Evidence regarding FRA governance, fire compartmentation, dwelling door standards, and the implementation of fire safety management recommendations following the Salvas report of September 2009.
00:00:42 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr robert black would you ask mr black to come in please thank you
00:01:15 good morning mr black all right to carry on
00:01:18 on yes um i know this was said to you yesterday but i'm going to repeat it anyway
00:01:22 anyway um sometimes these days are rather long yeah and if you feel at any stage you'd like a short break will you just indicate
00:01:28 indicate okay that's good thank you yes mr really yes mr chairman good morning to you and good morning members of the panel uh mr black good morning to you we were on the topic yesterday afternoon
00:01:39 we were on the topic yesterday afternoon when we finished of fra governance i'd like to return to that topic now please with tm0100 37375
00:01:55 with tm0100 37375 this is an email from janice ray uh to you
00:01:58 you in which we can see that she flags up to you some of the questions that arise in the first fras from salvas it's dated the 22nd of october 2009 and it's entitled fire risk assessments
00:02:12 and it's entitled fire risk assessments and you can see in the third paragraph that she
00:02:15 that she identifies a few areas which she says she needs to raise with you and she goes on in the second line specifically these are areas where recommendations go further than our existing policy
00:02:26 existing policy and or where significant resources would potentially be required to progress to date there are four areas on which i'm seeking your view and these are set up below
00:02:34 up below three of these areas relate to flat entrance doors and these are listed together points one two three and then she sets them out um summarizing them there is the need as she highlights it
00:02:46 there is the need as she highlights it for a system to check for compartmentation doors that's one yes yes and then under two confirmation uh should be sold that each dwelling door is to fr30 standard
00:02:59 is to fr30 standard yes and also has a self-closer yes yes installation of intumescent strips and cold smoke seals that's that's item three you see that yeah and
00:03:10 that's item three you see that yeah and then the fourth one uh it appears on the second page of this email
00:03:15 email uh which uh is about um the fire detection within private flats now do you
00:03:21 do you um do you recall receiving this email yes i think so yes did you do anything about it when you got it
00:03:32 about it when you got it i i can't really recall that uh
00:03:37 i don't know if we then went to rbkc and when
00:03:41 when with ginton teeth and we picked something
00:03:45 something you don't have a specific recollection of how you took this matter forward not the moment now right let's move on in time tmo doubles it well before i do you were clear though were you not by this point october 2009
00:03:57 this point october 2009 that in these three critical areas fire compartmentation doors dwelling doors fr 30 self-closers and intumescent strips and cold smoke seals that those were matters which
00:04:09 seals that those were matters which had been picked up by the fire risk assessor and needed attention across the whole stock yes yes yes so if you nod
00:04:17 you nod oh sorry we can't thanks now um tmo double00873623 is the next document this uh is janice ray's report
00:04:29 this uh is janice ray's report for the tmo board meeting on the 10th of december
00:04:32 december 2009 on the state of the fras following receipt of the salvas report and if we go to page two of this document
00:04:43 document you can see that the report itself is referred to at paragraph 4.5 she says we have also received a management report from the consultant which sets out the fire safety framework
00:04:54 which sets out the fire safety framework within which we and our contractors should be working
00:04:58 can we take it that you yourself had seen the
00:05:01 seen the salvas fire safety management report that we looked at yesterday together the 22nd of september 2009 report by this time i would say yes yes now janice ray doesn't
00:05:14 yes now janice ray doesn't say here that salvas had highlighted a number of areas in total 19 which uh salvas considered uh
00:05:25 which uh salvas considered uh put tmo in regulatory breach does she a not that i can see no no do you know why she didn't i know did you discuss with her whether or not this
00:05:39 with her whether or not this short description of what the management report said was fully candid and helpful to the board so that the board would know
00:05:45 know what it said i'm afraid i can't recall right
00:05:48 right did you otherwise inform the board of that aspect of the salvos report the 19 areas in respect of which the tmo was in regulatory breach i can't recall right
00:06:00 i can't recall right can you tell us how else your board would have known that the tmo was in 19 respects in regulatory breach unless you told them i agree
00:06:14 breach unless you told them i agree did you tell them i can't recall them but i'm just reading those things did you put the management report before the board and ask them to read it we don't see any evidence that you did but might you have done that
00:06:26 but might you have done that well i would have thought i would have done right but you don't recall dude i don't recall that and we don't see a document
00:06:33 that would be normal practice i would have said
00:06:39 when the report of this kind was put to the board did you uh introduce it orally yeah you i mean it depends who it was presented by because it would
00:06:50 presented by because it would if it was me or one of my officers you would have presented it with the report and then taken questions on it that would have been my normal standard yes we've seen no document at all in all the disclosure from rbkc or
00:07:03 the disclosure from rbkc or or tmo that shows that this report was ever presented uh to the board certainly not at this stage
00:07:10 stage okay i have to accept that right now let's go to tm0100
00:07:21 this is an email chain which begins on page four please an email of the 11th of february 2010
00:07:36 from fire2 at lga gov it's the lga fire policy team and if you uh look uh uh up the
00:07:47 uh look uh uh up the to page bottom of page three you you can see
00:07:51 see that it is sent by gene daintis on the 12th of february 2010 to you and laura johnson forwarding the lga report extinguishing
00:08:02 forwarding the lga report extinguishing the risk
00:08:03 the risk a counsellor's guide to fire safety robert and laura this guide needs to be given to the cabinet member and scrutiny committee but i thought it needed an introduction outlining the good work we have done
00:08:15 outlining the good work we have done already
00:08:15 already in cape rbkc and the tmo we could ask councillor wheel if she would like that at her next sc though time scales are tight now or whether it should wait until the next one
00:08:25 one i just think that it's always helpful to reassure councillors about how we are ahead of the ball and if you go to page three a little higher up we can see that you respond to her
00:08:36 her dear gene i would agree with you if you need it turned around i'm sure we can meet the deadline for this one or the next
00:08:41 next i've copied janice in as she has all the info
00:08:45 info you see that yes and then she can't then then laura johnson responds on page two if we scroll up to that please uh a little bit lower email on that page 12th of february
00:08:56 of february uh to you and gene dante i think we should take it to the next one the agenda is light and it would be helpful to let councillors know what we are doing it also helps to actively prevent questions when poorly researched media stories
00:09:07 when poorly researched media stories are broadcast about fire safety in council properties now we can see uh rbk three zeros three
00:09:18 rbk three zeros three zero zero six zero the report that was prepared
00:09:29 and just help me with this it is a report by
00:09:33 report by the tmo chief executive and chief housing officer for a scrutiny committee meeting on the 15th of march 2010 and if we go to page uh
00:09:46 2010 and if we go to page uh page four in that document you can see that it's said to be a joint report from you
00:09:53 you tmo chief executive laura johnson chief housing officer and gene danteth there you see yeah do you remember rep preparing that report i would have done yes you would have prepared it or you
00:10:05 yes you would have prepared it or you well do you remember that's what i'm trying to remember right was it so long ago um i understand uh let's see some detail page two in it please
00:10:16 please you say there under three approach to fire risk assessments in rbkc housing stock
00:10:23 stock 3.1 initially fire risk assessments were carried out by kctmo staff however the fire brigade's requirements became increasingly stringent particularly in the immediate aftermath of the serious fire at lachnal house in
00:10:34 of the serious fire at lachnal house in southwark where six people died therefore kctmo and rbkc negotiated with the london fire brigade to agree our new approach program and time scales for carrying out these fire
00:10:45 time scales for carrying out these fire risk assessments and any necessary works that they identify across the council's housing stock now just focusing on that sentence
00:10:54 sentence do you agree that that paragraph makes no mention at all that the lf that the nfb was so concerned about the state and adequacy
00:11:05 about the state and adequacy of tmos in-house fras that they considered issuing an enforcement notice it doesn't say it there but obviously rb casey would have known it because i'm
00:11:16 casey would have known it because i'm sure we discussed it with them well do you know why this report to the screw the rbkc scrutiny committee made no mention of that fact i can't recall sorry was it not an
00:11:29 i can't recall sorry was it not an important fact to mention in a formal document such as this you're a thought so yes can you account for why it wasn't no i can't know
00:11:39 how do you report it to the hpsc uh the recommendations made in the salvas fire safety management report and what if anything the tma was doing about it
00:11:49 it i can't recall my punches again we see no mention here
00:11:54 so can we take it that you didn't i think you'd have to do we go to page three please paragraph 4.3
00:12:09 and uh in the first sentence you can see there's reference to the fire risk assessment action plans and then in the fourth line however it says however there are a number
00:12:21 says however there are a number of potentially more costly items such as an inspection program to ensure that all flat entrance doors in enclosed blocks are sufficiently fire resisting
00:12:29 resisting self-closing and smoke sealed and where this is not the case upgrading or replacing these capital funding has been earmarked to progress these items and rbkc and the kc tmo are working
00:12:40 and rbkc and the kc tmo are working closely
00:12:41 closely to ensure all significant risks are addressed with the urgency they require
00:12:48 require now where the report here mentions capital funding has been earmarked did that mean that capital funds were to be provided by our bkc
00:12:58 bkc to the tmo to carry out that work yes right
00:13:02 right so that's not just to be clear that's not capital funds within the tmo's own budget it's new money it would don't capital work comes from the hra not the tmo so in terms of the you mentioned capital
00:13:14 so in terms of the you mentioned capital worker funding like that comes from the hra
00:13:16 hra yes thank you so that's new money yeah yes now apart from that specific measure across the stock uh did the tmo have a budget for addressing the closeout
00:13:27 the closeout of other fra items i'm not sure the we would have a capital budget which would it was around about seven million
00:13:38 would it was around about seven million pound at that time and depending on uh what had been committed already through wix but i can't remember so i would think probably this would all have to be extra money
00:13:51 right i mean the reason i asked the question is that it looks from this document that as if capital funding had been earmarked to progress the items specifically referred to where did the money come from from all
00:14:03 where did the money come from from all other items that that are picked up in fras uh well it fras would be picked up either through
00:14:11 through uh if it's sort of the lower ones probably the repairs program it might be through contract works that we already have people with contracts
00:14:22 we already have people with contracts and if it was larger ones that needed more time that would come out the capital budget so in a sense it would probably reshape as things came up uh in in the house and
00:14:36 as things came up uh in in the house and stop what you'd spend your money on right so can we take it that from that other than instances where you could get the contractors to do the work within the scope of their contracts
00:14:48 scope of their contracts one or two the existing fixed pool of money
00:14:52 money uh i'm sorry two this earmarked fund you had to fund the repairs or actions resulting from fra
00:15:05 actions resulting from fra actions as advised in action plans from a fixed pool of money yeah yeah uh and
00:15:16 can you give us a vague idea uh or even an exact idea of what that fixed pool of money
00:15:21 money was uh in 2010 i couldn't tell you at the moment as far as i recall on average the capital budget was around about six seven million and within that you had a series of
00:15:33 and within that you had a series of lines i
00:15:34 lines i split into different areas which i don't have that detail and what was that figure by 2016 2017 so so let me just so
00:15:46 so so let me just so on average up until 2012 it was 7 million
00:15:52 million because actually the hra was still run by the government after where you only got one year funding as i said yesterday after 2012 the government gave hr
00:16:04 after 2012 the government gave hr freedom to each local authority which meant that the rent pool in rbkc would stay within our bkc but part of the freedom of hra is you
00:16:15 but part of the freedom of hra is you you got some of the debt allocated to each local authority as well so you had to then service that debt
00:16:22 debt but because there was more freedom and you knew what you were going to get each year we began to see the capital program rise
00:16:28 rise so we did that piece of work with saviles
00:16:31 saviles when they looked at our house and stock which they said in principle with those 10 000 homes you should be spending about roughly 17 million pound a year and as we looked over the business plan
00:16:42 and as we looked over the business plan the
00:16:42 the principle was you were going to sort of increase the investment from 7 to 10 12 14 16 as far as i recall
00:16:54 right d did uh the budget in whatever numbers they were at as at 2010 extend to
00:17:05 they were at as at 2010 extend to analyzing or extend to covering um staff reading fras and processing and supervising closeout of fra actions
00:17:19 of fra actions i suppose it depends what if ever fre actions if they were resulting in big capital programs then they would have to be built into that program so that would i think it's roundabout then we was doing the first asset management
00:17:31 we was doing the first asset management plan at survey basically where we were serving our stock for the first time in a number of years to try to shape that and that should really then shape your spending plans as well
00:17:42 spending plans as well let me try the question slightly differently other than the two sources of money
00:17:48 of money which is as you see here all you told us contractors doing what they were supposed to do and this capital funding earmarked to progress these specific items
00:17:56 items did the the otherwise fixed pool of money
00:17:59 money extend to ensuring that you had adequate resourcing in other words staff to read fras think about them properly action fra
00:18:12 think about them properly action fra items and supervise their completion
00:18:17 it didn't increase the resources within the tmo in terms of people because the capital budget wasn't a people budget so it wasn't employing staff
00:18:26 staff apart from in the capital side so if as a capital program would increase you would have probably seen some increasing your staff yeah is it right that there was no specific budget or sub-budget
00:18:37 specific budget or sub-budget line item if you like for health and safety i can't recall that was janice ray's evidence okay well i'd have to accept that uh would it would it also apply to fras there was no
00:18:48 there was no line item within your general budget for fras
00:18:51 fras probably not whether resourcing them internally or carrying them out yeah right now carl stokes as we know was in due course engaged to undertake fire risk assessments for the whole of the tma stock um do you
00:19:03 the whole of the tma stock um do you remember what competence checks uh you carried out or calls to be carried out on mr stakes i didn't carry any the recruitment was done i think it was as far as i call with joint recruitment with the tmo in
00:19:15 with joint recruitment with the tmo in rbkc uh i wasn't involved in that at that time you weren't involved um can you look at the consultant's brief of july 2010 at cst 705 please
00:19:28 now this is dated as i say july 2010 as you can see and it's entitled consultants brief fire risk assessments medium risk program prepared by uh tmo
00:19:39 prepared by uh tmo i summarize uh for the client uh and then your name appears underneath that above the words chief executive uh so can we take it that
00:19:51 uh so can we take it that you were the person who caused this brief to be created i'll have to accept that yeah yes did you read it when it came i i can't recall by the time did you have any input into its drafting
00:20:02 have any input into its drafting i don't think i would have now right who drafted it do you know not right let's look at the title uh as i've shown you it's it's a fire risk assessment medium risk program now as we know grenfell tower was not
00:20:14 now as we know grenfell tower was not included in the medium risk program because it was a high-risk building and had been assessed as part of that program by salvas in september 2009 hadn't it
00:20:23 hadn't it yes yes and in fact by mr stokes yes yes yes
00:20:26 yes but in due course as we know mr stakes began completing fire risk assessments for high-risk buildings within the tmo housing stock including grenfell didn't he yeah and he did so
00:20:37 did so do you remember when from we have a date of august
00:20:41 of august 2011 but i just have to agree that right do you know yourself how it came about that mr stokes took on the role of low-risk buildings and then high-risk buildings
00:20:52 buildings without as we've heard any form of procurement or quality assessment process
00:20:57 process i mean i mean i wouldn't well uh so i can only not speculate that in terms that since he did the work for us we were pleased to keep him on
00:21:08 us we were pleased to keep him on uh but i hadn't been informed he hadn't been
00:21:12 been recruited in a way i think he was just kept on as a consultant right so do i take it from that answer that you assumed that he had been the subject of a
00:21:24 that he had been the subject of a further procurement process or processes both for the low risk and the high-risk buildings
00:21:30 buildings yes right and that assumption was wrong yes can you explain how you as the chief executive were laboring under that misassumption
00:21:40 i i wasn't i didn't do all the recruitment i had other responsibilities and the people who were working with him i presume
00:21:48 i presume did that but did no one report to you for example that because carl stokes was providing a service with which janice ray was content
00:21:59 janice ray was content therefore they weren't going to bother to do a further procurement program for him came to me and said something like this by just having heard all this since the evidence has come out assumed that's what's
00:22:11 has come out assumed that's what's happening right
00:22:14 are you surprised to have been laboring under that misassumption i'm surprised can you can you explain how
00:22:20 how it came about that you as the chief executive did not know that your organization had taken on carl stakes to do two programs to further programs of fire risk assessment without any due procurement process they i obviously
00:22:34 due procurement process they i obviously wasn't told about it that would indicate some kind of defect in the reporting processes and governance structures wouldn't it it could do what other explanation would
00:22:45 it could do what other explanation would there be for it
00:22:48 i i'll just accept that yeah now just standing back did you yourself ever stop
00:22:58 stop and ask yourself or indeed anybody within your organization how a one-man band could possibly perform the job of fire risk assessor for 650
00:23:07 for 650 buildings
00:23:12 i believe the program was over three years and therefore probably assumption or not the assumption that thinking that in that three years he said he could do it i think they achieved it
00:23:24 achieved it yes there's achieving it and achieving it isn't there one could run around 650 buildings and knock out a 30-page report by
00:23:35 30-page report by didn't have a lot of cutting cutting and pasting and producing the paperwork but my question was really more aimed at identifying a fra
00:23:46 identifying a fra of quality one which effectively complied with all the guidance and the rro itself so my question did you ever stop to ask how a one-man band could possibly perform the job of fire
00:23:57 could possibly perform the job of fire risk assessor for 650 buildings properly no no or how janice ray was going to be able
00:24:04 able to read and digest all these reports and then direct and supervise the progress of recommended actions as well as do the rest of her job
00:24:14 it was her job indeed and as she told us uh but did you ever ask yourself whether she was overstretched in that job because of the sheer
00:24:25 job because of the sheer scale of the task of getting in the fras reading them digesting them directing and supervising the process of getting fra actions
00:24:36 the process of getting fra actions started and then supervising their completion i'd expect her manager to do that until and then if there was an issue to inform us
00:24:44 us so that we could actually look at resources and ex resources were required as i say as chief exec while this is important i had other important issues as well which i was having to deal with
00:24:55 having to deal with and so yes i was stretched as well so therefore actually how how you stretch yourself in terms to address all the issues i had that i therefore relied on
00:25:06 issues i had that i therefore relied on my management team to provide support to make sure it happened so do i take it from that that nobody ever came to you and told you that janice ray despite her
00:25:18 and told you that janice ray despite her courage in the face of the odds uh was actually overstretched needed help but was too polite to ask well i'd say each year there was a budget process where managers and
00:25:30 budget process where managers and could make bids for budgets and then they would come to through the senior management team through the executive to see if we could we could fit all those in so there was a process
00:25:41 those in so there was a process to be able to do it was that process ever used in order to ensure that janice ray had adequate resourcing and support for this job i don't say this job i mean the fra yes
00:25:53 i don't say this job i mean the fra yes i mean i
00:25:54 i mean i don't remember because it's so long ago do you do you agree with me that it is the line manager's job to make sure that the person who is reporting to them is adequately resourced so that they can
00:26:05 is adequately resourced so that they can do their job to the best of their ability
00:26:08 ability yes
00:26:11 yes did it never occurred to you that and you were never told i assume uh that no one had actually ever even considered whether janice ray uh was under resourced in this respect
00:26:22 uh was under resourced in this respect i think we had resource issues all the time so i mean i think that's just a position
00:26:26 position so it's not a perfect world we took we only had so many resources uh we had budget cuts uh changes
00:26:37 uh changes so it's a difficult situation and i think that's reflected in lots of other organizations let me just ask you about the culture it's not a word i would use lightly but was there an atmosphere perhaps in the in the tmo of encouraging people to get
00:26:51 in the tmo of encouraging people to get on with the job as best they could and don't ask for any more money
00:26:56 i think there was an atmosphere of people knew how much money there was in a time of austerity where across the country everything has been cut including the fire brigade the
00:27:07 cut including the fire brigade the police
00:27:08 police and every local authorities so i think the culture is you recognize that actually there's no magic pot of money to actually sort of make everything perfect and that's in sense within
00:27:20 perfect and that's in sense within social house and local authority that's tends to what happened we're talking about safety though aren't we can let me ask you a question slightly different way um did you ever encourage
00:27:31 different way um did you ever encourage those staff in your organization who were
00:27:34 were managing safety and particularly fire safety
00:27:39 safety to approach you for more money if they thought they needed it at least at least to ask the question yeah i mean i was encoura i encourage people if there's an issue trying to resolve issues that
00:27:50 trying to resolve issues that that is what i try to encourage staff to do and then you have to work out how to do it
00:27:55 do it so i wasn't against people thinking how to do things differently i think janus did a fantastic job i think
00:28:03 think she was always struck she was stretched or accept that uh but i never got to a stretch where people were saying to me we've got a problem when you say you think she did a fantastic job i'm
00:28:15 you think she did a fantastic job i'm going to assume that you're not commenting on the totality of the facts as revealed by her evidence but your impression of her work and work ethic at the time passionate for her and her work ethic at the time by the time yeah
00:28:26 the time by the time yeah now let's look at rbk3053588 please
00:28:42 now this is a chain of emails from february 2010 uh and if we go to page three in this run uh we can see an email of the 11th of february from janice
00:28:53 of the 11th of february from janice raita and much more at rbkc copy to lawnet pemberton and russell thompson a name we mentioned yesterday as well as you mr black you see that
00:29:03 see that and the subject is fire risk assessments progressing programs of medium risk and low-risk blocks and further to our brief conversation following the last progress meeting with salvas
00:29:13 salvas as the high risk program is on schedule to complete as agreed by late march stroke early april it is now timely to consider how the medium risk and low-risk fra programs will be funded resourced and progressed
00:29:24 resourced and progressed i anticipate that we have a few options and then they're set out under three paragraphs um if we go down to the third paragraph you can see in the second paragraph of that paragraph she says this i can confirm that salvas
00:29:36 she says this i can confirm that salvas are currently on schedule to complete the high risk program within the agreed month the agreed 6 month time span additionally it's fair to say that the program has progressed relatively smoothly
00:29:46 smoothly and generally with the approval of the lfb however i have some concerns that salvas
00:29:51 salvas are very rule-bound and despite what they say about being prepared to challenge the lfb and acting on our behalf as
00:29:56 behalf as as we are their client i believe they have shown some reluctance to challenge the lfb on thorny issues for example i haven't found them to be hugely helpful or proactive on our
00:30:07 hugely helpful or proactive on our behalf on the issue of whether or not we need to do as the lfb insist and in straw install dry risers at gilray house etc now
00:30:19 just focusing on her description of salvas's attitude there in the middle of that paragraph when you read this email were you not concerned that janice ray was critical of salvas for being rule-bound as you
00:30:31 of salvas for being rule-bound as you put it
00:30:34 i that's just so long ago i'm afraid i mean the way i read it is that i i think is what she's looking for is a company that's helping her with the fire brigade become a
00:30:45 with the fire brigade become a conclusion that's the way i read it i can't remember the specific email apology right would you say the way i i read it is that reading it now or the way you read it at the time reading it no
00:30:54 no right do you remember reading it at the time and having a view about it i'm afraid i can't right let me ask you looking back can you tell us what was wrong
00:31:05 wrong with a fire risk assessor who paid close attention to the rules about fire safety i don't think that's what she's saying there well she's we can i'm not going to quarrel with you about
00:31:16 i'm not going to quarrel with you about the language she says salva's are very rule-bound what's wrong with that she's criticizing them for it uh what is wrong with it well i think i
00:31:27 uh what is wrong with it well i think i don't know if you asked janet that when she was i didn't see him i'm asking you because you received the email and i'm asking you uh to give us your evidence uh of uh your impression at the time if you
00:31:38 uh your impression at the time if you can't remember you can't remember but i can't remember right were you let me try and prod your recollection were you not concerned at the time that janice ray was looking for a fire risk assessor who would take on
00:31:49 a fire risk assessor who would take on the lfb challenge them as opposed to doing what the lfb insisted given that they are were the enforcement authority
00:32:00 were the enforcement authority i think from my from knowing janice i don't think she means challenge them so what is is having a conversation with delphi about what do they want because sometimes when they change the
00:32:12 because sometimes when they change the role they gave different guidance or you know you got one farm and they said this another one that i think in the sense that's what she was trying to get and using the consultants to tie down the
00:32:25 using the consultants to tie down the fire brigade one way or another that's the way i read it rather than trying to skip around the rules i don't understand tie down the the london fire brigade were the fire brigade being
00:32:37 were the fire brigade being unclear about things that they needed to be pinned down to something when and since that's the way i read it that she's trying to get clarification about if you really need to do it or if you don't need to do it
00:32:48 you don't need to do it did you ask her what the thorny issues that she referred to were i can't recall all the stomach apologies so one one way of reading this email do
00:33:00 so one one way of reading this email do you
00:33:00 you do you accept one way is that the tmo wanted a fire risk assessor who would take the tmo side against the lfb
00:33:08 lfb as opposed to working collaborative with the lfb to ensure that the tmo complied no i don't think the tmo or or janus ever wanted to work against the lfb
00:33:18 lfb i think it was we always wanted to work with them it's not quite what the paragraph says there is it or the impression that it gives is it i i can't say anything more
00:33:30 is it i i can't say anything more than i mean from your general recollection at the time do you remember that the
00:33:37 that the the aim of getting carl stokes in instead of salvas was that you wanted someone who would be more defensive of the lfb against a defensive of the tmo against the lfb i can't recall that as my thoughts at
00:33:48 i can't recall that as my thoughts at that time
00:33:49 that time now carl stokes as we know uh was invited to tender for the medium risk fra
00:33:54 fra program and did you call he was the successful tenderer do you remember yourself considering the tenders i know i i don't think i would have
00:34:06 i know i i don't think i would have did you ask any questions yourself about his appointment i can't recall from that time right did you ask or ask anybody within the tmo to ask
00:34:18 tmo to ask whether cs stokes limited associates limited had any quality assurance provisions or competence checks
00:34:26 checks i can't recall that detail right it sounds like i can't recall who because i in sense i think this rbkc was involved with this i don't know if we use
00:34:36 use uh hr reading involved they would have checked that and just don't know the details from this long don't did you ever wonder to yourself what would happen given that khalsa x was a one-man band
00:34:48 given that khalsa x was a one-man band if carl stokes was indisposed for a couple of weeks what would happen to his program i didn't have that thought you never
00:34:59 didn't have that thought you never thought
00:35:00 thought it never occurred to you that uh the the the depending on karl stacks as a one-man band was a rather slender read on which to hang such a momentous
00:35:11 hang such a momentous role i can't recall let's can you just confirm what was it ultimately your decision whom to appoint as far as it could have
00:35:23 whom to appoint as far as it could have been but in sense i don't think i was involved in the recruitment so the recruitment panel would have done the recruitment and assess the candidates and made the appointment
00:35:34 um i want to turn now to a fire that occurred at grenfell tower in april 2010 30th of april 2010. now can we go to tmo10048221 please
00:35:51 this is an email from janice ray and i'm afraid i'm sorry we need to go to page 4 in this what we're seeing is page one which is as ever the end of the run page four
00:36:02 as ever the end of the run page four email janice ray fifth of may to colette o'hara of the lfb
00:36:07 lfb copied to you you see that yeah collect further to our telephone conversations yesterday about this far i would advise as follows and if we go to paragraph two she says this the communal fire
00:36:18 she says this the communal fire detection system is linked to an extraction system and this did operate removing smoke from the lift lobby unfortunately it appears that there was spillage stroke leakage of smoke from the extraction system into the lobbies of floor 7 12 13 15 17 18 19 and 20.
00:36:32 of floor 7 12 13 15 17 18 19 and 20. and this led to a number of residents to believe that their lift lobby was smoke-logged and that they were trapped in their home and as such they telephoned the fb raising their concern
00:36:46 now uh do you remember do you remember seeing this email at the time i i can't remember the time but obviously i've seen it right now janice ray told the inquiry
00:36:58 right now janice ray told the inquiry that day 144 page five there's no need to go to it that this was her report to the lfb uh on that fire did you ask her for any other report or a more formal document
00:37:10 other report or a more formal document i i can't recall let's go to tm010037437
00:37:21 this is the board pack for the tmo board meeting of the 17th of june
00:37:29 june 2010. sorry 22nd of july 2010 and if we go to page 94 we can see janus ray's report to the board of the 17th of
00:37:40 ray's report to the board of the 17th of june
00:37:40 june 2010
00:37:44 and if you look at page 96 in that document
00:37:48 document you can see paragraph eight and a paragraph eight which is headed fire at grenfell tower 30th of april 2010 [Music]
00:37:56 [Music] she says at 8.2 grenfell tower has an automatic fire detection system in the communal areas which is linked to a ventilation and extraction system
00:38:07 extraction system the fire alarm was activated by the smoke rang throughout the block and the extraction system opened as it should expelling the smoke from the building uh and you can cast your eye down to the
00:38:19 uh and you can cast your eye down to the bottom of that page and then over to page 97 paragraph 8.3
00:38:30 it says however when the fire brigade attended they inspected the block
00:38:35 uh raised the number and subsequently raised the number of concerns with us specifically first bullet it appears that although the vents opened and the smoke was expelled from the building there was some leakage of this smoke
00:38:47 there was some leakage of this smoke onto some
00:38:48 onto some lift lobbies at a number of floors above the sixth why did this happen what arrangements are in place for maintaining the fire alarm and smoke extraction system why were there recycling bags on the sixth floor lift lobby there was some
00:39:00 sixth floor lift lobby there was some confusion over whether the lifts responded
00:39:02 responded to the override request from the lfb but just pausing that did you read this report at the time
00:39:10 time namely june 2010 or at any time before the tmo board meeting on the 22nd of july i would have done yes you would have done yes now we can see that this report
00:39:21 yes now we can see that this report doesn't describe leakage on to eight floors as set out in janus ray's email of the fifth of may to colette o'hara does it
00:39:30 does it no nor does it mention the fact that residents believe that they were trapped in their flats and called the lfb does it no nor does it mention the fact that that
00:39:41 well let me let me ask you the report suggests doesn't it that aov operated as it should with a bit of leakage
00:39:49 leakage it appears to say that yes did you ask janice ray why this report to the board was in the respects i've pointed out to you inconsistent with her email to
00:40:00 inconsistent with her email to colette o'hara of the 5th of may i'm afraid i can't recall not really giving the board the full picture is this it would appear to be that yeah
00:40:10 that yeah then at 8 4b on page 97 a little bit lower down if we can scroll down please for you it says this the tmo engineers and planned maintenance contractors inspected the entire extraction system following the fire to identify any
00:40:22 following the fire to identify any damage caused by the fire and none was found
00:40:24 found additionally the planned remedial works referred to at above was successfully completed
00:40:28 completed and the system was fully operational on friday 7th may smoke tests were successfully completed at the conclusion of these planned works to ensure the integrity of the system and then if you just skip over to page 98 please and
00:40:40 you just skip over to page 98 please and let's look together at paragraph e
00:40:44 as there was some confusion as there was some confusion as to whether there had been a problem with the lifts at the time of the fire specifically they may not have returned to ground level when called by the fb the lift maintenance contractors were
00:40:55 the lift maintenance contractors were instructed to test the firefighters override switches etc on both lifts they confirmed that both were operating perfectly and lifts had both returned to ground when called as required further discussions with lfb in
00:41:07 required further discussions with lfb in this matter have raised the possibility of the lifts being overloaded station commander advised there could have been as many as six firefighters plus all their very heavy equipment in the lift car and this could have well been enough to
00:41:18 and this could have well been enough to overload the lift now what i've read to you just now was that the extent of the information that you were given about the 2010 fire at grenfell at the
00:41:29 about the 2010 fire at grenfell at the time
00:41:32 time now let's go to iws401463 please
00:41:42 this is a a formal document from the lfb entitled report of attendance of london fire brigade to a primary fire incident primary fire is defined by the asterisk at the foot of the page if we
00:41:54 asterisk at the foot of the page if we can just scroll down to that as a primary fire is one that involves property
00:41:59 property such as a building or
00:42:04 i don't know what they all it's supposed to indicate it's dated the 22nd of december 2010 and it relates to grenfell tower as you can see
00:42:13 see and if you go to page three so this is at the end of that year but if you go to page three there's a reference to the aov system
00:42:27 and it says uh where this is a third of the way down your screen were active firefighting systems present yes type of active system smoke ventilation location of system in
00:42:39 ventilation location of system in relation to fire on the same floor as fire
00:42:41 fire did the system operate no and then no beneath that impact of system on fire did not contain stroke control reason the system did not function as intended fault in
00:42:52 intended fault in system and then if you go to page two back to page two
00:43:00 it also says in relation to the lifts uh at the very bottom of your screen reason facility did not work if applicable poor maintenance and were you aware first that the lfb
00:43:12 and were you aware first that the lfb produced reports such as this after a fire in one of the buildings on their ground i i'm aware they produced reports did you ask or cause anybody to ask lfb
00:43:24 did you ask or cause anybody to ask lfb for their formal report of the april 2010 grenfell tower fire yes i asked janice several times if we received the report what did she tell you
00:43:35 what did she tell you she said we hadn't did you ask her to press
00:43:38 press yes i think i did did she press why is that i'm still not sure if i've ever seen this report no indeed that's the point
00:43:48 the point um can you explain why despite asking janice for the report such as this you never saw it i don't know did it slip off your radar it was i believe
00:43:59 believe i hadn't been told that we received this report
00:44:03 report that's why sometimes because i've never seen
00:44:07 seen this sorry did janice have this or did the inquiry get this from the fire began well you're asking me a question of source of the material janice ray did
00:44:20 source of the material janice ray did not get this report because i asked her about
00:44:21 about it so
00:44:26 she did not get this report my question to you is
00:44:30 to you is is given that you told us that you asked her to get it did it slip off your radar at some point
00:44:38 um it must have done but i it's never been confirmed that she gave it
00:44:50 that she gave it now let's go to tm0086
00:44:55 tm00846312 please
00:44:59 this is a letter which i think we've seen before together from gtla to you of the third of september
00:45:10 and uh if you uh look in the first paragraph there's a reference uh to danny a response from daniel wood and they go on in the second sentence
00:45:22 and they go on in the second sentence sorry third sentence third line to say we've chosen to respond to you directly instead of mr wood for the simple fact you originally made the commitment to look into our issues and concerns and they then list a number of
00:45:33 concerns and they then list a number of concerns including uh on page one at the bottom the last paragraph there secondly they say we will argue that a rece the recent fire at grenfell tower has raised so many health and safety issues with the building that it demands
00:45:45 issues with the building that it demands an independent investigation and inquiry into the safety of the building and they then explain a little more
00:45:52 more their concerns about the fire on page five if you go to that second half of that page fire alarm and health and safety is the heading
00:46:04 and health and safety is the heading and if you look uh at that in the second last paragraph on page six if we move over to that it says
00:46:15 to that it says in the penultimate paragraph the tmo issued a tender in relation to maintenance and repair of fire safety equipment to rge services for 52 372 pounds
00:46:27 for 52 372 pounds and date of the notice of proposals 28th of april 2009 we need to see what sort of maintenance work was carried out from 28th of april 2009
00:46:36 2009 towards the repair of fire safety equipment and the invoices with corresponding tangible evidences now would you agree with me that that is a quite a granular request for hard data isn't it yeah
00:46:48 request for hard data isn't it yeah yes um what what commitment did you originally make to gtla to investigate their issues and concerns i think it was my part of my when i
00:46:59 i think it was my part of my when i joined there was quite a lot of issues across leaseholders generally across the thousands of them they had and that commitment was to try to work through the detail a lot of it was
00:47:11 work through the detail a lot of it was around uh where work had been done in terms of for contracts uh i mean they weren't either happy with the quality or the cost or they hadn't had the final bill so there was a
00:47:22 the final bill so there was a range of issues that i we took on board through
00:47:25 through danwood and the homeownership team to address it it stands from that answer that your commitment was a generic one given to all leaseholders in the stock yes not specifically to the grenfell tower
00:47:36 not specifically to the grenfell tower leaseholders association not specifically because we had so just to be clear when they refer to the commitment you gave as i've read to you at the beginning of this letter they're not referring are they to the best of your understanding to a specific
00:47:48 best of your understanding to a specific commitment given to that specific group of individuals just it was a specific across about trying to resolve some of the historic issues that leaseholders had faced
00:48:00 leaseholders had faced in rbkc and having the homeownership team
00:48:04 team address that did you consider as they were inviting you to having an independent investigation into the fire safety of grenfell tower at that time no why not why is that i can't
00:48:18 no why not why is that i can't recall i mean the question was was clear wasn't it
00:48:22 wasn't it yeah did you did you take the question and consider it with anybody internally i think i would have sent this uh sorry there must have been a response
00:48:33 sorry there must have been a response here
00:48:34 here to understand how because i get usually what i would do if i've got something like this i send it to my team to say because it cuts across a few issues
00:48:42 issues so it's a home ownership issue but it's also a asset management issue so we'd have to actually find the costs and the work to break that down so teams need to pull that information together for me
00:48:53 pull that information together for me there is a response you're quite right and we're going to look at that in a moment
00:48:58 now as i say you can see here that the gtla had requested evidence of repair from of the fire safety equipment
00:49:08 and you agreed with me that that was a pretty granular and empirical request for data let's go to
00:49:17 rbk3013637
00:49:20 what i'm showing you here is the rge maintenance report dated 12th of may 2010 so four months or so before this correspondence
00:49:34 or so before this correspondence and it relates to the grenfell tower smoke vent system as you can see on the screen
00:49:39 screen did you provide this document to gtla yeah i i wouldn't know what i can't recall right was this document put on your desk so that you could consider
00:49:52 your desk so that you could consider responding or asking somebody anthony parks i think in the end to respond with it to gtla i can't recall
00:49:59 recall this report i apologize right let's look at page seven and see if that rings a bell with you under comments and recommendations section four of this report
00:50:10 report in the middle of the text you can see that they say this due to the spring force on the inlet dampers the actuators are not reliable and may not operate on every activation the outlet damper have very little force
00:50:21 the outlet damper have very little force and are reliable apart for the above and its age the system
00:50:25 system is generally in good operational order and is capable of being maintained for the next five years and then in bold apart from the inlet dampers
00:50:35 so we can see what it says were gtla not entitled to know that the aov
00:50:43 aov system in their building had inlet dampers which were unreliable yes i would say yes so why was this document not provided to them i've never seen this document
00:50:56 them i've never seen this document no i appreciate that but i'm now showing it to you and are you able as you sit there today to give us an explanation as to why this document was not provided to the people who lived in the building not at all
00:51:11 did you is it the case that this wasn't provided to them because it would have confirmed
00:51:16 confirmed exactly what it was that the gtla suspected
00:51:19 suspected namely that the aov system was not working properly i would never agree to that if it's not working it's not working now let's go to tmo double zero eight four six three two zero
00:51:31 four six three two zero this is anthony parks's response to gtla's letter of the 3rd of september
00:51:39 and it's dated the 21st of september 2010
00:51:43 2010 addressed to the gtla dear sirs further to your letter of 3rd september 2010 i've noted your general comments and after detailed discussion with senior officers i can advise the following in respect of the specific
00:51:55 following in respect of the specific points raised now just there were you one of the senior officers with whom mr parks had had a detailed discussion before sending this letter i would think so yes let's look at page four
00:52:09 this is under the heading fire alarm and health and safety at the top of your screen
00:52:13 screen and he says whilst i understand your concerns i can confirm that the fire alarm
00:52:17 alarm was functioning and that the vents were working
00:52:21 working at the time of the fire the smoke vent opened on a specific floor but the seal to the smoke vents on other floors leaked
00:52:28 leaked this would not have been so serious if the fabric turned on the manual snake vent
00:52:32 vent fan which would have drawn smoke away regrettably this did not happen as officers who attended did not know how it worked
00:52:38 it worked we've discussed this with the lfb and clarified how to operate the vent fans the controls are well labeled on the ground floor to prevent this confusion happening again we're presently looking to upgrade the smoke vent system to work automatically
00:52:49 automatically when the alarm sounds
00:52:54 please rest assured that the system is checked regularly and inspection reports are completed after further investigation the only issue identified was the loose seals to the smoke vents
00:53:05 was the loose seals to the smoke vents on other floors i don't think i need the rest of that
00:53:13 first can you tell us why anthony parks responded
00:53:16 responded to the letter which was addressed to you instead of bearing your name uh because anthony was the head of homeownerships well not head he managed the head of home ownership who managed the relationship with
00:53:27 managed the relationship with leaseholders uh santorini would have been working with that team and got the information from janet because he managed janet as well would have linked him with asset management so i think the response
00:53:41 asset management so i think the response is based from the feedback from those three teams did you check this letter or approve it before it was sent i would have read it and because in terms this is what i'm
00:53:53 and because in terms this is what i'm being told now anthony parks makes no mention here does he of the rge maintenance report of may 2010 or its conclusions that the actuators may not always work
00:54:05 that the actuators may not always work does he he doesn't know
00:54:09 uh and indeed would you agree that the the parts
00:54:12 the parts of the three paragraphs of this letter under fire alarm and health safety health and safety are really uh an exercise in concealment and half truth
00:54:23 truth i'm not sure i mean i as i said i don't i hadn't seen the report you showed me it's never been presented to me i don't know if anthony saw so therefore
00:54:34 i don't know if anthony saw so therefore if he read it it looks like he he didn't get it so i'm i'm
00:54:39 i'm confused
00:54:42 and it looks like an attempt to blame the fire brigade rather than the state of the aov doesn't it again i i would have to ask janice moore about if that was an issue because that's why you could put in there i
00:54:53 that's why you could put in there i wouldn't say
00:54:57 well i'm asking you because uh you were the the
00:55:01 the the person to whom the letter was written yeah and you read this letter before it was sent
00:55:06 was sent by anthony parks what i'm putting to you and i'm inviting you to accept is that these three paragraphs are an attempt to blame the fire brigade
00:55:17 are an attempt to blame the fire brigade and pin
00:55:17 and pin any error on human error on their part rather than on the defective condition of the aov at the time
00:55:24 time i i'm sort of upset reading this and can't explain it were you aware that a year later
00:55:37 were you aware that a year later this is august 2011 9th of august 2011 that rge wrote a further report saying that they could not guarantee conformity of the aov with fire
00:55:48 conformity of the aov with fire regulations and that the actuation system was not fit for purpose and needed to be replaced in order to make the system compliant
00:55:55 compliant no do you know why the gtla was not told about that and we've seen no evidence that they were well i'm completely
00:56:06 well i'm completely i haven't seen it i hadn't been told that i
00:56:09 that i and obviously they hadn't so we know that you knew that a deficiency notice for grenfell tower was issued by the lfb on the 24th of march 2014
00:56:21 march 2014 among other things identifying the failure to maintain the smoke ventilation system and i i'm sure i was told it was fixed and working we know that the smoke extraction system
00:56:33 we know that the smoke extraction system was only replaced in 2016 as part of the refurbishment program wasn't it yes do you agree with me that that meant that grenfell tower did not have a fully functioning aov system between 2010
00:56:45 functioning aov system between 2010 and 2016. based on what you're telling me yes
00:56:49 me yes despite the fact that the gtla had raised this very problem after the april 2010 fire i accept that
00:56:57 now uh in fact taking a step back a year from 2016 to 2015 let's go to tmo double zero eight five seven nine two four
00:57:14 this is uh uh we need we need well we can stay on page one
00:57:22 one this is an email uh in the second half of the page from the gtla of the 2nd of january 2015 to councillor dent code and judith blakeman
00:57:31 blakeman copied to a a long rather forbidding list
00:57:34 list of other people and you'll need to go to the second page to see the text uh if you go to the fourth paragraph down
00:57:45 you can see and it's signed i should just tell you tell you by tundi uh of the gtla uh if you go to the fourth paragraph down he says this in a letter to me do you see that
00:57:58 in a letter to me do you see that you see that oh yeah yeah in a letter to me from the kctma limited day to 30th of january 2013 on page two it states we can confirm that improvements will be made to the existing smoke extraction
00:58:09 existing smoke extraction ventilation system which links to the fire alarm under the grenfell regeneration project close quotes ryden has been on site since the june 2014 and so far there is
00:58:20 since the june 2014 and so far there is no tangible evidence whatsoever ryden and kctmo intend to carry out replacement of the smoke vent and extraction and ventilation system which links to the fire alarm we need confirmation that ryden will carry out
00:58:31 confirmation that ryden will carry out the work
00:58:31 the work as part of the regeneration project as promised by the kctmo and then they go on to site the fra from november 2012.
00:58:44 from november 2012. now if we go up to page one we can see that you forwarded that email if you go to page one you forward this email
00:58:51 email uh to peter madison and sasha jevons uh on the 5th of january 2015 and you say this happy new year etc not sure
00:59:01 sure if you were copied into this can you review and let me know if it's the same old thing or something else now when you said same old thing what did you mean
00:59:12 did you mean oh an appropriate language yes but what did you mean well i wasn't sure if
00:59:18 sure if it's in terms of there was anything new here that we hadn't responded to so it's i accept inappropriate language wasn't right i just sometimes you're getting so many of these things not just from here
00:59:30 of these things not just from here that i wasn't clear if it was neural
00:59:36 well you say you weren't clear if it was new or old you rather assume that it was old
00:59:41 old otherwise you wouldn't have used the word yeah
00:59:44 word yeah did the fact that it was old not indicate to you that there was a problem which had not yet been fixed i've had to accept that was it not a matter of concern to you that no works had been carried out to the smoke
00:59:55 had been carried out to the smoke ventilation system between 2010 and the date on which you saw this complaint early january 2015. i have to say that yes yes so it was a
01:00:07 i have to say that yes yes so it was a matter of concern to you was it doesn't appear to have been you dismissed it the same old thing
01:00:23 i have to accept that hmm
01:00:35 can you see why looking at that gtla might have had a reason to lose their trust in the tma's management of their building
01:00:46 management of their building yes now you've taken me through this yes
01:00:51 now let's turn to updates to our bkc scrutiny committee now you you previously reported to rbkc scrutiny committee in 2010 and you were asked to prepare an updating report and we can see that
01:01:02 updating report and we can see that at rbk 303.083 at page five well page 1 is there 20th of january 2011 page 5 is where i
01:01:14 20th of january 2011 page 5 is where i want to go to we can see on that page that again this report comes from you as ceo of the tmo laura johnson and gene
01:01:23 and gene dantith
01:01:27 are prepared by janice ray as we can see from the contact office the details at the foot of that page if we go to page three let's look together at paragraph 4.4
01:01:38 together at paragraph 4.4 and it says however there have also been a number of potentially more costly items
01:01:43 items in particular the following recommendations were made in relation to flat entrance stores of all of the enclosed blocks first bullet confirmed that each dwelling door is to fr30 standard and is provided with a self-closing device
01:01:54 provided with a self-closing device second bullet consider where not fitted the installation of intumescent strips and cold smoke seals to each flat access door now this was the genesis wasn't it of the
01:02:05 this was the genesis wasn't it of the flat door replacement program yes yes now let's then go a little forward in time to the tmos health and safety annual report for 2011 to 2012.
01:02:17 for 2011 to 2012. this is at tm008634 please i'll show you the first page of that
01:02:27 and there it is identifying the year and if we go to page 10 please you can see under paragraph 8.1
01:02:37 uh 0.1
01:02:46 i think we want eight point one we want page nine
01:02:52 and then we want page ten uh eight point one
01:02:57 uh you can see in the second sentence there uh in our case as highlighted above at 3.1 the responsible persons are considered to be rbkc and tmo was that your understanding yes
01:03:08 and tmo was that your understanding yes it was do you know how that understand understanding arrays that there was this joint responsible person role i i think it's because when i joined that's what gene deante said because in the sense they they owned the building
01:03:21 the sense they they owned the building still we've just managed that i they were the
01:03:24 were the name on the leasehold and the tenancy and they
01:03:27 and they managed the hra so in terms of why we had responsibility we wouldn't have we didn't have all the responsibility let's go to page 10 and look at 8.1.11
01:03:39 let's go to page 10 and look at 8.1.11 at the foot of the page it says this well whilst progress to date has been worthy of note and the lf epa's time scale for completion of the high and medium risk action plans by july 2014 is still a long way off a
01:03:51 by july 2014 is still a long way off a significant amount of work remains if we are to ensure that all actions are completed
01:03:55 completed additionally any further actions identified by subsequent fra reviews must also be resolved swiftly the continued commitment of staff and contractors will therefore be required how did you yourself
01:04:07 be required how did you yourself ensure that actions identified by fras were being carried out within the time frame for completion set by mr stokes they went through the health and safety committee and they monitored them
01:04:19 committee and they monitored them to make sure they were they were allocated to the right teams did you yourself take any steps to monitor what it was that the health and safety
01:04:26 safety committee was doing by way of supervision i not all the time now at any time sometimes i would ask because i'd get reports so and then speak to the people
01:04:37 reports so and then speak to the people involved
01:04:37 involved did you get regular reports do you remember uh maybe not always regular no now let's go to tmo one triple zero one seven six seven
01:04:56 these are the minutes of a an rbkc housing a property scrutiny committee of the 8th of november 2012.
01:05:07 uh and you can see from the list of those in attendance that you were there you see that yes if we go to page three and look at the second paragraph on that page
01:05:18 page it says this uh the committee expressed continued concern over flat entrance stores in the tma stock that were non-compliant with fire safety standards mr black responded by emphasizing the
01:05:29 mr black responded by emphasizing the vast majority of flats were designed to contain fire he also confirmed the tmo was working with the fire brigade at the highest level and the 68 leaseholders with non-compliant doors had been informed by letter
01:05:40 letter that it was their responsibility to meet the standard and were responding councillor pascal said he appreciated the work already carried out on this issue
01:05:47 issue but urged all parties to make as much progress as quickly as possible
01:05:53 it looks as if as if do and do you agree that the concern over leaseholder flat entrance stores extended
01:06:00 extended to the scrutiny committee yes and did you consider the committee's concern to be valid yes i think we all mean the issue here is the
01:06:10 is the the doors were the responsibility of the leaseholders so while we could replace tenancy doors by giving notice and doing it
01:06:20 it we didn't have that authority with the leaseholders
01:06:29 you then i think reported to the tmo board in november 2012 let's go to the board pack for that that's tm01 triple zero one seven six six
01:06:44 you could see you can see that the date of the board meeting is the 15th of november 2012 there if we look within the board pack at page 12
01:06:57 12 we find your report chief executive's report
01:07:00 report as a gender item 3 and if we look within that to page 15 we can see that
01:07:08 see that here is where you deal with fire risk assessments under section 5 you say all relevant fire risk assessments for common parts have been completed and the identified works have been
01:07:19 and the identified works have been categorized from one to five by risk categories one to three are deemed to be mandatory that have been actioned these are primarily related to the installation of fire doors to tenanted properties
01:07:30 properties a number of door installations remain to be completed as part of these works and we're
01:07:34 we're working with internal teams london fire and emergency planning authority and rbkc to progress these where necessary we shall assist rbkc in taking legal action to ensure that these works are completed
01:07:45 works are completed an assessment of the works identified as category 4 and 5 recommendations only is being undertaken to establish what action is to be taken and over what time scale
01:07:53 scale now just reading that back to you is it right that as you understood it the fras for all properties had been carried out
01:08:04 sorry can you say that again yes did you understand it at the time that all fire risk assessments had been carried out for all of your stock yes because this would have been drafted
01:08:15 yes because this would have been drafted by janus from my report
01:08:21 from your report she would have drafted this for my rep for it yes so say let's just go through the process then janice ray would have provided you with some text for you to insert into your report
01:08:32 report right when you did that did you um discuss it with her did you go through it did you verify it in any way well i'd discuss it with her and then just accept that that's what she's telling me right and as you understood it as i'm
01:08:46 right and as you understood it as i'm putting to you all fire risk assessments have been done for the entirety of the stock by then this is november 2012 yes yes yes and is it also right that at the
01:08:57 yes yes and is it also right that at the time you understood that the actions arising from those fras had been divided up into categories and given a risk category of uh one to five on a range
01:09:10 category of uh one to five on a range yes yes did you know what those risk categories meant each one i can't recall at the moment right
01:09:21 right can we look at an example fra action plan
01:09:26 plan where works are identified and categorized by risk i'm going to show you the fra action plan for grenfell tower of the 20th of november 2012 so the very
01:09:37 of the 20th of november 2012 so the very same month a few days after this meeting and it's at cst
01:09:46 403083
01:09:50 now this is the first page of a document called
01:09:54 called record of significant findings and action plan and you can see that it relates to grenfell tower and is dated the 20th of november 2012. just pausing there have you
01:10:06 just pausing there have you had you seen this document at the time i'm not sure if i've seen this specific one i've seen other ones right would these documents generally have come across your desk not across my desk
01:10:18 come across your desk not across my desk they've gone to the health and safety committee right as at november 2012 were you broadly familiar
01:10:24 familiar with what an fra done by mr stakes looked like broadly broadly were you broadly familiar with what a record of significant actions and action plan look like
01:10:36 action plan look like uh
01:10:39 i'd have to i can't recall right now let's just look a little bit more closely at it you can see above the box that it refers to priority time scales high two to three
01:10:52 priority time scales high two to three weeks
01:10:52 weeks medium two to three months low six to 12 months
01:10:57 months and you can see that the first item uh in the list on that page is advisor only and is white it's not colored and if you scroll down to page two you
01:11:09 and if you scroll down to page two you can see that a number of items are given a high priority and a colored red yes
01:11:14 red yes yeah and then um and those are priority items and therefore must be completed within two to three weeks yes yeah yes was that
01:11:22 was that as you understood it at the time yes now if we go to page three we can see a medium risk priority there's an example item eight c which has got an amber color yeah yes and that means that it had a
01:11:34 yeah yes and that means that it had a time scale for completion of two to three months yes yes and you would have understood that fact at the time yeah that scheme yes
01:11:45 did you expect the items identified in the action plan to be addressed within those
01:11:50 those set time scales yes yes did you understand that in the end you were ultimately responsible for ensuring that they were addressed within those time scales yes and how did you go about ensuring that they were addressed within those time
01:12:02 they were addressed within those time scales
01:12:02 scales they bothered by them being managed through the health and safety committee right did you spot check or verify what it was that health and safety was was doing by way of managing that
01:12:13 was doing by way of managing that question or managing that task i wouldn't have been so hands-on right so you left it to them yes i mean did you understand that
01:12:24 yes i mean did you understand that meeting or not meeting those time scales might mean the difference between being compliant with the rro and exposing the your organization uh to prosecution
01:12:35 prosecution for regulatory for a regulatory offence or not
01:12:42 i think you said yes yes yes you did given that that was a major risk as identified much later indeed by the corporate risk map why was this not something that
01:12:53 map why was this not something that you kept tabs on at least in some way i suppose it goes back to in terms of a white
01:13:00 white brief doing other things and it's about trying to find this balance
01:13:06 mr chairman is that a convenient moment for the break yes i think he probably would be
01:13:09 would be thank you well we'll have a break now miss black we'll come back at half past 11 please
01:13:14 11 please and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room thank you thank you
01:13:29 thank you huff us 11 please
01:32:33 would you ask mr black to come back in
01:32:38 please
01:32:52 um all right mr black ready to carry on hey yes thanks yes mr miller thank you mr chairman um mr black i want to ask you some questions next about rbkc's 2013 audit
01:33:05 rbkc's 2013 audit you'll recall i think that the tmo's health and safety system was audited by rbkc
01:33:10 rbkc in the spring of 2013. isn't it and the final
01:33:14 final internal audit report of april 2013 uh is at
01:33:19 rbk50313 we can just turn that up
01:33:26 and we can see that the final audit report april 2013 was circulated uh initially in draft to those individuals you see listed there janice ray uh anthony parks sasha jevons and peter
01:33:38 uh anthony parks sasha jevons and peter madison and then final additionally circulated to you and laura johnson yes yes can we take it that you saw and read this document in april 2013 yes now if we go to page
01:33:49 in april 2013 yes now if we go to page four please paragraph eleven uh you could see the result it's something we discussed yesterday in your evidence
01:33:56 evidence uh that as a result of the audit review it says internal audit can give in bold limited assurance that adequate controls and processes are in place for health and safety at the tmo
01:34:08 for health and safety at the tmo and it identifies weaknesses in it if we go to um page
01:34:17 paragraph 10 page 4 paragraph 10
01:34:22 uh
01:34:25 it says five medium priority recommendations were also made as follows all high priority remedial work identified as part of the annual health and safety inspection check
01:34:36 health and safety inspection check should be followed up by the health and safety team to ensure it is undertaken on a prompt basis and then the final bullet point there i'll specifically read
01:34:47 i'll specifically read to you it says this appropriate performance indicators relating to health and safety inspection should be developed by management now
01:34:59 i take it that you understood and read those recommendations at the time yes yes sir yes uh and if we get on in this report to page 21 let's look and see what said
01:35:11 page 21 let's look and see what said about performance indicators if we go first to paragraph 9.3 audit noted that only a limited number of health and safety performance indicators are reported
01:35:22 are reported and there is an absence of meaningful indicators for areas such as electrical inspections water quality inspections and treatment of asbestos and then 9.4 in the absence of a full
01:35:33 and then 9.4 in the absence of a full range of performance indicators for health and safety specific areas there is a risk that management cannot monitor performance levels for these areas and take appropriate corrective action where poor or inadequate performance
01:35:44 where poor or inadequate performance levels are identified and then you can see the recommendation and then below that the management response
01:35:51 response the recommendation is appropriate performance indicators relating to health and safety inspections should be developed by management this ensures that inspections can be monitored and any performance issues identified for appropriate corrective
01:36:03 identified for appropriate corrective action to be taken where performance does not meet expectations and then the management response underneath that the annual report summarizes all health and safety activity in the preceding 12 months however it has been
01:36:15 12 months however it has been acknowledged that it would be beneficial for the tmo to supplement this with meaningful health and safety key performance indicators which could be monitored regularly throughout the year a range of such indicators have now been identified
01:36:27 indicators have now been identified covering a range of areas including health and safety inspections fire risk assessments straight reviews enforcement stroke deficiency notices received number of accidents fires violent incidents etc
01:36:40 fires violent incidents etc and then at the end after legionella percentage compliance on maintenance of fire equipment wet and dry rises fire extinguishers fire alarms sprinklers etc and again can i assume
01:36:54 sprinklers etc and again can i assume that you read here both the recommendation and the management response yes the management response itself uh was something obviously coming from from management did you contribute to it
01:37:05 from management did you contribute to it i know
01:37:06 i know who who wrote that it would have been if he
01:37:09 he it would have gone to the people who were covered by the audit so in terms of the
01:37:13 the first draft audits would have gone to the those individuals they were then been asked to make their comments which is them and then that's when it circulated to myself and lauren right so so was this management response drafted
01:37:26 so was this management response drafted by those
01:37:27 by those to whom there's four individuals to whom the draft was circulated yes so that would have included peter madison and janice ray yeah
01:37:37 and when you read that you were satisfied were you that that was an adequate response to the recommendation yes
01:37:46 now we've seen the kpis which one can pick out here which relate to fire so health and safety inspections fire risk assessments etc
01:37:57 risk assessments etc and having identified those as kpis do you remember whether a system was set up for monitoring each of them
01:38:09 uh i'd have to say that i can't remember and i haven't seen it no do you know
01:38:21 i see so you say there was no system do you know why no system was set up for monitoring each of these kpis in terms of random fire and health and
01:38:32 in terms of random fire and health and safety because there were some other ones
01:38:35 ones i mean i've just i can't remem i can't recall
01:38:42 in fact it's right isn't it and correct me if you think this is wrong that a suite of performance indicators relating specifically to fire safety were not introduced by the tmo until january 2016.
01:38:54 january 2016. yes yes do you know why there was a delay of almost three years between april 2016 and january at 13 and january 2016.
01:39:05 january 2016. i i can't i i'm not gonna say i can't recall i just said i can't give you an answer or an explanation i just have to accept that and that's a serious and long delay given the fact that rbksa
01:39:16 given the fact that rbksa audit had accorded a limited assurance partly for this reason yes i mean uh i was part of refreshing my memory i i looked
01:39:27 part of refreshing my memory i i looked at this uh before coming i suppose
01:39:34 we worked on this then our next two audits increased in chains so it changed from limited to uh satisfactory to the last one was uh substantial
01:39:45 substantial i accepted points about the fire safety uh kpis weren't developed they might be in another sort of forum but they weren't in a standard kpi format no
01:39:57 kpi format no but you and you can't explain why that is well i can't i'm not going to come up with i just can't explain so many years now you mention
01:40:09 so many years now you mention the development of this from limited to satisfactory can we go to the december 2013 follow-up from this audit at rbk 5032
01:40:22 follow-up from this audit at rbk 5032 please
01:40:28 you can see that this is dated december 2013 and it is the follow-up audit report
01:40:32 report you can see that it's circulated to peter madison janice ray and alex bosman and the final circulator to sasha jevens and anthony parks uh we don't see you marked on the
01:40:43 uh we don't see you marked on the circulation list are you able to explain why you weren't no i would have got it though but you would have seen it yes yes yes do you remember seeing it and reading it at the time yes yes now let's go to page two
01:40:55 yes yes now let's go to page two paragraph five you can see there that the assurance level has moved from limited to satisfactory yes yes with a medium risk let's look at
01:41:07 with a medium risk let's look at what action was stated to have taken place with respect to the kpis that we looked at a moment ago in the april version of the audit report we need to go to page nine please
01:41:18 page nine please and on page nine let's look at item 8.14 appropriate performance indicators indicating relating to health and safety inspection should be developed
01:41:30 inspection should be developed by management this ensures that inspections can be monitored and any performances is identified for appropriate corrective action to be taken
01:41:37 taken where performance does not meet expectations that's over the page medium priority just look at that
01:41:48 uh and again if you go back to page nine under agreed action it says agreed a range of performance indicators which can be monitored on a regular basis have
01:41:59 can be monitored on a regular basis have now been identified to supplement the information in the annual report and the existing kpis implementation date september 2013 if you look across the page
01:42:10 page responsible officer health and safety so health safety and facilities manager and policy compliance manager and then action to be
01:42:21 and then action to be taken to be taken implemented you say there in bold or it is said evidence provided the kctmo compliancy live dashboard provides real-time data
01:42:33 provides real-time data on compliance levels 4 and then there's a list of
01:42:37 a list of bullet points and at the bottom it says fire
01:42:40 fire protection and then over the page equipment
01:42:43 equipment checks fire protection equipment checks that's a single item isn't it i think so yeah yes
01:42:56 i think so yeah yes uh so on that is is it right there for that um if you compare this with the list of kpis
01:43:07 list of kpis identified in the april 2013 report as the management response it would appear that only fire related the only fire related kpi that was actually implemented was fire
01:43:19 that was actually implemented was fire protection equipment checks nothing else yes why is that i can't recall i mean for example why are no kpis set up for health and safety inspections fras reviews
01:43:30 inspections fras reviews for enforcement deficiency notices and fires
01:43:33 fires i can't recall you can't recall no um no i mean that's what i'm saying so in terms of the the checks i recognized there was improvement alex
01:43:44 recognized there was improvement alex bozeman so let me start again there's a fundamental change when peter came in he uh changed his team alex boseman and joined the organization i think a
01:43:55 and joined the organization i think a big bit behind this report the previous report was actually we collect a lot of our information in different
01:44:01 different pockets of the organization spreadsheets and actually that was seen as a risk keystone was a seen as a key operation to improve that and i think
01:44:13 operation to improve that and i think what may have happened is in terms of alex focused on
01:44:18 the indicators he was responsible for and that's how we moved to the live action
01:44:23 action and i can't understand how we didn't develop the other ones
01:44:28 um well it's just not sure that answer really
01:44:34 really grapples with my point you see on the document in front of you if we go back to page nine uh it says uh the agreed action is agreed of
01:44:47 the agreed action is agreed of performance indicators and then under action taken to be taken it says implemented but the truth is that it wasn't implemented the only part that was implemented relating to fire was fire protection
01:44:58 relating to fire was fire protection equipment
01:45:00 equipment checks uh so so it was only very partly implemented wasn't it this is the auditor's view uh and they checked this so this is so what
01:45:13 and they checked this so this is so what what i'm accepting is that the things that weren't developed weren't developed i just have to accept that
01:45:24 yes and and really i'm just asking whether there's a reason why that was the case i i i just don't know was it overlooked or
01:45:35 i just don't know was it overlooked or was there a resourcing problem or was there a decision taken notwithstanding the management response it wouldn't be carried into i don't think it would have been a decision making i think it either got just didn't get done
01:45:47 just didn't get done right um there's a reference to a dashboard a compliancy live dashboard were you aware of that dashboard
01:45:55 dashboard yes right did you have access to it yes it was in all the offices so in terms of it's part of alex's uh process they introduced so that we actually use live information
01:46:07 actually use live information so keystone was had been developed quite quite fast and so that actually instead of waiting for a certificate come through they were put on automatically so you could check that and i think the system
01:46:18 could check that and i think the system with the contractors had audit checks as well
01:46:20 well so there could have been no doubt that anybody in the tml including you could have looked at the dashboard at any time and compared it with the management's response to the april 2013 audit and seen what the shortfall was
01:46:31 seen what the shortfall was yes did you i can't answer it
01:46:38 but let's go to tm00873392
01:46:44 please uh
01:46:49 this is a report prepared by anthony parks
01:46:54 parks following the audit in july 2013 it's between
01:46:57 between the two audits and and you explain to anthony parks was um if you go please uh to the uh first main paragraph of this
01:47:09 to the uh first main paragraph of this report background under 2.1 it says in october 2012 the responsibility for the health and safety h section was transferred to the director of financial services
01:47:21 what was the reason for the transfer i one of my team left who had managed by janus and uh we didn't replace that rule
01:47:32 and uh we didn't replace that rule we replaced it with a sort of a
01:47:37 and we put health and safety and janus under the management of anthony parks right who was responsible for health and safety before that transfer
01:47:49 safety before that transfer in terms of managing janus ray that's laurent pemberton right i see but she was she was hr she was organizational development so it was a sort of wide role that took another thing i see
01:48:02 role that took another thing i see was there any discussion about about whether health and safety should be moved to operations i think that i mean i know there were in in some
01:48:11 in some within operations uh and uh so there were discussions right let's then go to operations and look at
01:48:24 let's then go to operations and look at uh janice ray's second of may 2013 report
01:48:28 report to the tmo operations committee tmo
01:48:33 tm01031056
01:48:40 this is two months earlier than the july document we've just been looking at and you can see that it's prepared by janice ray dated 2nd of may 2013 current tmo position on fire risk
01:48:52 2013 current tmo position on fire risk assessments
01:48:56 uh do you remember whether you saw this report i can't recall specifically let's see how we go then page 3 please paragraph 5.3 under the heading progress
01:49:07 paragraph 5.3 under the heading progress with fra
01:49:08 with fra action plan items 5.3 says whilst many actions have been progressed it's fair to say that a significant number of items remain outstanding and have not progressed as swiftly as required
01:49:19 swiftly as required therefore all light and outstanding items have now been collated and presented to the relevant team virgin completion the requirement to give this work priority has now been reiterated to the entire organization and completion of these
01:49:31 completion of these it being monitored on a weekly basis and the executive team regularly provided with detailed breakdown on progress then at 5.4 she says the need to implement a process to
01:49:43 the need to implement a process to facilitate better monitoring of fra actions
01:49:45 actions and in particular to identify where these remain outstanding has been highlighted therefore the possibility of a workflow system on the electronic document and record management system has been investigated and trialled and
01:49:57 has been investigated and trialled and it is anticipated that following stakeholder training this can be implemented from late may stroke early june 2013 this will ensure a demonstrable audit trail is in place and should ensure that these are treated
01:50:08 and should ensure that these are treated with priority now why have the actions not progressed as swiftly as required do you know a not off the top of my head i mean i
01:50:20 a not off the top of my head i mean i would think probably because either teams aren't performing or contractors aren't performing but i can't recall specifically at this stage were you in particular or the executive team
01:50:31 team in in general provided with detailed breakdowns of progress sometimes when you say sometimes how regularly
01:50:37 regularly and i can't notice not every week so obviously sometimes so i don't have a particular memory of how often was it periodically according to a fixed timetable was it
01:50:49 according to a fixed timetable was it just ad hoc probably ad hoc right why ad hoc i can't recall and was it not important to have a fixed system in place whereby the uh um
01:51:02 the uh um facilitation and monitoring of fra actions was was monitored in turn by the executive team on a regular basis they were because those members executive in the health and safety committee who were monitoring it
01:51:13 it so people within the executive team knew more than the executive team as a whole there was only four of us
01:51:20 [Music]
01:51:24 of the four you might have been in a minority
01:51:27 minority they would feedback but they may be feeding back but they but did they feed back to you specifically if there are only four of you on the executive team and most of them
01:51:37 them knew what was happening and you didn't why didn't you insist on being kept up to the same speed they were
01:51:48 up to the same speed they were i haven't got no specific answer to that did you agree when you well you may or may not have seen this document i i i i think this this document was in fact included
01:51:59 document was in fact included in a board report uh board pack would that be right it might have been like right if it were can we assume that you would have read it yeah yes because you
01:52:10 would have read it yeah yes because you would have read every board pack that went to the board wouldn't you yes i'm going to assume that that is the case yes um do you remember whether at the time you agreed that
01:52:21 whether at the time you agreed that there was a need to implement better monitoring of fra actions
01:52:26 actions yes i mean i think that partly here what they're talking about is i think part a part of the discussion is highly
01:52:34 is highly worked through this workflow to make sure it's accessible and a part of this system that janet and others were working on is actually to make it easier because there was discussions all the time about things had been knocked off
01:52:46 had been knocked off not knocked off but completed or partially completed and i think partly this was how we were striving to get better at record collecting monitoring and being able to show it
01:52:57 being able to show it right was an audit trail put in place i think eventually there was i mean i should be clear with you john israel told us that the workflow the w-2 system
01:53:08 the w-2 system was operational as of august 2013 so a little bit later the same year was was that the audits trail or was there some other wider process i can't confirm that right
01:53:21 wider process i can't confirm that right and there was was a system put in place where rather than just as it were crunching the numbers somebody could look holistically at the position with
01:53:33 look holistically at the position with outstanding items not only building by building but across the whole stock look at the health and safety risks presented by what is outstanding and form of view i can't recall
01:53:46 can we look at paragraph 11 the same document which is on page six
01:53:58 uh legal issues as outlined above to comply with fire safety legislation specifically the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 responsible persons must not just
01:54:10 2005 responsible persons must not just ensure that suitable and sufficient fres are carried out into the communal areas of all
01:54:14 of all residential blocks but also that significant findings highlighted in the fra
01:54:19 fra action plan are progressed with the necessary degree of priority and then over the page at 11.2 failure let's get to that failure to comply could result in residents being exposed
01:54:32 could result in residents being exposed to an elevated fire risk additionally the tmo and rbkc would leave themselves exposed to enforcement action being taken by the lfb bad publicity etc
01:54:44 bad publicity etc do you agree that that made it clear if it wasn't already clear that insufficient action by the tmo in dealing with fra items uh or fire safety in general could lead to an elevated
01:54:56 in general could lead to an elevated fire safety risk for its residents yes yes and it was therefore critical do you agree that the tmo acted as swiftly as reasonably possible in respect of fra actions and fire safety generally
01:55:07 generally yes and there could be no doubt about that from this document no no now let's go to tm01 triple zero three one two four please
01:55:21 this is a draft of a document we discussed yesterday namely the safety management review carried out by matt hodgson
01:55:33 matt hodgson at your request uh it's dated july 2013 and marked for your attention if we go to page four you'll see the objectives
01:55:44 objectives and the the objectives there are stated under 1.1 objectives first paragraph the objective of this safety management review
01:55:53 review is to contribute to the success and continuing development of the kctma by improving management control of health and safety it is not the intention to identify failings in individuals but to identify
01:56:04 failings in individuals but to identify those parts of the safety management system sms that require attention in order to bring about improvements in performance the overall aim of the review is to provide an independent and objective assessment of the degree of
01:56:16 assessment of the degree of implementation of the kc tmo health and safety policy and supporting arrangements and if we go to page 8 and look at paragraph 2.1 under summary
01:56:28 paragraph 2.1 under summary and the first paragraph says this this hls audit has uncovered a number of concerns in relation to risk and and compliance management to kctma the concerns predominantly relate to
01:56:39 the concerns predominantly relate to risk control shortcomings that if left unresolved could it could potentially expose the business and those in h s management positions to corporate and personal liabilities there's plenty of good work going on in
01:56:50 there's plenty of good work going on in relation to health to hns management as evidenced
01:56:53 evidenced when reviewing projects associated with and controlled by the h s department neighborhood management and housing support services however there is no joined up approach to risk management across all departments and a lack of leadership from the
01:57:05 and a lack of leadership from the executive level in other areas such as assets and regeneration the business understands the areas of weakness and is going through a complete department overhaul to tighten the control
01:57:18 now it's clear isn't it from what i've just read to you that the concerns mr hodgson
01:57:25 hodgson has highlighted here are very serious yes
01:57:28 yes and they're serious is this right because they could lead to corporate and personal
01:57:32 personal liabilities yes that's what you're saying
01:57:35 saying yes and in relation to the good work uh but no joined up approach did you agree with that statement not all of it
01:57:43 all of it no and what did you not agree with no actually i had to agree with it because i accepted it uh
01:57:51 well sorry sorry did you agree with the state but
01:57:54 state but let me put it to you he says there's no joined up approach to risk management across all departments and a lack of leadership from the executive level did you agree with that statement
01:58:07 with that statement yes now we can see his recommendations on page nine if we turn the page mr hodgson has identified
01:58:18 mr hodgson has identified as he says 39 issues which need addressing and if we look at the fourth recommendation down we looked at this yesterday
01:58:27 yesterday in the final version but if we look at this
01:58:31 this list at item four it says review the roles and responsibilities section of the corporate policy to ensure that the governance of hns is appropriate to the business in relation to advisory and strategic
01:58:42 in relation to advisory and strategic roles ensure that appropriate consultation is established to agree any new responsibilities was that recommendation carried out i i don't think it was
01:58:55 i i don't think it was why is that
01:59:01 oh sorry i can't recall
01:59:06 fire risk assessment specifically is covered at page 33. can we please go there page 33.
01:59:17 can we please go there page 33. and you can see the heading fire risk assessment and it starts as follows some time ago the h
01:59:23 the h s department procured salva's consulting to carry out the annual fire risk assessments fra across the estate over time the business became dissatisfied with salvas and changed providers to carl stakes and associates
01:59:34 associates the business had a good working relationship relation with carl stokes and similarly with the local fire authority who janice ray regularly meets with
01:59:47 now it goes on after identifying the numbers within the estate as follows keystone is not up to date
01:59:55 date with fra reports so it's not possible to assess how compliant the business is with regards current fra reports one issue that is known and can be measured is the volume of outstanding fra actions
02:00:06 is the volume of outstanding fra actions created in the reports held the fia report actions get pushed out to one of three locations assets and regeneration neighborhood and repairs
02:00:17 there are currently somewhere between 900 and 1000 outstanding fra actions janice ray has established a spreadsheet showing departmental progress and hosts meetings to discuss progress were you aware
02:00:30 to discuss progress were you aware of that volume of outstanding fra actions at that time uh yes you were did it not set alarm bells ringing with you yes can you explain how such a number had been allowed to accrue
02:00:43 i can't remember specifically uh but it would be through assets and regeneration mostly rather than neighborhood i think i'm just trying to i don't have the numbers in front
02:00:54 the numbers in front i wasn't asking you in which area or sub-area of the business it was accruing i was asking you why such a number had been allowed to accrue
02:01:03 accrue well there's always reason but i can't recall them i mean if alarm bells were set ringing by you uh what did you do to investigate the reason for why they were currently somewhere
02:01:14 for why they were currently somewhere between 900 and 1000 outstanding fra actions so i think here the
02:01:20 the there's a whole issue of how we're holding it and what we the work undertaken here is to try to to make it easier to sign them off as far as i recall
02:01:31 as i recall and stop using spreadsheets
02:01:35 yes and did you look into why it was that 900 to 1000 outstanding free actions no no why is that because i'd expected that to
02:01:48 why is that because i'd expected that to be looked into and broken down by anthony parks well you say it set alarm bells ringing when i asked you that question you said it did
02:01:56 did given that the alarm bells were ringing what did you do about it can't recall so now uh
02:02:07 can't recall so now uh well were you part of any meetings did you go to any discussions about what to do about this backlog
02:02:16 i can't recall the discussions we had after this so right do you remember anything about what you did after receipt of this draft in july 2013 to resolve the issue of outstanding
02:02:27 outstanding fras
02:02:30 i've certainly raised it with sausage evans who is responsible for the majority of them what did you tell her to do to sort it out all right and that's so i'm just trying to remember i
02:02:42 that's so i'm just trying to remember i i
02:02:42 i i'm not sure if it's at this stage we're having considerable problems with a contractor is it rge you know i think actually i'm not sure now or later we're in dispute
02:02:54 not sure now or later we're in dispute with them in terms of contracts and that was causing us problems in terms actually they weren't picking up that work
02:03:02 that work you see i can't remember sorry no i mean you see this is a this is a report which you commissioned and which comes to you admittedly it's a draft it gives you
02:03:14 admittedly it's a draft it gives you a an up-to-date position in relation to outstanding fra items in relation to fire risk assessments which set alarm bells ringing what i'm interested to know is why you then didn't personally take steps and
02:03:26 then didn't personally take steps and involve yourself even to the extent of making sure that you
02:03:31 you you put in place a satisfactory system of getting that volume down and then monitoring it regularly
02:03:39 regularly so i think there was a following this there was a sort of a management plan put in place i can't recall sorry now the final paragraph on this page
02:03:53 now the final paragraph on this page uh which we need to scroll down to says this the fire legislation requires the business to appoint a responsible person
02:04:03 person can be a number of people who have taken the responsibility to manage the fire risk process end to end note those words end to end this person should be competent to fulfill this role and have the resources
02:04:16 fulfill this role and have the resources to achieve the objectives according to the fra reports this role has been given to the chief exec of the royal borough it is the opinion of the auditor that this appointment is inappropriate and probably not a formal designation did you
02:04:30 a formal designation did you uh agree with the conclusion that the chief executive of the royal borough who i believe is nick holgate yeah yes was not an appropriate person to manage the fire risk process end to end no you did oh yeah sorry you
02:04:43 end to end no you did oh yeah sorry you did agree
02:04:43 did agree you agree with the conclusion yes do you know how it had come about that he was the responsible person no i don't quite understand it
02:04:54 no i don't quite understand it did did mr holgate even know that he was the responsible person under the rra do you know no i don't know if this was back to where we had joint responsibility if that's where this came up i'm just trying to remember
02:05:06 up i'm just trying to remember but it wouldn't i mean it obviously wasn't him specifically no i mean from your own knowledge at the time do you can you tell us whether mr holger
02:05:15 holger even knew that he was the responsible person i don't think mr hallgate knew he'd be the responsible connection then if we go to the next page page 34 please you can see the suggested action
02:05:26 please you can see the suggested action um item 30 is the last item in that box reassign the fra responsible person role within
02:05:35 within with the tmo uh and provide any required training and additional resource to allow for the role to be effective was that done i i can't recall
02:05:50 right we don't see any particular evidence that it was can you explain why that is no it was the consequence that no one was in fact given the responsibility to manage the fire risk process
02:06:02 manage the fire risk process end to end as mr hodgson recommends
02:06:11 i don't know i would say it stayed with janice ray he would oversee it through the teams
02:06:22 you say it would stay with jack i'm just sorry i'm just looking at this again for fostering ages yeah i mean this is a recommendation and i accept that it's in a draft but was a decision made
02:06:34 was a decision made to make janice ray the person with end-to-end responsibility for managing the fire risk process under the rro
02:06:45 process under the rro no because janna said responsibility for bringing them together and assessing them
02:06:50 them to the different uh teams who had the responsibility did to the best of your knowledge was janice ray ever told that she had the responsibility to manage the fire risk end
02:07:02 manage the fire risk end to end i can't recall uh let's go to tmo one triple zero
02:07:15 uh let's go to tmo one triple zero three three nine nine
02:07:20 and we looked at this yesterday this is your report to the tmo board in the board pack for the board meeting tma board meeting of the 5th of september 2013.
02:07:36 in fact what we're looking at is the gender item 2 which is the i think the minutes of the previous meeting
02:07:43 meeting if we go to page 24
02:07:48 we can see
02:07:53 this is part of your chief executive's update report which starts at page 21 and if we just flip up to page 21 we'll
02:08:04 and if we just flip up to page 21 we'll see where it begins there it is it's your report to the board for that board meeting yeah but if we go back to page 24 we'll see paragraph four point naught health and safety you see that there yeah and it says the
02:08:16 you see that there yeah and it says the health and safety consultant matt hodgson
02:08:19 hodgson has completed an initial report on health and safety hns within the organization using an industry standard hsg65 format an action plan is being prepared and will be incorporated in the final report
02:08:31 will be incorporated in the final report this will be brought to the next board meeting
02:08:35 meeting and then in the third paragraph you say work has been continuing on the action plan items arising from the internal audit report the actions to be implemented by june were all completed on time and the w-2
02:08:47 were all completed on time and the w-2 workflow introduced a month early on the first of august the remaining two action points to be completed in september are on track now we see no mention here
02:08:58 are on track now we see no mention here of any of the issues raised in the july draft
02:09:01 draft hodgson report do we not specifically i don't know if the it went to the board the actual i can't recall because usually that
02:09:12 i can't recall because usually that it would have i would have thought it would have got the whole report would have gone to the board right but we're we're at the stage this is the fifth of september i think the the final version was a few
02:09:23 i think the the final version was a few days perhaps a week or two later than this so it's the
02:09:28 the july draft of the matt hodgson report that is still in in its form i've just shown you do you accept that no mention is made here by you of any of the problems identified by matt
02:09:41 of the problems identified by matt hodgson in his draft july report yes why is that because i think it's in we were waiting for the final one
02:09:51 and then an action plan would be prepared
02:09:54 prepared uh why did you not mention any of the issues particularly about the potential exposure of the business to corporate and personal liabilities
02:10:06 to corporate and personal liabilities i can't recall or the absence of a joined up approach and a lack of leadership from the executive i can't recall or that the fact that
02:10:18 i can't recall or that the fact that the the in a pr an inappropriate person had been respond appointed as the responsible person under the
02:10:24 under the applicable i legislation recall i mean were those matters not important for your board to know even though yes this was a draft yes well i don't know what i don't know if there's a
02:10:37 know what i don't know if there's a because you're showing me one paper i don't know if there's a further paper with it so that in a sense it's a an update
02:10:43 update what i don't know if there's a further paper that comes along goes into more detail
02:10:49 detail what do you remember i can't recall it no i don't blame you for not being able to remember it's eight years ago but as a matter of the document
02:11:00 but as a matter of the document you've you've reported to the board that mr hodgson has completed an initial report
02:11:05 report that's the draft we've seen yeah uh and that there'll be a final report you say that yeah we see no shred of any hint of any of the difficulties he's identified in your
02:11:16 difficulties he's identified in your organization and i'm just asking you why that is probably because i was waiting for the final report but was it not important for the board to be kept up to speed uh even though it's a draft
02:11:30 up to speed uh even though it's a draft i must admit that decision at the time but why did you make that decision at the time i recall at that time did you not realize that the board was reliant on you to be candid and open with them
02:11:39 with them yes and that meant being told facts which had a bearing on whether the tmo as a company for which the board was it steward
02:11:47 steward was at risk of breaching its health and safety obligations to its residents and its employees yes and you realize that at the time i i i've got to i'm not not at the time no
02:12:00 right i mean can you travel i'm sorry i'm struggling it's in terms of the timing in the paper now i understand i apologize so it's quite difficult eight years no i understand i go to remember your
02:12:11 understand i go to remember your thinking and what you did at that time and i suppose you know that's all i'm being honest about so well you see followed through a process from so long ago and i've not been uh in
02:12:24 and i've not been uh in work or engaged with this type of thing for four years it's quite hard to get your brain back in and to have that memory i'm afraid i don't have it you show me documents i don't have a memory of
02:12:35 don't have a memory of and i'm having to recreate that memory through rereading it doesn't always give me the the sort of reason of why i did it and i just have to accept that
02:12:46 for whatever reason
02:12:54 now if we go to tm00849798
02:13:08 this is the minute of an executive team meeting of the 18th of september 2013.
02:13:17 2013. and we can see that you are in attendance sorry you're present and in attendance to other people and if you go to item 2 on the next page
02:13:30 on the next page assets and regeneration uh you you can see that peter madison attends for that item and makes a presentation uh and he says uh and it says an
02:13:41 uh and he says uh and it says an overview was given on the work that was required health and safety compliance and the project plan for each area you see that yeah and then the minutes on that item continue over the next few pages
02:13:51 pages to page five and if we scroll down to page five you can see time scale for compliance as a heading and there are seven bullet points there
02:14:03 and there are seven bullet points there the second of which is fire risk q1 2014 yes yes and then just above that health and safety report
02:14:14 just above that health and safety report to be discussed with matt hodgson at a meeting that afternoon now does that mean that the anr team the assets and regeneration team was going to meet matt hodgson that day
02:14:26 to meet matt hodgson that day it looks like it looks like it you can't help further than the document no no and can we assume unless you tell us otherwise that this was to implement mr hodgson's changes
02:14:39 mr hodgson's changes within the assets and regeneration department so far as his recommendations affected
02:14:44 affected that department i think so
02:14:49 under the time scale for compliance fire risk q1 2014 compliance with what i can't remember what the suspect is right
02:15:02 do you know what was going to be completed in the first quarter of 2014 no if you look at a bit lower down there's a second bullet point piece of
02:15:13 there's a second bullet point piece of text which says however can you see that yes it says however we could be at risk if something went wrong i.e at grenfell tower we had carried out a fire risk assessment but one year later another inspection discovered
02:15:24 inspection discovered that none of the actions had been carried out unfortunately this information had been conveyed to the grenfell tower action group now you're singling out grenfell tower
02:15:36 now you're singling out grenfell tower here
02:15:38 here is that because the gtla had requested site of uh the november 2012 fra for grenfell town
02:15:49 town these these must be peter's words not mine
02:15:54 mine yes you were at the meeting yeah yes did you see and approve these minutes after the meeting uh probably yeah i mean we've got no reason have we to think that these are
02:16:06 reason have we to think that these are inaccurate or incomplete no so proceeding on the basis that this is a faithful record of the discussion
02:16:16 my question is was was this a reference here to the november 2012 fra i i would think so
02:16:25 right now what's being done is is being is an example being given of inaction on fra assessments specifically in relation to
02:16:33 to to grenfell tower are you able to explain that no not at this stage now are you do you agree that that failure was a very significant concern
02:16:44 failure was a very significant concern if it's if it hadn't happened yes but i can't remember right now the note says unfortunately unfortunately this information had been conveyed to the grenfell tower action group
02:16:54 group what was what was unfortunate about telling the residents that their building wasn't compliant with statutory fire safety standards i agree
02:17:06 i think it's not a great minute well it's not a great minute because it reveals
02:17:12 reveals an attitude doesn't it of not wanting to be candid with the people living in your buildings
02:17:17 buildings yeah i don't think so i mean i think i i picked up
02:17:20 picked up sometimes that peter was uncomfortable with this information being released which
02:17:26 which i just think reflected on that actually sometimes his department hadn't completed the work this is not my
02:17:35 opinion and actually
02:17:39 so um well why was it unfortunate well i think peter thought it was unfortunate because it explained right it exposed that some work hadn't been done i think
02:17:50 done i think you know that in a sense i think there's some other information later that peter accepts actually
02:17:57 actually it showed that some of his team hadn't been doing their job properly which led him to fundamentally change his team to get things done properly and it was unfortunate wasn't it because
02:18:08 and it was unfortunate wasn't it because in an ideal world the tma would not have wanted to convey that information to those living in the building i don't i don't accept that i can understand where you're coming from reading this but that is not
02:18:19 but that is not what or how i wanted to behave or to lead to that situation
02:18:28 now if we go down to page six please we can see the penultimate bullet point in that list consideration also to be given
02:18:40 consideration also to be given this is the top of your screen consideration also to be given to what would be taken back to board in november as we have made a commitment to bring back matt hodgson's report and an action plan yes what
02:18:51 and an action plan yes what consideration was being discussed there well i think it's what goes into the action plan to take forward
02:19:03 and given to the board right consideration also to be given to what would be taken back to board well i think it sounds so i mean i think that we're just trying to understand the
02:19:15 that we're just trying to understand the minutes from so longer it's a it's about what what work needs to be done to produce that paper to bring it back to the report to the board based on matt hodgkin's report
02:19:28 right i'm just trying to understand what this means was this so my consideration of how much of matt hodgson's report you would tell the board about no i wouldn't say that
02:19:40 that so what was it i don't apologize again i'm looking at a minute from a number of years ago
02:19:46 years ago and i'm struggling to understand the context or of what it's saying so like again well let me try it a different way what consideration would be necessary if you'd made a commitment to bring back
02:19:58 you'd made a commitment to bring back match hodgson's report and an action plan
02:20:00 plan why not just fix a date for giving the board the report which you already had yeah because the consideration was necessary i don't know you're picking on one word which is fine i'm i don't
02:20:12 which is fine i'm i don't i'll just say it's consideration you're thinking what are we going to take back to the board i don't see it as concealment or what it's just a world
02:20:21 now if we look at the final bullet point clienting of fire risk assessments had been taken over by a r which were due to be completed by mid-october uh what does that what did that what did
02:20:33 uh what does that what did that what did that mean
02:20:34 that mean i don't know no no because it doesn't mean that he's they're taking over the role of health and safety well that's
02:20:45 that's rather what i was asking you well that's what i'm saying that's i don't it's just i it's not what happened or was going to happen i mean
02:20:57 happened or was going to happen i mean to be fair was was the proposal and one one possibility helped me here was that a r assets and regeneration would take over completion of actions from
02:21:07 from fras yes i think it could be that i mean i'm suggesting that to you but was that is that correct factually was that the proposal well i would think yes
02:21:18 yes [Applause] because as you say overall responsibility for fra's rested with janice ray yes
02:21:29 now can we turn to a different topic which is the grenfell deficiency notice of march 2014 we discussed earlier uh it's a tmo1002
02:21:42 and we looked at this yesterday so i get to take this quite quickly uh we saw that this notice specified a number of breaches of the fire safety
02:21:53 number of breaches of the fire safety order
02:21:53 order rro in the schedule attached at page three and i showed you these 11 1 17 1 article 21
02:22:05 11 1 17 1 article 21 um the first two are in part at least about the aov and 21 about fire safety training um do you remember when you were first made aware
02:22:16 made aware of this notice of deficiency we looked we touched on this yesterday and i don't think you could help us but i can't i'm right you see we've seen no email or communication
02:22:28 communication by which this document was sent to you are you able to tell us how it did come to you
02:22:33 to you i can't call were you concerned that despite
02:22:37 despite two separate audits uh in the previous year rbkc and matt hodgson
02:22:44 hodgson and the consequent actions taken or said to be taken by the tmo in response to it to them and the fact of the fra program
02:22:53 program that such a notice had been issued yes did it make you think that all that the fire risk assessment system wasn't working well working properly no that made me
02:23:03 made me i mean looking at now it made me think actually the contractors were supposed to be providing the service aren't performed well and therefore actually
02:23:13 actually and that's the was the key problem what made you think that because things aren't working they should be fixed they should be sorted in line with their contract
02:23:24 sorted in line with their contract yes but did you accept the the the thrust of the criticism uh is that the tmo is not ensuring that its contractors perform their obligations so i have a
02:23:37 perform their obligations so i have a team
02:23:37 team whose role whole rule was to manage the contractors to cover all the mechanical engineering which included the file staff that was their role to manage the contracts so
02:23:48 contracts so it was raising concern with with me about contracts performance and the performance of that team which i think peter took again this timing of this i can't remember
02:23:58 remember whether that then led peter to change his team
02:24:05 despite the findings of rbkc uh and the recommendations and the management response to that and the hodgson review it appeared from this document would you accept that the tmo had not yet at least
02:24:17 accept that the tmo had not yet at least found a way in which it could ensure compliance at all times with its obligations under the rro it would seem to be yes did that cause you to think that oversight supervision of fras
02:24:30 that oversight supervision of fras and the resultant actions needed much closer scrutiny by top management i think it made me realize that again that my the
02:24:41 realize that again that my the are supposedly providing the service to do it aren't doing and it's creating problems for us yes you say you keep referring to contractors uh that may be a fair observation in
02:24:54 uh that may be a fair observation in relation to eleven point one and 17.1 article 21 at the foot of your screen yes refers to employees not receiving adequate safety training you can't blame contractors for that can you no and i suppose
02:25:08 for that can you no and i suppose what i don't i don't know which staff this they're talking about here sorry that's so in terms of is quite generic uh
02:25:15 uh if it's the staff at uh lancaster west then in a sense that would i'm trying to remember which staff is with the house and management and therefore actually training would be
02:25:26 and therefore actually training would be given to them or should be given to them to make sure they know what they're doing
02:25:30 doing your instinct is to say that there's the contractors creating problems for you but doesn't this reveal that the tmo should have realized before receiving this notice of
02:25:41 before receiving this notice of deficiency that the contractors were not performing their contractual obligations so as to keep tmo in compliance with the rro can you say that again yes doesn't this
02:25:53 can you say that again yes doesn't this document
02:25:53 document in all of its points i'm showing you on the screen reveal that the tmo ought to have realized before they saw this document
02:26:04 realized before they saw this document that its contractors were not performing their contractual obligations so as to keep the tmo compliant with the rro
02:26:14 rro yes yes and that meant didn't it surely the oversight of fras needed far closer scrutiny within the trmo tmo by top management
02:26:25 within the trmo tmo by top management yes yes
02:26:32 now let's go to the next tmo board meeting after the receipt of this deficiency notice uh rbk3051017
02:26:49 deficiency notice uh rbk3051017 this is for the board meeting of the 22nd of may 2014 so that's beyond q1 2014 that we saw in the earlier document uh if we go to
02:27:02 uh if we go to page 27 we can see within this board pack for that meeting your report which starts on that page there and if we go to page
02:27:14 we go to page 28
02:27:17 28 we could see the rest of the start of it and then 29 is where it starts in in earnest now we've looked through this document we
02:27:29 we've looked through this document we can see reference to the grenfell tower refurbishment on page 29
02:27:35 but we don't see anything about the grenfell tower deficiency notice can you explain why there was no mention in your report
02:27:46 there was no mention in your report about the grenfell tower deficiency notice
02:27:48 notice no i can't explain that it should have been there shouldn't it i would have thought so if i knew about it and been told about it yes and obviously it was essential wasn't it for the tmo board to be told about a deficiency notice from the from the nfb
02:28:02 yes but we don't see that you did so here
02:28:05 here i accept that were you deliberately keeping that fact no
02:28:18 next document i'd like to show you is the tmo health and safety annual report 2014-15
02:28:23 2014-15 we will find this at tm010031069
02:28:34 if we go to page 17 i'll just help you with the date of this document june 2015 signed by janice ray and barbara matthews who is
02:28:45 barbara matthews who is imposed by then i think justin post by then
02:28:52 now if we go back in the document to page five
02:28:56 page five and look please at paragraph 6.9 fire risk assessments you can see that uh there is in the middle of the screen a box called the title overall breakdown of
02:29:07 called the title overall breakdown of fra actions as the first of april 2015 and if you look at the overall breakdown uh in total there are 1421
02:29:19 uh in total there are 1421 of which 762 were fully completed as at that date 71 were partially completed as at that date and 588 were outstanding
02:29:31 and 588 were outstanding as at that date yes yes and do you agree that that was a significant proportion of outstanding fra action 659 659 in total out of
02:29:45 659 659 in total out of 1421.
02:29:48 i mean i consider i don't know in terms of what's delaying their partially completed ones in terms of because there may be reasons behind that yes there may be reasons i can see the outstanding ones as 588 yes
02:30:00 outstanding ones as 588 yes so they'd come down from the previous ones we've been looking at yes was that number of a significant concern to you particularly given that matt hodgson had identified a significant outstanding total backlog
02:30:13 a significant outstanding total backlog of 900
02:30:14 of 900 to 1000 in july 2013 well i was pleased that it wasn't 900 or a thousand so there has been improvement i think the other thing is whereas before
02:30:25 the other thing is whereas before i think you you said to me it wasn't visible in the organization i think one of the things barbara brought was a sort of uh change in in working and and has made this
02:30:37 in working and and has made this completely uh visible to the organization and so there is improvement and more needs to be done well yes my question was were you not
02:30:50 well yes my question was were you not concerned by the number of outstandings 588 wholly outstanding out of 1421 given that matt hodgson had identified a
02:31:02 given that matt hodgson had identified a significant outstanding back in july 2013. so again we're seeing an improvement i don't
02:31:11 don't i don't know if in a perfect world you have no outstanding because you've got 650
02:31:15 650 reports coming in there are always be some
02:31:19 some it's about how they've been managed are they in process or the whatever that's right you say there's an improvement uh you've gone down from 900 to 1000
02:31:32 gone down from 900 to 1000 to 588 in two years is that was that an improvement to you i don't know i don't know what the swing is over those two years it may have gone down it may have gone up because you're getting
02:31:43 getting fras coming in all the time right well i mean we can debate this mr black but what i'm really after is your impression your thoughts at the time
02:31:49 time were you concerned by these numbers i i think i've been concerned throughout about trying to find a process to get the fras through and completed in a
02:32:00 fras through and completed in a reasonable time so i would still have some concerns with what i saw was things improving did you take any steps to ensure that further work to improve completion rates was carried out
02:32:12 was carried out and that's the work that sort of uh barbara was doing in terms of the health and safety right now you mentioned a moment ago that in a perfect world you'd never have any
02:32:23 any outstandings does does that i just want to understand that answer does that mean that a zero tolerance approach to non-compliance with the rro is never
02:32:34 non-compliance with the rro is never going to be practicable so i think in terms of a sector-wise because i sat on different forums chief exec forums i not just in the alamo but in the
02:32:46 i not just in the alamo but in the houston association sector this was an issue that everybody was grappling with and depending on the size of the organization i know that these are quite small numbers compared to other organizations
02:32:57 numbers compared to other organizations because it's it's the complexity how you how you sort of break them down how you can get the work done so it's a it was an ongoing challenge and i think it's the lose in the sector
02:33:08 it's the lose in the sector so it's not underestimating the problem it's not
02:33:11 it's not saying it's uh it doesn't matter it's just a complex difficult and challenge ongoing challenging process to deal with so
02:33:22 process to deal with so does that tell us that the tmo in general and you in particular had come to the view that some level of breach
02:33:29 breach of the rro was inevitable no it was about how
02:33:33 about how how could we get better to get to stage so that the f arrays are dealt with in the timely matter agreed
02:33:40 agreed that's the way we were working towards mr millet the fact that you've got some fire risk assessment actions outstanding isn't necessarily of itself a breach of the
02:33:51 necessarily of itself a breach of the regulations is it because there's always going to be some lapse between identifying and reporting some shortcoming and putting it right well that may be
02:34:04 putting it right well that may be that's going to be a question we have to explore with our our expert on this question well that may be as well but i'm just wondering the the way it's put to this yes i'm simply exploring
02:34:14 exploring the the breadth of of the concept of perfect world i think it might be useful for the inquiry and the panel to ask the regulator who regulates this about you know because
02:34:27 regulates this about you know because did they i don't know if we were regulating them but do they collect information that they have to put into their regulatory forum so housing associations have to do so quite a lot of feedback to the
02:34:38 so quite a lot of feedback to the regulator so you might be able to get information from there that gives you a bigger
02:34:41 bigger impression of how the whole sector's doing rather than my 588. [Music]
02:34:50 of course looking at the figures as we've got in front of you you had no means of understanding whether the outstandings were low risk medium risk or high risk
02:35:01 were low risk medium risk or high risk it was just on that page did you not on that page overall you know they could all have been red they could have been all green so i think that's a fair point i think
02:35:12 so i think that's a fair point i think that's about presentation so so again if you look in the past you wouldn't have had this information here so i think although not always brilliantly fast here you begin to see
02:35:24 brilliantly fast here you begin to see us actually razor so you know i would agree that as it if it developed it would be better to also have sort of the breakdown so you could see it and it'd be great for your screen but except actually you might have amber and red
02:35:35 have amber and red and then to explain it yes now can we look at uh another document which takes us deeper into 2015 tm01 triple zero
02:35:48 deeper into 2015 tm01 triple zero nine six two eight
02:35:52 these are the executive team minutes from the 22nd of july 2015 as you can see
02:35:58 see and you were present at that meeting together with others including barbara matthews
02:36:03 matthews and if you go to item two matters arising
02:36:06 arising on the foot of page one you can see the first one finance audit and risk sasha jevons to invite barbara mathews and the interim health and safety manager
02:36:15 manager to attend an operations meeting to discuss outstanding health and safety issues including fras first who was the interim health and safety manager referred to that do you know
02:36:26 know hey i can't help you i'm sorry i'm sorry sorry i don't know there you don't know and what were the outstanding fra issues that needed to be discussed at an operations meeting
02:36:38 discussed at an operations meeting again i can't tell from that in terms of detail
02:36:41 detail let's look at the minutes for the next executive committee meeting tmo double 0-843-593
02:37:00 we can see that again you were present as was barbara matthews and if we go to item uh three on uh page two top of the page
02:37:11 uh page two top of the page uh you can see that there's a response at their tower yeah and uh you will recall because we discussed it yesterday not least that
02:37:22 yesterday not least that this relates to the fire attack tower on the 31st of october 2015. yeah we're going to come back again in due course to that incident but if i can ask you to look at the
02:37:33 ask you to look at the penultimate paragraph on page two there at the bottom it says this sasha noted that she had asked jillian kennedy to put together a spreadsheet detailing all outstanding fra actions
02:37:44 all outstanding fra actions there's a health and safety audit in early december and sasha and barbara are working together to clear the backlog of actions
02:37:50 actions so we can be compliant as the reference there to backlog of actions clearly there was still a backlog of actions at that point yes it seems to say that yeah yes
02:38:04 it seems to say that yeah yes and that the executive team were concerned that that backlog might be picked up
02:38:08 picked up in the forthcoming audit or it's in sasha's department she knows an audit's coming up and she's focusing her staff's
02:38:19 and she's focusing her staff's mind on what the auditor will look at so in terms of its preparation audit these are planned audits so she would know it's happening so in terms of actually as an executive director my expectation if you knew you were
02:38:32 my expectation if you knew you were having an audit you should be having a look at what they're going to order and make sure you're prepared for it
02:38:36 it well that's really my next question was it not essential to clear the backlog in and of itself to comply with the law yes rather than just to tidy up your house before an audit no i don't think it's that i think it's about
02:38:48 that i think it's about what we've agreed before that we're focusing on trying to do i think this is sasha putting together some extra push to try to get it not just for the order but trying to get people to see the seriousness and the
02:38:59 people to see the seriousness and the importance of it i thought it was a positive part
02:39:03 right you recall that do you you said you saw it as positive well yeah i wanted to see sasha taking action because it sat within if these sat within her area what's she
02:39:15 if these sat within her area what's she doing to
02:39:16 doing to address it
02:39:22 i just i'm just asking you about the wording of the note you see because it suggests that uh sasha and barbara were working together to clear the backlog of actions for the purposes of of the audit
02:39:35 for the purposes of of the audit i think you could look at it that way and i can look at the way i've said to you
02:39:39 you let's look at the audit and what it says this is at rbk50531
02:39:48 let's that's the first page march 2016
02:39:56 uh and it's the final internal audit report for the tmo can i take it that you saw this document at the time i would have yeah yeah sure let's go to page six in it please
02:40:10 i'm on page six at the very bottom of that page
02:40:13 that page if we could have that expanded thank you um in the last bullet point it says the fire risk assessments fra are carried out by a third party specialist consultant and the fra reviews are undertaken by
02:40:25 and the fra reviews are undertaken by the tmao assistant safety advisor during routine inspections of properties to ensure that any significant findings and action plan items identified by the fra are progressed in a timely manner
02:40:36 a timely manner as per their stated priority checks on keystone for 10 estates confirmed these were up to date and all fire equipment had been inspected within the past
02:40:45 past 12-month period name no reference there to backlog
02:40:54 this is an audit report it wasn't prepared by the tml no i'm just do you agree with me as a matter of observation that there is no reference in there to a backlog there's no reference to backlog in the
02:41:06 there's no reference to backlog in the report now no and as i've shown you the order appears to have formed the view that any significant findings and action plan items
02:41:18 findings and action plan items identified by the fra are progressed in a timely manner as per their stated priority
02:41:23 priority i've shown you that yeah did you consider the time when you read that that that was a true statement i mean i think that i don't know i mean this is produced by the auditors not
02:41:34 this is produced by the auditors not myself or any of my team well okay let's take it in stages you read this as you confirmed when you got it
02:41:40 it yes uh did you read that sentence i imagine i did when i read it yes and when you read it did it not occur to you that
02:41:46 that that was not a true statement i no why not
02:41:55 i don't know i mean did you seek to correct
02:41:58 correct the impression that the order had that fras were being progressed in a timely manner as per their stated priority i i think these are our auditors who
02:42:09 i i think these are our auditors who have auditors on a number occasions and they know her business and i don't think if you're trying to say that we cheated the order the auditors i don't accept that no i'm not suggesting that i'm simply
02:42:20 no i'm not suggesting that i'm simply asking you whether as a matter of fact you sought to correct the impression that the auditor has expressed in the sentence i've identified no i didn't and my question is why not
02:42:31 didn't and my question is why not i don't know can we then go next please to tmo double zero eight five two seven seven six executive team minutes so before we move on because you show a lot
02:42:43 before we move on because you show a lot of documents here can you just confirm this document what the outcome was uh not no i mean i can show you we can
02:42:54 uh not no i mean i can show you we can spend some time if you want i don't know i don't mean that just for the panel obviously quite rightly you're focusing on certain things
02:43:01 things but it's just to say i think this was the substantial audit that the team will go up for health and safety
02:43:09 safety uh well i see i'm i'm i mean if you want to move on i recognize that it's it's just so the panel can see there was progression there may still be weaknesses but in terms of actually there was progression
02:43:21 there was progression by your internal order in terms of health and safety about what we did well mr black um i i i the way this was supposed to work is that okay so you give evidence about matters
02:43:32 okay so you give evidence about matters in which you were involved at the time based on what i hope is a fair line of questions
02:43:37 questions my question was a very narrow one based on a single line of text in and i got it i apologize not at all i understand the position you're in um and i just picked out the point but i think i have your answer
02:43:48 think i have your answer uh and obviously if it's an unfair question based on the material we can of course
02:43:52 course sorry just sometimes it's getting tiring and just
02:43:55 and just following one line sort of a question you forget we could we could take a break no no i think i'd rather finish it at lunchtime but it was just it was just a sort of moment i understand yeah
02:44:06 a sort of moment i understand yeah all right let's then look at the next document which is tmo-00852776
02:44:16 this is the minute of an executive team meeting of the 27th of january 2016. uh at which you were present as was barbara matthews and others
02:44:27 barbara matthews and others jill petford is taking the notes uh and if we go to item three please uh which you'll find uh on page two
02:44:39 uh which you'll find uh on page two well it starts on page one it's under action it's under adder tower enforcement notice on page one but the passage i want is on page two if you look at the final
02:44:50 page two if you look at the final paragraph on that page it says barbara advised that we are now getting up-to-date on fra outstanding actions
02:45:01 on fra outstanding actions you see that yes now did you ask do you remember did you ask for any more detail from barbara matthews on the outstanding fra actions not at that moment
02:45:13 that moment i don't i don't recall sorry you don't recall i mean for example did you ask how many actions are out of time uh how long they've been out of time for questions of that nature
02:45:24 questions of that nature yeah you don't recall at all events can we take it that you were given to believe by barbara matthews that her team was now
02:45:35 now uh making progress with outstanding fra actions yes yes but you didn't press her as to how well there might be in the discussion but that's all there was was noted right now this is this is january 2016.
02:45:49 right now this is this is january 2016. at that stage were you not concerned that despite the fact that two and a half years had passed since the hodgson review and reports there was still a backlog
02:46:00 backlog of uncleared fra items i i think we discussed that there's a process going through and their actions are coming through all the time and so i get when if there's
02:46:12 and so i get when if there's a backlog is it the same backlog it was two years ago i don't know right but
02:46:20 right but i i understand what you're saying but but were you not concerned that you had this stubborn rump as it were of slowly retreating fra outstanding actions
02:46:34 yes i mean and i think working with barbara i kept on mentioning this and pressuring this for us to actually work on it so they were stubborn and they kept on coming through
02:46:46 coming through yes did you understand that that meant that there were residents in your stock who were potentially at the risk of death or injury from fire i i would need to see the
02:46:57 from fire i i would need to see the details
02:46:57 details well indeed but given that there there was
02:47:01 was this uh block of outstanding so i don't so i don't know how many there were at this stage so well did you not ask her i might have done but
02:47:12 her i might have done but i this is two five years later let's go then to the next tmo health and safety committee meeting 12th of april 2016 tmo 1.0013060
02:47:31 we can see that these are the minutes of that meeting health and safety committee meeting
02:47:36 meeting uh we can see that barbara matthews was present
02:47:42 uh you i think we're not that wouldn't be unusual would it no no no go to page 3
02:47:52 4.1 paragraph 4.1 under the heading fire safety and fire risk assessments fra there's a sub-heading w-2 workflow fra actions
02:48:02 actions and then it records jw that's janice ray welcomed the significant drop in the number of outstanding actions for both fras and h actions bm acknowledged the progress made and advised that the chief
02:48:13 made and advised that the chief executive
02:48:14 executive remained anxious that all actions older than six months should be completed as a matter of urgency a boss i think that's alex bosman added that his
02:48:23 that his team currently has a further 50 plus actions which have been confirmed as complete
02:48:27 complete and will be fully completed on w-2 asap [Applause] just focusing on the third line i read to you there chief executive remains
02:48:38 to you there chief executive remains ankle remember remained anxious that all actions older than six months should be completed as a matter of urgency was was anxiety a a fair description of your attitude at the time i i would say
02:48:52 at the time i i would say that yes it could be yes so given that although it's not my word no i understand and anxiety means what it means there but but did
02:49:03 means what it means there but but did you actually ask given that what was actually being done in order to get actions over six months old completed i probably had a discussion with barbara do you remember it
02:49:17 barbara do you remember it well since she seems to see me as anxious i'm sure i did yes i can't remember specifically again yes i mean clearly according to this
02:49:28 yes i mean clearly according to this note you have given her the benefit of your thoughts about about actions older than six months
02:49:34 months they need to be completed as a matter of urgency did you actually ask that anything specific could be done or you just just leave it her to her to work out
02:49:44 work out i can't recall that coming right did she tell you what she was going to do in order to quell your anxiety about that matter she might have done right but i don't remember the detail
02:49:55 right but i don't remember the detail uh the next relevant executive team meeting took place on the 7th of july 2016.
02:50:01 2016. we're going to look at the minutes of that meeting in a moment before we do that
02:50:05 that we need to look at a tmo health and safety committee meeting on the 14th of june 2016. and the minutes are at tm0100
02:50:20 13952 uh we can see there who was there and the date of that meeting if we go please to page three paragraph 4.1 again they're usually in
02:50:32 paragraph 4.1 again they're usually in 4.1
02:50:33 4.1 fra actions bm noted the good progress being made with these however the chief executive
02:50:39 executive is anxious to have all older actions completed as a matter of priority so again we see your noted anxiety on having older actions completed this is two months after uh the first uh
02:50:51 this is two months after uh the first uh indication of this we've seen in the e.t uh in the minutes of the health and safety uh committee meetings do you know why nothing had been done to soothe your anxiety about uncompleted
02:51:03 soothe your anxiety about uncompleted free actions even two months later well i can't answer it and i that's a difficult one to do
02:51:12 to do i'm afraid i mean what i'm seeing is barbara
02:51:15 barbara is continuing to put pressure on the people in
02:51:19 people in health and safety committee to address these things whether she used whether i still anxious continuously for two months i'm not quite sure or whether i had a conversation about it she's obviously or whoever takes a minute says has noted that
02:51:33 minute says has noted that did you i think what's good is that actually the progress has continued to be made so right but you're still anxious yes been anxious for quite a while yes well did you consider whether there
02:51:45 yes well did you consider whether there were sufficient resources being allocated to bring all fra actions up to date far sooner and in particular the older ones well again if barbara had come to me and said you need some money to do
02:51:57 you need some money to do to you know do a quick clean up of things then i'm sure i would have been able we would have been able to do it but also barbara was my finance director as well
02:52:04 as well she knew where all the money was so she could have actually suggested as well right and did anybody tell you indicate what the nature of the problem was
02:52:16 i think we've gone through i think there's a range of problems and i don't know them all individually consistently from five years ago did anybody tell you that it was a problem with contractors or a problem
02:52:30 did anybody suggest you that this was a problem of resourcing did barbara matthew say to you no i don't think barbara mentioned resources i mean in sense resource so there's always
02:52:41 resource so there's always scarce resources but if this was the if there was a request to their resources then i would have looked at it
02:52:50 what i pick up from a very short note is actually improvements are being put in place
02:52:55 place things are improving and it's therefore you know a mix of things either my team's
02:52:59 team's doing their job or the contractors actually doing better so are we seeing a change
02:53:05 change which i think in terms of when peter brought in his new structure that we'd new contractors alex was doing quite a lot of things with new contracts and actually that was seeing the improvement uh yes that's
02:53:17 the improvement uh yes that's all i can think of at the moment afraid no i i understand that but but what i'm keen to examine is the other side of the coin which is that notwithstanding the progress being made in the ways
02:53:28 the progress being made in the ways you've identified you remain anxious to have all the older actions completed as a matter of priority
02:53:34 priority so your it looks from this document that you're telling barbara matthews that she needs to prioritize the older actions so even though there are improvements there remains this stubborn rump as i call it of these older
02:53:46 rump as i call it of these older outstandings i'm not sure if you asked barbara matthews about this when she was here i suppose for me she might just be using my anxiety to keep pressure on people uh to focus on these that's
02:53:58 on people uh to focus on these that's right well was it not true that you were anxious i was anxious right so given that this is a perpetual problem
02:54:06 problem what i'm really just seeking to understand is whether you took any steps to get to the real root of it i think sorry i think we were getting to the root of it that's all i've got to say
02:54:19 uh let's look at one more document before the break this is at the 7th of july 2016 executive team meetings
02:54:26 meetings tmo 1001 5934
02:54:41 this is the meeting of the 7th of july 2016
02:54:47 uh and uh if you uh look down please at page
02:54:58 well uh page but you could look at all of it and the point i want to put to you is that there's no mention in here of fra actions in this set of minutes uh we can scroll down but to take it
02:55:10 uh we can scroll down but to take it from me that there isn't and there's also a meeting on the 13th of july the following week and the minutes for that are at
02:55:21 tm0089434
02:55:24 you'll have that up please eight nine four three three four
02:55:33 and again take it from me that there is no mention of any fra actions in this minute
02:55:40 minute are you able to explain what happened to fra actions as an item of interest to the executive team at that point july 2016.
02:55:49 2016. no no in fact we find no further mention in any of the executive team meeting minutes about the number of outstanding fra items
02:56:00 number of outstanding fra items after the 17th of may 2016. are you able to explain why that is no
02:56:08 can we take it from that that it was of insufficient interest to the executive team
02:56:11 team to be a matter of regulation no i don't think you can take it let's say what is the explanation i've got no explanation at the moment i can't remember a call from five years ago why they wouldn't come up
02:56:24 mr chairman uh i hesitate to identify that it might becoming a habit but it is only three minutes perhaps according to one of the clocks but i'm turning to a different rather lengthier topic
02:56:35 topic uh and it would be a sensible should i suggest that it's a good time to have a break
02:56:39 break that would be a good suggestion yes it's the black wheel break at this point so we can all get some lunch thank you we'll resume at uh 2 o'clock please and again i have to ask you not to talk to anyone about your evidence or
02:56:51 to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it
02:57:01 thank you two o'clock please
02:57:17 you