Grenfell Tower Inquiry - Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation Evidence - Monday 28th June 2021 (2/2)
00:00:24 would you ask mr black to come back in please
00:00:33 there's something
00:00:49 ready to go on thank you very much yes mr millet yes thank you mr chairman mr black can we please now go to tmo double zero eight seven nine seven one three
00:01:06 this is a minute of a confidential meeting of the board of the tma on the 4th of january 2016 and if you go to page 5
00:01:22 you can see from the screen you were present if we go to page 5 you can see that there was a detailed discussion about the grenfell tower project uh in paragraph 911
00:01:33 uh in paragraph 911 picking it up at the foot of the page you could see that you reminded the board that the refurbishment works were nearing completion and you say he it says he suggested a visit to the site by the
00:01:44 he suggested a visit to the site by the board members would like to visit the building it was agreed that any board members who wanted to visit the site should confirm so after the meeting and the visit would be arranged it was further agreed to
00:01:55 be arranged it was further agreed to form a review panel comprising of a subset of the members of the board to undertake a review of the refurbishment works upon completion of the project who was it who suggested the board-led
00:02:09 who was it who suggested the board-led review
00:02:18 i can't recall specifically i don't know if it would been me or one of my board members
00:02:27 do you know why an independent review wasn't suggested uh
00:02:34 uh no
00:02:37 can we then go to tm00852704
00:02:46 and let's look at page four please of our email run
00:02:54 and i just want to ask you about your email to laura johnson on the 5th of january
00:02:59 january 2016 you can see on the screen it says hi laura i hope that back to work is going well board went well overall stephen barbara's presentation was good we got a few questions overall
00:03:12 was good we got a few questions overall and then at the foot of the email you say
00:03:16 say the board feels this is a tma matter and wants to deal with it itself i imagine they will be happy to share the outcomes with scrutiny if we go to page three up the chain you can see laura johnson's response to this
00:03:29 can see laura johnson's response to this she says
00:03:31 she says we'll say 5th of january robert pleased the board went well as always
00:03:36 always a good idea to get off to a good start in what is a hideous week board recommendations seem very reasonable rbkc has no desire to be involved in the review i shall echo this point councillor mackover so that the
00:03:48 point councillor mackover so that the recommendations the board has made are supported at scrutiny committee do you know why the rbkc didn't want to be involved in reviewing the grenfell tower project
00:03:56 project no did you ask i i wasn't involved in discussion i don't know if uh laura had spoke to her officers or whatever right so you just took it as a affected
00:04:08 so you just took it as a affected complete that rbkc said they weren't interested so yeah right um now laura johnson here seems to be suggesting that she could influence councillor mack over to support the tmo board was that
00:04:19 over to support the tmo board was that your understanding i'm
00:04:23 i'm not sure really i mean it's she reports subscription and she knows the counselors better so i imagine she's just talking to them directly right
00:04:33 right uh now if you go up to the email at the bottom of page two and over to page three we can see that you say uh this is very foot of page 2 your email of the 6th of january to laura johnson top of page 3 well done last
00:04:46 johnson top of page 3 well done last night close close working between both teams barbara has picked up the double act with steve last push for tonight will you let councillor marshall know my board decision might be worth reminding him
00:04:57 decision might be worth reminding him they have four appointees and pauline has confirmed she is happy to be on the review
00:05:03 and then if you go up to the top of page two we can see laura johnson's reply same day
00:05:08 same day back to you robert yes thanks yes i thought it went as well as can be expected i've emailed councillor marshall the board outcomes so he's aware and in that email i reminded him that paula was an rbkc nominee we can make this point again tonight if a
00:05:19 make this point again tonight if a scrutiny committee member is suggested as being on the review of the grenfell tower refurbishment and what do you mean close working between the teams in your email uh well
00:05:30 between the teams in your email uh well i think i'm just trying to remember sequence event i think the previous night there was something called the tennis tenants consultative committee so we had a whole series of evening meals attendance consultative committee was
00:05:41 was a borough wide [Music]
00:05:44 [Music] representation i think it was like the resident association chairs that was a council meeting which we went along to so basically i think that met every quarter so i think that night
00:05:56 quarter so i think that night we we both had papers for the for the for the meeting and it went well in terms of the representation i think that's what that's meant right
00:06:07 right so
00:06:10 uh when you said close working between both teams what was that a reference to because there would have been some papers that both teams would have had to work on certainly the finance ones there
00:06:21 work on certainly the finance ones there would be
00:06:23 would be steve who is part of laura's team would have to work with barbara interns to make sure that the the the overall things could work together so that that's in the sense of of that because
00:06:34 that's in the sense of of that because we would both do joint presentations to the
00:06:37 the committee and uh take questions and you suggest that laura johnson reminds councillor matt marshall about the four appointees was that the rbkc appointments to the tmo board yes i see
00:06:49 appointments to the tmo board yes i see were you encouraging laura johnson to persuade the scrutiny committee not to engage in an independent review no i was just reminding that they have four the council had four appointees two
00:07:00 four the council had four appointees two councils and two independents exactly and therefore for that is it right that for that reason in other words because there were four independent appointees to the tma board the tma the rbkc did not need to engage
00:07:13 the tma the rbkc did not need to engage in an independent in an independent review or an independent nominee or a counselor appointee i think it was saying to them there was people there if they felt they wanted other people and
00:07:24 they felt they wanted other people and it was just a reminder that they had actually people that they appointed onto my board
00:07:29 my board were you very keen that the scrutiny committee should support the tmo and not become involved in the investigation no i i no trouble with rbkc been involved we've worked with them we did
00:07:40 involved we've worked with them we did as a company we'd worked with councils to do reviews of other things as well so i wasn't scared of them being involved in the process
00:07:52 right only the tone of your email rather suggests that you and
00:07:57 you and laura johnson were as one um pushing to keep the review at tmo level and not letting it go to scrutiny no i wouldn't want that to be read like
00:08:08 no i wouldn't want that to be read like that in a sense the scrutiny committee can make their decisions what was doing as an officer was just reminding through laura that these people are there and
00:08:18 and [Music]
00:08:19 [Music] it's up to the security committee if they want to involve like i said in the past we've actually worked with the councillors they would visit they do other things so in general my relationship with them was
00:08:30 in general my relationship with them was was pretty good
00:08:33 now met 3-0 4-1-4-1-2 please moving the story on a bit to the next day 6th of january 2016. this is an email from judith blakeman of
00:08:45 this is an email from judith blakeman of that date to a number of councillors copied among others to you and here she sets out some learning points i'll be working with residents of grenfell tower along with my ward
00:08:56 grenfell tower along with my ward colleagues in victoria borac mp on many of their concerns about how the refurbishment project has been managed we've identified some learning points that could perhaps be translated across to other refurbishment programs with
00:09:07 to other refurbishment programs with residents in occupation that the tma may run on behalf of the council etc and then she goes on to say
00:09:20 she goes on to say uh that uh the residents felt that they would be they were being treated as guinea pigs for future projects and then she says under the three paragraph
00:09:32 she says under the three paragraph numbers
00:09:33 numbers um that uh the attached document was run past the tma board on monday evening i think that's the document we saw together before the lunch break yes and then under item three there
00:09:44 and then under item three there to review the overall project once it's completed using the resident board members independent and council nominated board members this will provide the independence challenge and support to the process
00:09:55 support to the process i'm just not sure she goes on that grenfell residents would accept tmo board members as being sufficiently independent of the tmo to meet their requests for an independent investigation of the project
00:10:07 investigation of the project did you take on board councillor blakeman's concern that the residents would not accept tma board members as sufficiently independent to meet their request for and for an independent investigation
00:10:19 investigation i took on the point that she presented this to my board and the board came to that conclusion yes i mean we saw 0.7 earlier about the review
00:10:28 review um
00:10:29 um did you consider at this point encouraging uh the housing and property scrutiny committee or working group to set up an independent review of the grenfell tower refurbishment project and and to run
00:10:42 refurbishment project and and to run with councillor blakeman's proposal i i can't recall is there a reason why you didn't do that no
00:10:51 again this was this isn't me speaking this is my board speaking well it's kind of it's councillor blakemoon oh sorry so this is counselor blakeman's recollection of the board
00:11:03 blakeman's recollection of the board meeting
00:11:04 meeting and the decisions the board made well
00:11:08 well it it's
00:11:10 it it's we can read the document um now can we go to rbk30
00:11:18 uh i i just put it in front of you to look at this in any detail but this is the minute of the meeting of the housing and property scrutiny committee the evening of the 6th of january 2016
00:11:30 the evening of the 6th of january 2016 uh which i think you were in attendance yes as you can see and you'll recall that edward daphon addressed the meeting remember that yes
00:11:41 remember that yes um and if we go to page five
00:11:45 we could see in the paragraph immediately above a5 the conclusion uh after some discussion and it says in conclusion the chairman agreed that a working group would be commissioned at some point in the future but that this
00:11:57 some point in the future but that this was dependent on a number of factors including the conclusion of existing working groups and the review work conducted by the tmo
00:12:07 so that was the outcome uh so you must have realized at that stage that there was no there was to be no independent uh review of the grenfell tower project
00:12:19 uh review of the grenfell tower project that that suggestion had been essentially rejected and i think what the script here was waiting to have the outcome and the tmos review so they could review it with scrutiny before they they commissioned
00:12:30 scrutiny before they they commissioned or then did any other work that's the way i read it so yes it wasn't putting it off it was it was so just seeing when the other bits and pieces finish i think the other thing they as a scrutiny committee they had a number of uh
00:12:43 committee they had a number of uh working groups that hadn't been brought to a conclusion so the issue they had was how many councils they had on scrutiny on so many working groups and they really needed to bring some of the working groups and then so they could set up another one that was at the
00:12:55 set up another one that was at the chairs point he made during the meeting so let's just take this in stages in the first line there that with the working group that's referred to the one that would be commissioned at some point in
00:13:06 would be commissioned at some point in the future was that to be an independent review of the grenfell tower project or just another working group i don't know that i took it that when you got to that stage the the
00:13:17 you got to that stage the the the chair would agree who would be on that working group and they'd review all the points that different people have made at different stages right
00:13:26 can we go to tmo10012015
00:13:35 this is an executive team and senior management team meeting 7th of january 2016. so the day after the housing and property discretionary committee meeting on the 6th if we go to page we can see you were there if we go
00:13:47 page we can see you were there if we go to page two item three um it's minuted in the third paragraph robert noted that some of the board are feeling that they're not being told everything and they need assurance robert is going to urge the board to get
00:13:58 robert is going to urge the board to get out and about more and visit schemes and new developments so they see the issues for themselves do you know which board members had raised that issue
00:14:09 raised that issue the issue that they were not being told everything no i can't remember off the top of it i think it was a general
00:14:16 general partly it was trying to get the so some members of the board wanted either to know more but it's about trying to get the board that if they're only meeting every i think they met every two months was
00:14:28 i think they met every two months was there was opportunities either through the operations group which was a standing meeting in the board or to go out which would be encouraging people to go and see things so it was uh it was to get them to see the rule is bigger than
00:14:41 get them to see the rule is bigger than just attending to board meetings did you get a sense of what the issues were on which board members weren't receiving comprehensive information i'm just having a look
00:14:58 i can't remember specifically about this one sorry
00:15:02 one sorry do you remember whether you addressed the concern as expressed here i think we we set up
00:15:11 sort of sessions to try to hold sorry i'm just trying so so it sounds we did set up some sessions after this to get people to look a bit more detail more
00:15:22 look a bit more detail more conversational sort of things and try to encourage people to visit can we go to page three please
00:15:32 under scrutiny you can see that it says this a petition asking for an independent investigation into the grenfell tower project was presented to our bkc at the scrutiny committee and
00:15:43 our bkc at the scrutiny committee and the resident attendees were allowed five minutes which was then extended to ten minutes to speak about this peter madison was singled out for intense criticism and robert noted that peter needs our support
00:15:54 peter needs our support the committee agreed to let the planned works finish first and then in the future a working group will be formed to look at the outcomes but no date was given for this
00:16:05 given for this now when it says peter madison was singled out for intense criticism um was that singled out for intense criticism
00:16:13 criticism by
00:16:14 by the resident attendees speaking yes i think it was
00:16:20 and you go on or it goes on to say robert noted that peter needs our support had you concluded at that stage that the criticism of peter madison was not warranted
00:16:34 i think peter had been under huge pressure
00:16:36 pressure from criticism from certain people that how he was operating uh i spoke to sasha gervais about it make sure he was supported uh
00:16:47 sure he was supported uh and he he took it hard
00:16:51 hard he he didn't want to do a bad job he was so it's about how we could support him um i understand that but and did you do any investigation or cause any
00:17:02 any investigation or cause any investigation into the criticisms to see if there was anything in them well i think we'd already looked at quite a lot of these things and didn't find anything in them about him personally his actions his behavior
00:17:15 personally his actions his behavior leaving aside the personalities as you say
00:17:19 say did you come to the conclusion that there was nothing whatsoever nothing whatsoever in the criticisms that had been leveled at the tmo by the
00:17:30 that had been leveled at the tmo by the residents who had addressed the scrutiny committing on the evening before uh
00:17:40 i think there was points which were trying to find out there was some extreme comments made that
00:17:49 that didn't feel uh
00:17:53 were reflected across everybody that rhymed glenn grenfell apologies yes trying to leave out the tone and i understand what you mean i think when you say extreme comments
00:18:05 when you say extreme comments just taking out the tone and looking at the comments had you discounted all of those
00:18:11 no i i think there's this innocent
00:18:17 innocent so i'm just trying to remember well let me put it let me ask you slightly differently see if i can help you um when you said that peter madison was singled out for intense criticism and robert noted that peter needs our support
00:18:30 was your view that he needed support a view flowing from a closely considered analysis of the criticisms i think it was more emotional in terms of i recognize how much pressure he was
00:18:42 of i recognize how much pressure he was on right and as a as a manager and it it was in the sense of actually people
00:18:48 people making sure you're talking to him to make sure i mean in terms of his support i wouldn't read too much in him i understand so so when you say peter needs our support it's not you're not saying that that the tmo needs to close
00:18:59 saying that that the tmo needs to close ranks with him and agree with everything he has done it's more that he needs emotional or employer support yes i see
00:19:11 did you understand that the the housing and property scrutiny committee still planned to look look into the outcome of the grenfell tower first yes
00:19:23 um at this point this is uh january 2016 had you read the mma the modular management agreement
00:19:34 management agreement uh some time before yes i mean it's a it it it's a
00:19:40 it it's a lengthy and complex document but how do you actually ever sat down and read it end to end when it went through its original view parts that were brought i think each sessions where you went through them but
00:19:53 sessions where you went through them but i hadn't read it for some time previously there was a review of that document in the december of 2015 wasn't there about the same just shortly before this thing there was a discussion yes were you involved in that review no the
00:20:05 were you involved in that review no the review had been left led by yvonne burch and some other staff working on it yeah were you involved at all maybe led by by her but were you involved at all in it did you ever see it did she report to you on it she didn't report to me
00:20:17 you on it she didn't report to me you got up you got updates i mean it's one of those things that was a the whole there's a whole group of staff working on it depending on the chapters well let me just see if i can understand
00:20:28 well let me just see if i can understand this the tmo sorry the mma was the foundational contractual document on which the tmo's entire business rested wasn't it it was the modular management between the two companies yes
00:20:40 management between the two companies yes well no that is all that is true but it is also
00:20:45 is also descriptionally the foundational contractual document on which the tmo's entire business rested yes you agree with that yes no tma no t no no mma no tmo yeah yes
00:20:57 tmo yeah yes and you're the you were the chief executive of the tmo yes yes were you not there interested to keep your finger on the pulse of what important changes were being made to the
00:21:08 important changes were being made to the mma
00:21:10 mma in the sense my team who were working in the detail were going through it and they would inter with updaters did you get updates on the amendments the important ones the material ones
00:21:21 the important ones the material ones that affected your business i think we did but i can't recall that um now let's go to rbk triple zero one nine zero zero [Music]
00:21:32 [Music] page 165
00:21:41 now this is within volume 2 chapter 2 of this document this this mma we look at paragraph 2.1 client review
00:21:52 we look at paragraph 2.1 client review group the neighborhood manager and project manager will decide whether to establish a client review group or steering group for the project this will be chaired by a representative of the residents association and will include
00:22:03 residents association and will include the neighborhood manager and project manager the role of this group will be to act as client for the project review progress in implementing the scheme and focus on those issues which directly concern residents where it has decided
00:22:14 concern residents where it has decided not to establish a client review group the residents association will be asked to nominate a representative to join the project team were you ever familiar with that obligation not done to that detail now
00:22:27 obligation not done to that detail now i'm just looking at the dates from 2006. indeed uh do you know whether that was changed when the review came in 2015. i can't recall put it this way if if it had been
00:22:38 put it this way if if it had been removed you would have been told i assume uh
00:22:42 assume uh no
00:22:43 no well i can't recall at the moment uh
00:22:48 uh so just going back to my question do i take it that you weren't familiar with this obligation
00:22:55 not done to the detail of this now but in my company would have been yes
00:23:00 yes uh you say not down to the detail uh let me see were you familiar with these obligations even in outline
00:23:16 i can't recall no well let's try some more page 167 paragraph
00:23:22 paragraph 5.2
00:23:25 5.2 appointment of consultants
00:23:29 the project manager consultancy services manager neighborhood manager and residence association representatives will select suitable consultants with relevant experience the project manager will chair the panel depending on the
00:23:40 will chair the panel depending on the size and complexity of the project consultants may be appointed from a number of disciplines first bullet point architecture were you familiar with that obligation or set of obligations i
00:23:52 that obligation or set of obligations i was familiar with the set of obligations well within paragraph 5.2
00:24:01 oh goodness
00:24:10 paragraph page 175 paragraph 15.3 at the top of the page
00:24:22 and this
00:24:24 this sits within a section called site meetings
00:24:28 meetings to ensure that tenants concerns are addressed the residents association representative can either attend the site meeting or a meeting can be held with the residents association prior to the site meeting feedback will be provided to the residents after the site
00:24:40 provided to the residents after the site meeting where necessary were you familiar with that obligation i've seen that obligation before
00:24:47 where have you seen that before i i can't recall but i can't see any reason why it wouldn't have happened do you remember being conscious of that
00:24:58 do you remember being conscious of that obligation in late 2015 for example or at any time i can't recall
00:25:07 do you recall any occasion when it crossed your mind to raise this obligation with uh rbkc to ensure that you and rbkc could deliver this obligation which is
00:25:18 could deliver this obligation which is essentially for the benefit of the tenants
00:25:22 tenants i can't see why why we i mean in terms of we sought to do that through the the our process we went
00:25:35 let's try another one page 177.
00:25:42 post project review clause 22
00:25:47 clause 22 22 1
00:25:49 22 1 all schemes will be subject to a post-project review after completion of the project or on sectional completion residents will be asked for their views on the way the work was carried out and
00:26:00 on the way the work was carried out and what they like or dislike about the improvements to their homes the survey will also seek to collect bme data were you familiar with that obligation yes you were
00:26:10 you were so do i take it that as late 2015 early 2016 you knew you were under abandoned obligation to rbkc
00:26:19 to rbkc to collect the resident's views on the way the work was carried out for grenfell tower what they liked and disliked yes and that's we were working towards i see
00:26:34 can you explain why your reaction was not to to do that uh
00:26:41 the the plan was i mean as far as i reckon
00:26:45 reckon pardon me
00:26:46 pardon me the plan was to carry out a review of the project include residents and views of our bkc and others and counselors so that we could do that i can't remember the date that peter had
00:26:57 i can't remember the date that peter had penciled it in to do it in terms of once the work was completed what
00:27:02 what what was your plan from early january 2016 having seen the petition to comply with that obligation
00:27:14 to comply with that obligation once the work was complete and the snagging was complete it would then i think the timing was to do after that
00:27:22 did was there a plan to ask the residents of grenfell tower for their views on the way the work was carried out and what they liked or disliked about the improvements it would have been done by in peter's
00:27:34 it would have been done by in peter's plan it was always to do a post-project review
00:27:37 review in line with this which is what we said to scrutiny we would do
00:27:46 are you saying that well did that plan come to fruition well i don't think it had because i don't
00:27:53 don't i don't think we started it with the time of the fire well
00:27:58 well practical completion uh happened in july 2016 hadn't it [Music]
00:28:06 [Music] yes we know that the review took place in
00:28:10 in the first
00:28:12 the first half of 2016. we know that didn't involve the residents
00:28:18 residents i can't recall so can you explain why despite this provision the residents were not involved in that review which took place in march april and may
00:28:29 which took place in march april and may 2016. i can't respond to that i can't recall we know that laura johnson told us that she didn't use the mma on a regular basis and did not use it to refer
00:28:42 basis and did not use it to refer to how resident engagement should be undertaken on projects such as grenfell tower
00:28:47 tower i take it from your evidence today that the same did not apply to you in a sense it should have sat with my company secretary because in since the company secretary was my person who was supposed to
00:28:59 person who was supposed to uh oversee this so in terms of when we were doing project management people should have been checking with her or him in terms of we were complying with the mma yes but you were the chief executive and as you told us you were of
00:29:10 executive and as you told us you were of all of these obligations i've put to you you were familiar with this one and my question is when the review took place following the scrutiny committee meeting on the uh
00:29:21 uh 6th of january through the first few months of 2016 why didn't you insist on the residents being asked for their views in accordance with this provision i can't recall apologies no
00:29:32 i can't recall apologies no did you just overlook it i may have overlooked it
00:29:39 uh can we go to
00:29:47 could we please go to pay to met three zeros four five seven five one
00:30:01 [Applause]
00:30:06 in fact i think i could probably skip over that and take you to a different document tmo10014782
00:30:16 [Music]
00:30:20 these are the minutes of a joint management team meeting between rbkc and tmo the 2nd of march 2016. and if we go to item 1.3 at the foot of page 1 governance issue on estate
00:30:31 page 1 governance issue on estate management boards follow noted that she's met with councillor blakeman councillor blakeman conveyed to follow that she feels that her priorities as a councillor outweigh her duties as a board member furlough
00:30:42 her duties as a board member furlough will be meeting with laverne to discuss this in detail now why had follower met councillor blakeman
00:30:48 blakeman so follow was the company sanctuary and i think it i can't remember how it came about that either
00:30:55 either through some issues raised uh that she decided to meet council blakeman to look at this did you ask her to meet her can you confirm the date of this again sorry
00:31:05 sorry second of march 2016. i'm not sure if i told her the company certainly had the right to see board members uh independently of me i speak to board members about
00:31:17 speak to board members about their their role and responsibilities now this this issue of councillor blakeman as a tmo board member we've seen hints of that in some of the earlier documents at the end of
00:31:28 earlier documents at the end of 2015 second of december 2015 and then again in the build up to the scrutiny committee meeting as i showed you um had this arisen because she had assisted the residents of grenfell tower with their petition and at the scrutiny committee
00:31:40 petition and at the scrutiny committee meeting as far as she could i don't think it was so no i don't think so and i think it was in sometimes the way counselor blakeman was behaving outside board meetings and this is i
00:31:52 outside board meetings and this is i think what fuller had picked up with her and the
00:31:56 and the i think
00:31:58 i think part of the issue sometimes is the local authority put people on the board on or aboard my board uh the team o's board without really going through the detail with them about roles and
00:32:09 with them about roles and responsibilities so i think they put them there we took councillor blickman and as and all board members through their rules and responsibilities uh
00:32:19 uh and i think in a sense that the reason that they were fully was going to see laureen was to actually sort of try to get our bkc to be clear the guidance they give to people they put on the
00:32:30 they give to people they put on the board i mean in terms of actually the rules and responsibilities
00:32:36 was councillor blakeman becoming a thorn in tmo's side no i don't think particularly like that i think she had a way of behaving that actually
00:32:47 actually uh was some board members found challenging she was very pro-resident as we can see i don't i don't agree with that i think she was very pro-resident as were most counsel or all councils that i came across i think it was more
00:32:59 that i came across i think it was more how she was behaving uh
00:33:02 uh either at board or right side the board what was the problem well i can't recall this is something my company secretary had picked it up with the board
00:33:10 the board did you want her off the board i certainly didn't i saw that as a really daft thing to do you know first first of all to get rid of board members is challenging to get rid of board member
00:33:21 challenging to get rid of board member who's a councillor is challenging i had no interest in that at all in my any time
00:33:27 time with council of likeman i think uh
00:33:31 i think rbkc could have done more to support and trainer with her role but i never
00:33:37 never wanted to get rid of her
00:33:40 or take action to get rid of her
00:33:44 i mean the problem that this nate seems to have identified was that in council of blatant's own mind
00:33:51 mind uh her priorities as councillor were in conflict with her duties as a board member did you see that there was a conflict i
00:34:01 i i'm a bit sort of more like there's a bit in between but i think she saw that and i think the question then why they were having talking to abc is well what's she on the board i mean if her if she feels that she can
00:34:13 her if she feels that she can sign up to the team aboard then step down from the board and get another point here and i think this is about how rbkc put people on the board and then left it to those companies to try to
00:34:24 left it to those companies to try to manage people within the agreement they had
00:34:34 you know and you get the sense that counselor blatant was pulling one in one way
00:34:39 way uh
00:34:40 uh in favor of residence uh but at least to her way of thinking the ball was pulling in the opposite direction well i think that's quite hard to do when you have eight residents who are board members
00:34:51 board members on the board and how that could be i remember they were the majority on the board over 15 the chair was aboard i started the chair as a resident
00:35:02 aboard i started the chair as a resident so i can't i can't see the team while pulling away being a resident organization based on what we were doing i i think you would need to ask those board members why they felt sometimes counsel blakeman wasn't
00:35:14 felt sometimes counsel blakeman wasn't sort of uh behaving the way they felt was appropriate for the board can we then go to tmo double tmo10012639
00:35:26 this is the minutes of the next executive team meeting of the 23rd of march 2016. you were present as we can see if we go to page one at the bottom or in
00:35:37 if we go to page one at the bottom or in the middle uh matters are rising 2.1 it was agreed the grenfell review outcome report will be included in the confidential section of the march board papers at the march board meeting paul
00:35:48 papers at the march board meeting paul of fans will present the report if the board agree the report will go to scrutiny committee and we will ask paul offense to present it there there will be a conflict of interest for councillor blakeman and she is a member of the scrutiny committee as well as a board
00:36:00 scrutiny committee as well as a board member sj will speak to amanda johnson about this if the report goes to scrutiny
00:36:07 now again confidentiality who was it decided that the review report would be included in the confidential section of the march board page i think the board agreed that
00:36:22 so i as a chief exec i didn't set the confidential non-confidential that was sat with the with the company secretary and the board once they looked at the people i don't
00:36:33 once they looked at the people i don't follow because this is an executive team meeting not a board meeting and the agreement was among the executive team but we'd probably spoken to the board some board members before then
00:36:45 some board members before then so
00:36:46 so how is one supposed to read this minute it is a draft of course as you can see from the watermark but when you when it says it was agreed is this meeting simply reflecting an agreement reached a board level and
00:36:57 agreement reached a board level and being reported to the executive team or was it an agreement among the executive team
00:37:02 team i think it was a bit of both i mean i think
00:37:05 think this was going to scrutiny and the whole point is the prescription he didn't like it then
00:37:11 it then the board would have to redo or address concerns that scrutiny had and i think the the sunset was confidential so they could have that confidential discussion paulo fans was to present it as a member
00:37:23 paulo fans was to present it as a member of the board that i think that was the position
00:37:26 position why was it for the board to decide if this report should go to scrutiny shouldn't it shouldn't it have gone to scrutiny anyway it should have done so i don't know why that well i don't know that was i'm just humans going i don't i
00:37:37 that was i'm just humans going i don't i can't recall the the detail about if there was discussion not to send it right
00:37:42 right now in the second paragraph of that section it says uh robert noted that he had spoken to nicholas holgate and he is in favor of smaller boards what was that about so what was that about is actually in
00:37:54 so what was that about is actually in terms of uh the board is 15 which is quite big in terms of good practice uh national federation of housing and chartered institute housing governance is
00:38:05 housing governance is uh
00:38:06 uh boards had reduced to 12 and actually new boards had just even smaller to nine uh there had been talk at the board about should the tmo board move to a smaller
00:38:17 smaller size you'd still have the exact same representation proportionally in terms of tenant leaseholder and council appointees to that board so it was the discussion the board was having as part of its governance in terms of actually
00:38:29 of its governance in terms of actually having
00:38:30 having so many people is it good is it better to have a smaller board it was generally happening quite a lot in the sector certainly with a you know smaller organization that maybe traditionally had a bigger board especially tables
00:38:43 had a bigger board especially tables yes
00:38:44 yes was this to be blunt was this just a fig leaf to cover the fact that that you wanted or many people wanted councillor blakeman off the board because she was championing championing residents not at all it's good
00:38:55 residents not at all it's good governance i think if you follow the paper trail there's discussions at border way days and other board meetings about the size of the board and i think it was
00:39:04 it was the board went round in a bit of a circle with this i think independent sometimes thought it'd be better to be smaller i think then was talk about having a paid chair which was brought up by one
00:39:16 paid chair which was brought up by one of the resident board members so it was an ongoing discussion about how that board managed itself yes i see that but this the context of this immediately above it is councillor blakeman's perceived conflict of interest
00:39:29 perceived conflict of interest what was the relevance of smaller balls if not in that context i think it's as we were talking about boards and it's probably i had a conversation with nicholas holgar you were talking about councillor blakeman weren't you
00:39:40 weren't you i can't recall this i remember that's what the name says so the context of the noting about smaller boards was in the context of conflict of interest for councillor blakeman as you see in the previous paragraph but hence my
00:39:52 the previous paragraph but hence my question was the discussion about a smaller board uh a a a more um
00:39:59 um process driven or political way of covering the fact that you wanted councillor blakeman off the board because he was championing residents concerns no i don't i mean i think if
00:40:10 concerns no i don't i mean i think if even if they'd reduced the board the kinds of which they would probably had two counselors on it in terms of labor and conservative because i think that was the deal they had as political parties uh
00:40:22 parties uh neither of those people were who were on the board conservative labor were uh interviewed they were just placed on my board as part of the political system in rbkc so even with a smaller board i
00:40:33 in rbkc so even with a smaller board i don't think we would have got rid of them they wouldn't you know in terms of the they already reduced it from four to two because they were struggling to get board member uh end sorry they were struggling to get councils on boards
00:40:45 struggling to get councils on boards because the time it took so that's why initially
00:40:49 initially they reduced to two uh for me smaller boards where there's a discussion aboard well i asked you a very broad question i'd accept but they'd be more focused
00:41:00 i'd accept but they'd be more focused robert noted that he had spoken to nicholas holgate and that's in the context of what's immediately prior to that in the paragraph above it's a separate did you have a conversation with mr hulgate about whether councillor blatant
00:41:13 hulgate about whether councillor blatant had a conflict of interest i can't recall i don't remember speaking to council i remember speaking to rbkc governance and
00:41:24 laura johnson and rockfield and merlin but never to nicholas olga can we go to rbk403662 please i'd like to go to page three email
00:41:35 i'd like to go to page three email exchange 11th of may 2016 and the foot of page one the email chain in fact begins on page three you will need to say we'll need to work back to the foot of page one uh
00:41:47 uh and it starts on page three with an email from councillor blakeman
00:41:53 to various councils primarily councillor marshall
00:41:58 marshall copied to laura johnson among others dear quentin to save time this evening please see some advanced comments below judith a three minutes and then it goes
00:42:09 judith a three minutes and then it goes on and if we look at um page uh
00:42:14 page uh a little bit lower down page three under a4 grenfell tower report um councillor blakeman says i see no reason why the full report is set out in part b since it contains nothing
00:42:25 part b since it contains nothing relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person and it is the response to a petition from residents it should therefore be available for to them to read in full although this report was submitted to
00:42:36 although this report was submitted to the tmo board it was not discussed by the board separately i had a meeting to discuss it with the chair of the working group paul offense and sasha jevens and yvonne burch of the tmo
00:42:50 and then if we look at page four after the
00:42:54 after the number ten if we just scroll to the foot of the page you can just see it this there it is it says
00:43:00 says uh after recognize that a resp respite flat available to other residents is by definition not suitable um there's a summing up paragraph which is not that easy to see but it starts there is still
00:43:12 easy to see but it starts there is still a huge amount of ill feeling do you see that
00:43:15 that all right yes yes it's under the it's under the ten but back to the in the indent um there is still a huge amount of ill feeling against both the tmo and the council
00:43:26 against both the tmo and the council amongst residents of grenfell tower and i believe these recommendations should seriously should be seriously considered if straight when the council proposes another top block refurbishment with residents in occupation the council has
00:43:38 residents in occupation the council has a duty to ensure that these are handed handled as sensitively as possible residents remaining in occupation save the council a huge sum of money as they would otherwise have to be decanted
00:43:49 would otherwise have to be decanted finally the ill feeling at grenfell tower will fester there are still many matters waiting to be resolved until residents are able to meet someone they deem to be sufficiently independent of the tmo to discuss their experiences
00:44:00 the tmo to discuss their experiences during the refurbishment process now
00:44:05 now you could see from this let me just scroll up to to the top of the email chain because you get this email
00:44:14 email you get it at the foot of page two if we go to page two you can see that you are copied into rockfielding melons
00:44:22 emailed to councillor marshall copied to laura johnson and you so you got to see this yes
00:44:29 yes yes yes
00:44:31 yes yes given that you could see it did it occur to you at the time that rightly or wrongly rightly or wrongly there was a huge amount of ill feeling among the residents of grenfell tower
00:44:43 among the residents of grenfell tower over the refurbishment perhaps
00:44:46 perhaps uh ill feelings that had built up over a number of years that the tma had not managed to resolve by may 2016. i think there was some new feeling i don't think it was across 100 households
00:44:59 don't think it was across 100 households and i think
00:45:01 i had to accept that some of they were feeling hadn't got resolved and i'm always sorry that happened what were you planning to do about it about what
00:45:13 about what what about the festering ill feeling at grenfell tower well i think that the reality once the referee refurbishment was finished that takes away a huge amount of the aggravation
00:45:24 amount of the aggravation uh because actually they won't be finished and actually after the the work was finished the complaints stopped because people were getting used to the
00:45:33 to the as far as i recall so having said that i should have checked
00:45:41 well here we are may 2016 certificate of completion practical completion comes in the early part of july 2016 or very near the end
00:45:53 what were you planning to do about the continuing ill feeling at grenfell tower about the tmo
00:46:08 i can't recall it wasn't the solution to it just to give in to them and give them an independent review
00:46:18 in retrospect in hindsight maybe maybe
00:46:23 maybe in terms of only maybe sorry excuse my word yes yes in hindsight but at the time why were you so resistant to it
00:46:33 i think we were resistant to it because it felt like it was being driven by a small group of individuals who said things uh used uh
00:46:45 almost like there was a terrible things happening all the time and when we checked it most people weren't feeling like that i mean it could be we got into a mindset being sensitive actually when we checked with people on the
00:46:57 when we checked with people on the ground
00:46:59 ground and resident engagement we weren't always getting that feedback that everybody was up in arms and i think when we did the sort of door knocking yourself that's what we find we find a range of issues
00:47:11 what we find we find a range of issues that that were raised and people wanted fixed but there wasn't that screaming at you that you knew everything was terrible we were treating people inhumanly well it may have been driven
00:47:22 inhumanly well it may have been driven i.e led by a small group of individuals but you'd had a petition which had 60 signatures on it were they all wrong i'm not saying that we we did
00:47:33 all wrong i'm not saying that we we did us so after that of course you know that we did the door knocking exercise that actually contacted 70 people that lived in the the tower so yes it wasn't all of them and actually what we got from that
00:47:45 them and actually what we got from that was a lot of feedback based on what people were feeling but it wasn't you know consistent as a as 60 people all hating us or not that there was bits and pieces that was led by theresa brown
00:47:56 and pieces that was led by theresa brown and sasha evans and they we used different staff when we did that door knocking so it wasn't the same stuff based on the house and offices it wasn't always the people from our
00:48:07 from our our project team just to get a feeling of what people were feeling and it wasn't all bad i think that was the point it felt like there was a part being driven by a certain group of individuals in a very loud very sort of
00:48:20 individuals in a very loud very sort of challenging way which we were trying to manage and you know i wasn't again going forward
00:48:27 forward with trying to sort out how you could manage that it didn't go away why didn't you give the 60 people and those leading them the benefit of the doubt and just give them an independent review notwithstanding uh your door knock
00:48:39 notwithstanding uh your door knock exercise well i think again they don't know can talk to 70 people who didn't have that consistent view presented as a petition i think that's the issue in
00:48:50 petition i think that's the issue in terms of
00:48:51 terms of uh
00:48:53 uh we
00:48:54 we took each issue down and broke it down to find out what people were saying so it wasn't consistent it wasn't consistent with what that petition was saying that you know a paragraph where someone just signs in the end we
00:49:05 someone just signs in the end we actually took time to speak to individuals to understand to see if that's really true and we got different feedback
00:49:11 feedback the different feedback did that lead you to discount the petition no no not at all i think it was just different feedback that we looked at and just we couldn't find that there was a match there
00:49:22 match there yeah
00:49:25 sitting here today what is your explanation of all this bad blood why did the residents of grenfell tower in particular feel so hard done by
00:49:36 tower in particular feel so hard done by i think
00:49:38 i think i think somebody goes back to you know well before me in terms of they had an estate management board which didn't cover just grandfather but the
00:49:48 the the whole
00:49:50 the whole estate i think they find it difficult to maintain these embs because you have to run a board you have to follow policy and procedures i just
00:50:01 i just and i think you know we we have said is that investment was always limited in some cases so maybe if this had happened earlier it would be a different so
00:50:12 a different so unfortunately there's quite a lot of different threads that people don't like they don't like that we were seen as a table that actually uh
00:50:23 uh people voted for there were a lot of people that voted for it took part in democratic processes but i just put it one more time wasn't why didn't it occur to you at the time that the simple
00:50:34 to you at the time that the simple panacea for this was to say to all the residents of granville tower you may love us you may loathe us here is your independent review and you'll have your and you will be you'll be stuck with it for good or real
00:50:45 you'll be stuck with it for good or real why didn't you just give them one i can't
00:50:49 i can't now can we just pursue this question of the conflict of interest would you explain a little bit further uh can we go up to page two on this email run
00:50:57 email run we can see uh that at uh page two at the bottom we can see counselor fielding melon which is the email i showed you uh copy to you
00:51:08 uh copy to you dear quentin i think hpsc needs judith to be clear about her role as a board member of the tmo and she needs to be guided about whether that's an interest to be declared and what is the most appropriate forum for her to make some
00:51:19 appropriate forum for her to make some of these points within the tma or at hsp hpsc
00:51:25 hpsc was it was it not well known that um judith blakeman was a board member and a councillor she occupied both roles for a number of years yes i think quinton marshall would know that because he was a counselor yes and therefore it
00:51:37 he was a counselor yes and therefore it was inherent wasn't it in her wearing those two hats that there was an element of conflict well i wouldn't accept that because some board members and other organizations
00:51:48 board members and other organizations didn't see a conflict with it well
00:51:52 well did you see an element of conflict with it
00:51:56 it was inherent in in the fact that i think you're wearing both hats oh no i think i think you can still wear hats you can still use
00:52:03 use your role as a counselor is it's more where there's a conflict when you're operating
00:52:08 operating on a board which feels you're you're breaking its rules why was this coming up now
00:52:15 up now why was this question of judith being clear about her role as a board member coming up only now and only in the context of the imminent report to scrutiny i
00:52:26 of the imminent report to scrutiny i think it's been viewed coming up some while
00:52:29 while in the
00:52:30 in the and we'd our company secretary had gone to rbkc governance and uh
00:52:37 and uh they'd briefed the council and obviously laura had and i think it says one of those her behavior at that time was
00:52:45 time was becoming difficult i don't always see it as the same as her raising complaints with grenfell some people reading this email might think this this was an attempt to prevent councillor blakeman from raising
00:52:57 prevent councillor blakeman from raising her concerns to the housing and property scrutiny committee of which she was a member yeah and i think uh she and the chair
00:53:08 she and the chair communicated about it and it's it's really it's their committee it's not my committee in terms of the chair managing these issues
00:53:18 and if you go up to page one there's an email from you to counsellor fielding melon
00:53:25 where you do get involved yes yes and you uh say the foot of page one 11th of may dear councillors thank you for sharing this i've spoken to our company
00:53:36 this i've spoken to our company secretary and she's spoken to our bkc governance services and we're advised of the following having spoken to our bkc governors they highlighted what the rules are around conflicts of interest because councillor blatant should be declaring her interest as a member of
00:53:48 declaring her interest as a member of the tmo board when any declarations are requested
00:53:51 requested it goes on over the next page the committee should be deciding whether her interest is significant to preclude her from participating in the discussions in this case her interest is conflicted two-fold she's
00:54:02 interest is conflicted two-fold she's the elected member for the area under consideration and she's a board member for the company being scrutinized she cannot be using her powers on the committee to force her own needs in addition if the point she raises in the emails below have been passed to the
00:54:13 emails below have been passed to the committee which at this point they have she's now in breach of her duties as the director of kctmo and i will be required to draw this to the attention of the kctml tmo board and then in the final paragraph any
00:54:25 and then in the final paragraph any statements made by councillor blakeman about what and how the tmo board undertook its review should not be entertained as it is not the committee's power or duty to question how the tmo board runs its processes so long as it's undertaking what has been requested i.e
00:54:37 undertaking what has been requested i.e a review and presenting its findings officially and then in the email above that if you just go to the to hire up page one
00:54:48 uh we can see that there's an email to you from tasneem shawkat who's the director of law at lbhf and rbkc
00:54:59 of law at lbhf and rbkc and for westminster city council thank you for your email the only comment i would make is that it is not for company for the committee but for councillor blakeman to decide whether she has a conflict or an interest and
00:55:10 conflict or an interest and take the appropriate action now
00:55:14 now just tell me how long had judith blakeman occupied the roles both of tmo board member and
00:55:23 and councillor a member of the hpsc how long no it might be seven years yeah and in all that seven years do you recall whether this question of conflict
00:55:35 recall whether this question of conflict of interest had ever arisen until this time
00:55:39 this time i think sometimes it come up in the past but in the sense it wasn't pursued why was it coming up in such terms well was this the first time that you had
00:55:50 was this the first time that you had spoken to rbkc governance about the potential for conflict and the need for declaration of interest yes because it's been raised by my company sector right so the
00:56:00 so the email you read i was draft reviewed and drafted by my company's actually based on our rules of operation right and what was it that was happening in may 2016 that should should give rise to
00:56:12 may 2016 that should should give rise to these concerns that had never been uh
00:56:18 uh escalated to such an extent in the past i think it was is a mixture of her behavior at board and outside the board
00:56:28 because it was inherent as i put you before that she would be always scrutinizing the very board of the very company that she would be on merely by dint of the fact that she was on the proper housing and property scrutiny
00:56:39 proper housing and property scrutiny committee
00:56:42 committee but that lots of times she that they didn't board members out like my team or board members didn't contribute to the discussion of that so
00:56:55 can we go to tma10015
00:57:06 this is the tmo board of board code of conduct
00:57:11 conduct are you able to tell us
00:57:15 it's a document that runs over some eight pages let's just look at it before i ask the question there's uh part one which is general conduct and behavior and then over on page two obligations and
00:57:26 over on page two obligations and responsibilities declaring and handling interests
00:57:34 and
00:57:38 conduct of meetings etc are you able to tell us what part of the code of conduct uh
00:57:46 uh councillor blakeman was allegedly in breach of could you
00:57:51 could you push it up a bit please yes of course okay where'd you want to see are you familiar with this document yes i was yes do you want to see let's go back to page one no that's fine i'll just actually
00:58:24 i think there was a bit of uh four and five
00:58:30 i can't recall completely uh no let me try it this way as a board member do you accept that it was proper for her to scrutinize and criticize the
00:58:41 for her to scrutinize and criticize the board as a body if she thought it was doing something wrong well i don't think that's what the rule said
00:58:48 rule said no i'm
00:58:49 no i'm you're right about that but i'm asking you as a point of general principle from what you know the way in which the board functioned was it wrong for a board member to criticize the board that she
00:59:00 member to criticize the board that she sat on well i think that's the rules of the board that she sat on and as a councillor was she not entitled properly to raise concerns with rbkc about the board on which she sat
00:59:11 about the board on which she sat well i think that's that's really uh how she chose to do that
00:59:19 if this was a concern about a conflict does between membership of the hpsc and the tmo board uh
00:59:26 uh why were you involved
00:59:29 involved why was that well he'd been raised by my company secretary in the first place who'd uh
00:59:34 who'd uh raised it with rbkc and then it sort of got passed to me in a sense uh
00:59:41 uh which i agree wasn't as comfortable for me as you'd think well i i i can imagine i mean i'm really asking you why you who was as it were just the ceo
00:59:52 were just the ceo was involved in questions of governance as between your board on the one hand and rbkc scrutiny on the other why was it anything to do with you because i get dragged into it slowly
01:00:04 because i get dragged into it slowly right
01:00:05 right okay
01:00:07 okay could you not just have said look this is not my battle and for me to sort out i could have done it might have been more sensible you see wasn't it in your interests though to have judith blakeman
01:00:18 interests though to have judith blakeman silenced because she was continually raising as we've seen uh concerns ill-feeling on the part of the residents of grenfell tower and that's really what lay behind this no i don't think so again it's hard for me
01:00:31 don't think so again it's hard for me there were 14 other board members who had views on this yes but this this building was in her ward and she was close to the action as it were yeah and she had been raising complaints on behalf of
01:00:43 had been raising complaints on behalf of residents from for years which we'd responded to yes my point is simply that she had a a closer geographical perhaps political interest in it but why
01:00:54 why why raise the question of conflict and declarations now just at the moment when the review of the grenfell tower refurbishment is being produced to the excruciating committee
01:01:06 excruciating committee i think it again it was her behavior which was causing people concerns and i it got
01:01:13 it got left with me to deal with
01:01:24 mr chairman i i've come to the end of my prepared questions
01:01:28 questions one or two i want just to revisit to see if i need to go over them but might now be an appropriate moment for the
01:01:36 for the pre-final break yeah well if you've reached the end of the questions uh subject of course to review i think that's the point of which we'll have a break um i think given the importance of this witness i'm going to say 20 past three
01:01:49 witness i'm going to say 20 past three ought to be plenty of time for you and others too well there's been an intervening weekend in which well there has but that doesn't always mean that they just don't have suggestions to make no it doesn't
01:02:01 suggestions to make no it doesn't so let's try 20 past three and if i need if i get an extra if i get a request for longer well then we'll consider it uh carefully obviously yes mr black um you probably know this but when council
01:02:12 probably know this but when council reaches the end of his questions or what he thinks the end of his questions we have a break to give him a chance to check he's not left anything out and also to give others who are following the proceedings from other places
01:02:24 the proceedings from other places to make suggestions for further questions so we'll have a break now uh we'll come back please at 20 past three
01:02:32 three and then we'll see if there are any further questions that we need to put to you right and again as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room thank you very much
01:02:52 twenty-five three thousand if you do need more time let us know the usual way yes thank you
01:21:39 deal with it
01:21:43 yes would you ask mr black to come back in please
01:21:58 hey mr black well we'll see if there are any more questions for you just a minute
01:22:04 yes there are i think um now
01:22:08 now we discussed the question earlier of bad blood and i asked you what your explanation for all the bad blood was why the residents of grenfell tower felt so particularly hard done by
01:22:20 tower felt so particularly hard done by you recall that uh exchange just this afternoon and you said there were a number of different threads to it and you i think in your answer mentioned the test of
01:22:32 in your answer mentioned the test of opinion that you had to do and
01:22:34 and the resident survey which will recall from the end of 2015. um
01:22:41 um do you agree that it was 86 of the
01:22:45 of the 3420 residents who voted
01:22:49 who voted actually voted okay thank you yes yes i think as far as i recall now do you remember you you met laura johnson in october 23 october 2013
01:23:01 2013 uh and there was a discussion about that do you remember that i would i'd have to be guided by you right well let's look at a document uh
01:23:11 uh rbk30 is 59570 uh underscore t underscore zero zero five eight
01:23:35 uh now this is um a
01:23:40 a a note
01:23:41 a note well can you tell me what this is it says robert and this is 18th of october 2013
01:23:46 2013 test of opinion just help me with a test of opinion every year or every two years uh
01:23:53 uh there was a right to manage every year and i think the test opinion was every three or four years as far as remember the last one was in 2013.
01:24:06 you see the last one the last one before the last one i was responsible for right so
01:24:11 so to the test of opinion this was the last test of opinion before the discussion about an independent review is arising as a result of the dissatisfaction was around grenfell residents so the next test opinion would
01:24:23 residents so the next test opinion would have been two fights sometime in 2017 yes yes exactly if you look at this one it says 33 percent of residents votes in test of opinion and then you can see the results and then it says underneath that low turnout
01:24:34 then it says underneath that low turnout from members possibly due to having a vote recently so
01:24:39 so the test of opinion you referred to in your answer this afternoon in fact resulted in quite a in a low turnout and presumably not a very representative sorry example i disagree fundamentally i do what what that means
01:24:52 fundamentally i do what what that means is a low turnout from our members so
01:24:56 so 33
01:24:57 33 of people turning out across a borough to vote for an organization uh
01:25:02 uh against comparisons of the other one is is pretty good but what that means is actually within that 33
01:25:09 that 33 the mass majority weren't members there were none members people who hadn't joined the tml so which is the whole point of the test of opinion because every year you test your members but every four years you test your
01:25:20 every four years you test your non-members as well right so so in the sense therefore actually it was actually a very strong position that actually
01:25:30 actually that so many non-members took the time to vote
01:25:33 to vote secondly i think there had been i don't know if it was election had been that not been a bit closer so uh that's
01:25:41 that's this of what we thought why memberships hadn't voted as much
01:25:48 but it says 33 of residents votes across the borough yes was that not the low turnout being referred to here no it's about low turnout of members of the tmo
01:25:59 turnout of members of the tmo because if you break down i can't remember the details there are details where we can always provide for you later stage but the mass majority of people voted were non-members
01:26:12 now on a different topic you we discussed this morning the council identifying the need for the tma to become involved in rbkc's regeneration priorities in order in part
01:26:25 regeneration priorities in order in part to meet the shun the funding shortfall yeah sorry could you say that again we had a discussion this morning you gave some evidence this morning about the tma becoming involved in rbkc's
01:26:36 the tma becoming involved in rbkc's regeneration priorities in part as a means of meeting the funding gap yes yes and you refer to that this morning
01:26:49 do you agree that the tmo was
01:26:53 was um
01:26:54 um keen to stay within budget because that was a key priority for rbkc when it came to the grenfell tower project
01:27:02 project yes yes
01:27:05 yes yes and
01:27:06 and during the project when residents uh who were dissatisfied with these works
01:27:11 works were refusing access and asking for meetings do you remember that you wanted to agree a strategy which would deliver the project on time and within budget and protect to your reputation and
01:27:23 reputation and from the risks of exceeding both well i think again remember it was a board project it wasn't mine because it cited my
01:27:32 cited my funding so therefore i said it was the board
01:27:36 board in terms of actually protecting them that is delivered on time
01:27:41 the other key thing there was if it wasn't going to be delivering time it was going to be over budget you'd have to go back to rbkc so the board had to understood stand up before you know you actually went over budget because you
01:27:52 actually went over budget because you didn't have the authority to do it do you agree let me try and shorten this do you agree that you saw as key risks for the tmo of failure to deliver the grenfell tower
01:28:03 of failure to deliver the grenfell tower project on time and within budget i think those were risks yeah yes
01:28:09 yes and failure on both or either of those is this right would be seen as a reputational risk for the tmo uh certainly so far as its position with rbkc was concerned yes yes
01:28:21 rbkc was concerned yes yes and was that more important than resident satisfaction no
01:28:25 they were just one of a range of risks we had
01:28:55 yes uh
01:28:58 we talked about petitions and i asked you about the frequency of receiving petitions given that two had come along at the same time the end of 2015. you'll recall that do you recall that there was a there was
01:29:10 do you recall that there was a there was also a petition in september 2010 which had been um uh
01:29:16 uh delivered as a result or partly as a result of the fire at grenfell tower in april 2010 i can't request apologies and there was also one delivered do you remember in 2013 after or as a result of
01:29:29 remember in 2013 after or as a result of the power surges or refurbishment you remember those vague memory of i mean i know the power surges i can't remember particularly a petition right
01:29:41 when the petition arrived in december 2015 did that not trigger a recollection that you'd actually received one two years or two and a half years previous to that also from
01:29:52 years previous to that also from grenfell tower and also arising out of an event which had caused fire no apologies you don't
01:30:02 did the fact that two of these petitions the one in 2013 and the one in
01:30:12 2015
01:30:16 had been signed by more than 60 residents 60 plus raised concerns about how widespread the dissatisfaction was among grenfell tower residents at that time
01:30:27 residents at that time i can't recall paul do you remember a petition
01:30:30 petition being served on our bkc in relation to the gas rises in 2017.
01:30:37 is that the national grid yes i yes i believe yes so that's a and that had been signed by over 90 residents hadn't it
01:30:45 hadn't it as far as they're called yes yes so you had you've had petitions with large numbers of signatories on in 2010 2013
01:30:56 2013 2015 and 2017 all are on the subject of safety and and specifically the subject of fire safety did that not
01:31:07 did that not did that
01:31:08 did that range of petitions not at some point prior to the fire ring an alarm bell with you
01:31:14 with you so as to prompt the question in your own mind something is wrong with fire safety at grenfell these residents don't feel safe well certainly the the last one with the the national grid i do
01:31:27 with the the national grid i do understand that i can understand people's concerns around that as we were concerned as well in terms of the petition around the oh sorry
01:31:39 oh sorry the
01:31:39 the power surges i can understand that as well because it's a frightening situation and as we investigated it was clear
01:31:47 clear confirmed that actually again it was an infrastructure company ldf who
01:31:52 who his equipment wasn't working so sometimes so that's two petitions that get started off because of other companies of which i
01:32:01 i in principle didn't uh have a contract with uh or and their equipment uh had failed uh and i think that just go back to some of your early questions in terms of when
01:32:12 your early questions in terms of when you have older buildings these infrastructure issues can cause problems
01:32:20 so if you take those two out you've got two petitions that's what i was trying to say
01:32:23 to say right
01:32:24 right now mr black we've visited a lot of material over the last two and a half days and we've covered a lot of ground and you've been asked to research in your memory for a lot of different events and give a lot of
01:32:36 different events and give a lot of explanations standing back from it all and looking at the matter now with the benefit of hindsight is there anything that you would have done differently
01:32:48 i think it i just say that it's been incredibly difficult to look
01:32:53 to look back over such a long period and remember everything so i think partly
01:32:58 partly i wish sometimes my answers may have been clear and so apologize for that i personally you know if we could have changed things so there hadn't been a fire i would certainly wouldn't have put the cladding on if i knew
01:33:10 the cladding on if i knew that situation and i think i can only pass my condolences to to the people who've
01:33:19 who've lost loved ones and survived and managed to escape
01:33:23 to escape and there's not much more i can say at the moment
01:33:28 well mr black it only remains for me to thank you very much for coming to the inquiry and assisting us with our investigations we're extremely grateful to you so thank you very much mr black i'd like to thank you very much
01:33:39 mr black i'd like to thank you very much on behalf of all the members of the panel it's very important that we hear from people like yourself who are closely involved in the events leading up to the fire and it's very
01:33:50 leading up to the fire and it's very helpful to us to have heard what you have to say and thank you very much for coming to give your evidence and now you're free to go
01:34:11 yes that's similar thank you no thank you mr chairman but that is the evidence for the day we don't have a witness immediately ready to to come and give evidence this afternoon
01:34:22 afternoon uh but we have one tomorrow morning at ten o'clock good there's another tma witness uh and i think mr kenya will be taking him right thank you well then we will
01:34:32 will close the proceedings for today we'll resume
01:34:35 resume tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock then please
01:34:38 please thank you very much
01:34:51 you