself uh a template yes he upgraded the the question to a section of indeed indeed i think i think we're we're added then yes
02:09:55 think i think we're we're added then yes then if we go to your main report um at page 73
02:10:04 we'll come back to that heading in a moment i'm just spotting it with you at the moment but if we get back to your main report at page 73 and look at paragraph 7.41 which we were looking at a moment ago yes if you look at your last bullet point there you see that it
02:10:16 last bullet point there you see that it says uh
02:10:18 says uh under management of fire safety arrangements for routine inspection of the common parts yes um
02:10:24 um and you say that that should be considered as part of the management of fire safety yes as i've shown you should that include the inspection and maintenance regime for flat entrance doors
02:10:34 doors um
02:10:36 um yes well
02:10:38 yes well yes yes right now i've asked you those questions somewhat detached from any particular line of reasoning i just wanted to pin that down and we'll come back to that in due course
02:10:49 course um
02:10:49 um coming back to the fire risk assessments assessors approach would you expect the fire risk assessor to be given information on the approximate numbers of occupants and means of escape of
02:11:01 of occupants and means of escape of disabled occupants in the building before completing their fire risk assessment um
02:11:06 um in the case of a block of flats i wouldn't expect him to have a a list as it were of uh
02:11:15 of uh people and their individual disabilities i've never i've never known that recorded in a a fire risk assessment right
02:11:26 but generically there ought to be consideration of the whole evacuation strategy for the building
02:11:35 right so the answer to my question i think is no is that you wouldn't expect the fire risk assessor to be given information on the approximate numbers just numbers of occupants and mean and escape for disabled occupants
02:11:47 escape for disabled occupants in the building at the time the time past 79 was enforced we wouldn't have expected that there was that that wasn't really um
02:11:57 um part of the thought process it's not it's not suggested in the lga guide now that might be contentious and it might be argued whether that's right or wrong but it wasn't part of the the thinking
02:12:08 but it wasn't part of the the thinking and the lga guide at the time right and if that's the case and can you explain recommendations uh five and twelve yeah i i i said at the beginning well quite early on in the evidence sir that
02:12:21 early on in the evidence sir that when past 79 part sorry past 79 2012 was written
02:12:29 uppermost in our mind was commercial premises because at that time there wasn't the same attention being focused on blocks of flats and so if you were for example carrying
02:12:42 and so if you were for example carrying out a fire risk assessment for an office building you would ask very particular details about disabled people you would ask about their peep you would make sure that there were trained staff
02:12:54 trained staff an evacuation chair refuges communications and the refuges but most of these facilities have never traditionally been provided in blocks of flats so so i i see the words on the
02:13:07 flats so so i i see the words on the page all i can tell you was that the thinking behind them was primarily targeted at commercial premises even though from footnote 1 as we looked at earlier it's in the scope yeah it's within the scope yeah so does it come to
02:13:20 within the scope yeah so does it come to this this may answer a number of questions
02:13:22 questions later but does it come to this that although
02:13:25 although on its face the scope of past 79 clearly applied to residential uh blocks of flats yes
02:13:33 parts of it particularly those dealing with occupants especially at risk were treated as not doing so they wouldn't have been they wouldn't have been high on the radar if i can put it that way so that is why
02:13:45 it that way so that is why after grenfell we had discussions with those representing the housing sector saying we really need a pas 79 for housing because pass 79 part 12 doesn't really
02:13:59 because pass 79 part 12 doesn't really properly address housing
02:14:03 housing which is why we then wrote past 79 parts one and two right would you expect the responsible person by which i mean a person responsible for a residential tower block
02:14:15 a residential tower block to be significantly uh familiar with their obligations under the fso
02:14:21 the fso to know that they should provide the fire risk assessor with all up-to-date information relating to the fire risk assessment that they are about to undertake yes it say yes the obligation sits with
02:14:33 yes it say yes the obligation sits with the rp yes indeed and did that require the rp the responsible person itself to have some familiarity with past 79 and indeed other guidance directed
02:14:44 indeed other guidance directed at far risk i ideally in a large organization where you would have an article 18 uh competent assistant if that does that compute yeah
02:14:55 compute yeah yeah an article 18 competency competent person competent assistant well they tend to be called the competent assistant
02:15:01 assistant someone who at high level assists the rp in compliance with the fire safety order yes and in this case sort of januzari yes thank you answer my
02:15:12 sort of januzari yes thank you answer my next question janice ray um now if the fire risk assessor
02:15:16 assessor wasn't given the information uh that the guidance and indeed the legislation required that would you expect the fire risk assessor to ask the responsible person for it yes you would and if he wasn't
02:15:28 for it yes you would and if he wasn't given it would you expect him or her to
02:15:32 or her to press for it yes or record that the information wasn't available right um
02:15:39 um how would the fire risk assessor be able to go about assessing the current level of risk without the information that he or she needed it would depend on what the information was that that was missing but they would
02:15:50 was that that was missing but they would they would need all relevant information however that be defined i see uh and might that affect the uh the ultimate level of risk yes
02:16:01 the uh the ultimate level of risk yes yes
02:16:06 now we'll come back to this question of information uh later on in your evidence mr todd so i'll leave it there for the moment um
02:16:14 moment um sticking with the theme of uh of how to go about a fire risk assessment i want to ask you about frequency yes sir at your main report page 24
02:16:24 page 24 let's look at paragraph 3.24 you you deal there with how regularly a review of a file risk assessment should happen yes so you you deal with it there and that's because there's an obligation
02:16:36 that's because there's an obligation under article 9 3. so can you help me with the paragraph 3.24 oh thank you yes and then if you look at 3.25 and you say this the term regularly is
02:16:48 and you say this the term regularly is not defined in the fire safety order it is commonly considered that the best practice is for fras for most buildings to be reviewed annually in the case of a high-rise block of flats such as grenfell tower this would be consistent
02:16:59 grenfell tower this would be consistent with published guidance on fire safety and purpose-built blocks of flats yes now
02:17:04 now we know that the fras for grenfell tower were done at irregular intervals so just to summarize them september 2009 december 2010 november 2012 october 2014 april and june 2016.
02:17:19 october 2014 april and june 2016. yes with the fire risk assessment trade regard those frequencies as regular
02:17:26 um the requirement for regularity relates to reviews not a new fire risk assessment um
02:17:36 um whatever carl stokes called these documents he was creating to me they were new fire risk assessments and there should have been some
02:17:47 and there should have been some review of them in between just to make sure that
02:17:51 sure that work was being carried out there were no changes that would invalidate the fire risk assessment so what normally happens sir is you have a professional fire risk
02:18:03 you have a professional fire risk assessor if i can call them that um if you're using someone external they do a fire risk assessment and then within the business sector a common practice would be
02:18:16 a common practice would be that this person comes back after two or three years and does a new fire risk assessment but in the interim period there's an annual review uh by someone uh less competent uh
02:18:29 uh by someone uh less competent uh generally in fire risk assessment that could be a health and safety consultant facilities manager or whatever but they they would carry a review because review is not repeat
02:18:41 is not repeat yes
02:18:42 yes if there had been spot checks annually by the responsible person to make sure that fra actions were being completed would that be regarded customarily i i think you'd want something better
02:18:54 i i think you'd want something better than spot if by spot checks you mean sampling yes i think you'd want something a bit a little bit more rigorous than that right now if we look at 329 of your report a little bit further down the page you'll need to
02:19:06 further down the page you'll need to scree scroll down for it um you say this clearly after uh the last refurbishment at grenfell tower there was a requirement for the fra to have been at least reviewed or preferably for a completely new fra to
02:19:18 preferably for a completely new fra to have been carried out in my opinion the scope of the refurbishment was such that a completely new fire risk assessment was appropriate that's correct so um now um
02:19:27 um just tell us why do you think a completely new fra was appropriate uh because it was a fairly substantial refurbishment if if you were doing
02:19:38 refurbishment if if you were doing if i make the analogy sir of an office building and you refurbish a floor someone should come and review the fire risk assessment and that would be a review
02:19:47 review and that review would be limited to that floor
02:19:50 floor but the extent of the alterations to grenfell tower were such that it would be really hard to say the the previous fire risk assessment stands and
02:20:01 previous fire risk assessment stands and i'll add a review to it and pin them both together and have an adequate audit trail it really wanted someone to to start again and do a new fire risk assessment
02:20:12 assessment now we know practical completion of the refurbishment took place in july 2016. is it your opinion that carl stokes ought to have been instructed by the tmo to carry out a brand new fra
02:20:23 to carry out a brand new fra only at that point and not any earlier it's quite common for people to
02:20:31 to with the best will in the world say
02:20:34 say our project whatever it be is completing could you come and have a look they'll say this to the fire risk assessor could you come and have a look before we let contractors go off site
02:20:46 contractors go off site and make sure everything is all right um
02:20:50 um they sometimes think that is their new fire risk assessment and in fact in the latest guidance we've said that's not your fire risk assessment that's a very useful exercise but it's something else
02:21:02 useful exercise but it's something else and in fact we penned then a special name for the something else but
02:21:07 but we we're trying to get the principle across to people that after the contractors have gone don't use a fire risk assessment as a snagging exercise by all means pay for two exercises if
02:21:18 by all means pay for two exercises if you want one a preoccupation if it's a new building a fire safety assessment but then when all the dust has settled and you've got rid of all the contractors and the building is as you
02:21:31 contractors and the building is as you can see the building as it will be that's when you should do a new fire risk assessment so after handover yes and therefore after the um after the regulation 38
02:21:42 regulation 38 uh obligations have been satisfied if the if the regulation 30 obligations are satisfied indeed okay well then that that was the assumption i was on sorry i mean that caveat because it's a common emission
02:21:53 caveat because it's a common emission indeed but after that time yes yes um uh and say would you agree that carl stakes his fra of the 20th of june uh was far too early in the process
02:22:04 uh was far too early in the process probably quite premature yeah yes unreasonably so i don't know what the conditions were at the time so it would be very difficult for me to say
02:22:15 for me to say um
02:22:16 um you know if if people were putting metaphorically the last licks of paint on but all the structural work was finished the doors were all there
02:22:27 then not maybe substantially so but the ideal is to wait till you've got rid of the contractors because you've seen it otherwise you're seeing it with contractors there who've probably introduced hazards and you're going to
02:22:39 introduced hazards and you're going to tell people about these hazards but they're not going to be there when the contractor's gone um and and you want you really want to see it as it will be yes would you agree that carl stokes is
02:22:50 yes would you agree that carl stokes is june 2016 fra was in fact not a new fra in the sense you've just explained but but really a summary update to his april 2016
02:23:01 2016 fra i think he generally just looked at changes uh i don't think i don't know that he'd looked at things but then he had
02:23:10 had he had given the place a fairly good look at uh so i'm not i'm not sure what he perceived it to be if i'm really honest sir um the summary update or rather the june
02:23:21 the summary update or rather the june 2016 version still included paragraphs that have been copied and pasted from previous fras yes for example pidgin netting yes yeah absolutely yes yeah there was an undue amount of cutting and
02:23:32 there was an undue amount of cutting and pasting yes should car stakes have told janice ray that a new fra was needed after completion of the refurbishment should he have given that advice can you can you remind me what uh date he put down as the the next fire risk assessment
02:23:45 as the the next fire risk assessment well following june 2012 yeah there would have been a date i'm afraid i can't
02:23:49 can't should be on the front of i can't remember
02:23:52 remember um
02:23:54 um it depends on his perception as to whether he was seeing a building as it would be
02:23:59 would be if if he thought that there was still going to be further changes then yes he should he should have said another one in
02:24:04 in i would have said typically three months uh if he thought that it was more or less as it was going to be and he was unlikely to to see very much different in three months then he i would have
02:24:15 in three months then he i would have suggested he should put it down as a year
02:24:17 year right yeah i would i've been helpfully reminded it was in fact july 2017. yeah so he put it down free right put it down for a year right and and uh
02:24:27 and uh you you said that should have been sorry did he was it june 2 6 2016. 20th of june 2016. and then he put it down for july 20 2017 yeah that that
02:24:38 yeah that that that would be because he thought that that well i don't know what he thought and the the his risk assessment was suitable and sufficient for the building going forward
02:24:50 forward right whether he was correct or not it's difficult for me to say but building that and putting that together ought he had to have advised the tmo uh in june 2017 the day june
02:25:01 the tmo uh in june 2017 the day june 2016 that a june 2016 fra was too soon and a full fra needed to be done as soon as practicable after practical completion well
02:25:12 practical completion well i'm not waiting another year at risk of repeating myself if if if indeed he thought that that was necessary then he should have done yeah something about truism very good um mr chairman we're going to
02:25:25 very good um mr chairman we're going to turn to a completely new topic which is uh fra actions um i'm happy to spend three or four minutes getting into this i'm just wondering whether it makes sense to start that this evening not really no
02:25:36 start that this evening not really no yeah so i'm in your hands mr chairman i mean if you've got a hunger for past 79 uh which hasn't yet been satisfied we can start i think i can probably uh hang on till tomorrow
02:25:48 probably uh hang on till tomorrow very good thank you very much um mr todd um despite the fact that it's still there still three minutes on the clock i think that's a sensible point at which
02:25:59 i think that's a sensible point at which to stop for the day so we'll end there um i'm gonna have to ask you to come back at tomorrow to continue your evidence so we'll say 10 o'clock tomorrow morning please
02:26:10 tomorrow morning please and again i must ask you not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it while you're away of course thank you thank you very much for seeing it tomorrow yes sir thank you
02:26:29 [Music] all right mr willis thank you very much 10 o'clock tomorrow mr german thank you