Cross-examination of Janice Ray from TMO regarding fire risk assessment processes, action tracking systems, relationship with Carl Stokes as fire risk assessor, and systemic failures in completing FRA actions.
00:02:21 [Music]
00:06:58 [Music]
00:07:02 [Applause]
00:09:07 [Music]
00:10:12 [Music]
00:10:52 [Applause]
00:11:20 [Music]
00:11:34 [Music]
00:13:01 [Music]
00:14:31 [Music]
00:14:50 [Music]
00:16:11 [Music]
00:17:44 [Music]
00:19:46 yes mr willett when you're ready good morning members of the panel good morning miss ray yesterday when we finished
00:19:54 finished i was asking you about carl stokes and the scope of his work to your recollection did carl stokes's instructions include considering the external facades
00:20:07 include considering the external facades of buildings i don't believe they explicitly did now
00:20:13 now can we then look please at your first witness statement
00:20:22 statement and go please to page 9 paragraph 44
00:20:32 now there you say occasional occasionally say fire safety issues arose during the project that might be referred to me for comment on these occasions i would seek and obtain the advice of our
00:20:44 obtain the advice of our specialist expert carl stokes typically by instructing him to produce issues specific reports that i would supply back to the asset management team i've endeavoured to set out these fire issues below and then you
00:20:56 out these fire issues below and then you go on
00:20:57 go on to do that now by project there do you mean the grenfell tower refurbishment project
00:21:02 project yes i did yes are you able to explain what you understood to be carl stokes's role
00:21:06 role during the refurbishment of grenfell tower
00:21:10 tower he didn't have a designated role it was really more that he was our fire risk assessor um he was our ready access to fire specialist knowledge
00:21:22 specialist knowledge so if i wanted a second opinion on something or if the project team had asked for him to engage or produce a report
00:21:30 report then that would be a bespoke issue that he responded to and how was that bespoke issue the subject of instructions how would he be instructed to advise in respect in respect of such
00:21:42 to advise in respect in respect of such a bespoke issue um usually his instructions came from me occasionally i believe he may have been instructed directly by my colleague claire williams the
00:21:54 claire williams the project manager often at the request of peter madison um but usually it came through me i would ask him to do a specific piece of work he would produce a report
00:22:05 of work he would produce a report um it would often go straight back to claire and perhaps to peter and i would receive a copy of the report i see and how was that work
00:22:13 that work uh invoiced was it invoiced separately or was it treated as part of his general retainer as a fire risk assessor um he submitted a monthly invoice with a breakdown of
00:22:26 a monthly invoice with a breakdown of all of the work that he was um invoicing for um so it would have been set out
00:22:31 set out just on the normal invoice i don't think it was i don't think it was charged to a separate budget i think it was just all part of the same for our safety yes i see can we go back to the consultant's brief please
00:22:42 consultant's brief please that's cst 705 and look at page seven
00:22:50 and with on page seven let's look at paragraph 1.8 under the heading client meetings i wonder if it could be expanded a little thank you it says that regular meetings will be held between the project manager
00:23:01 held between the project manager the h s advisor and the consultant to discuss possible issues monitor progress and review the service provided the meetings will be held monthly
00:23:10 monthly and will be chaired by the tmo project manager
00:23:15 and minuted by the tmo hns advisor and the consultant will be expected to attend at no additional cost were monthly meetings actually held with carl stokes as specified here in this brief
00:23:27 as specified here in this brief initially they were
00:23:31 for at least i think six or eight months well into the medium risk project after that the i think the project manager uh went off to do other things so it
00:23:42 uh went off to do other things so it ended up being largely carl stokes and myself um and we would have a lot of ongoing daily contact um in view of the the ongoing program
00:23:53 ongoing program and any queries that i had with regard to what he was doing um so there aren't minutes after that period for a long period but that's because we were having such regular
00:24:04 because we were having such regular contact by telephone and in person um that we didn't have and it was it by then it was he and i would have been the team meeting and because we were having endless
00:24:15 endless dialogue then um minutes weren't produced unfortunately who was the tmo project manager referred to here um i believe that was valerie sharples who'd been involved in
00:24:26 who'd been involved in in the original procurement exercises for the the high and the medium risk programs
00:24:31 programs but did she attend any meetings that you held with carl stokes at any stage um i think she she attended the progress meetings that were minuted or one of her
00:24:42 that were minuted or one of her representatives i i think for a period abby acosta might have also been representing valerie sharpe now you said that there were no minutes kept at those meetings is that right
00:24:53 those meetings is that right um if if we were having a project meeting and the project manager was available i would have minuted the meeting
00:24:58 meeting um the the reality is that sort of a year a year and a half into the fire risk assessment program the project manager was doing other things and sort of was no longer directly involved right mr
00:25:11 was no longer directly involved right mr stokes has told the inquiry that he would be sent minutes of these meetings is that right any that were minuted we i would have obviously distributed to all of the attendees yes now i'd like to look at some of those
00:25:25 now i'd like to look at some of those meetings
00:25:26 meetings in a little bit more detail starting in 2010 if i may the first meeting that we have a record of uh took place on the 22nd of june 2010 so in fact before the date of the production of
00:25:38 before the date of the production of this consultant's brief and the next day on the 23rd of june uh carl stokes wrote to you by email let's let's look at that uh cst four zeros one eight eight
00:25:54 six uh and he sends you an email this is in fact the 24th of june janice good afternoon how are you please could
00:26:05 good afternoon how are you please could you
00:26:05 you have a quick look at the attached to see if you are happy with it this should stop me asking you lots of questions carl and the attachment says employee fire training tmo
00:26:16 training tmo pdf now let's look at that document this is a cst401887
00:26:28 and it's a letter as you can see dated the 23rd of june 2010 subject employee fire training personal or personnel emergency evacuation plans
00:26:39 or personnel emergency evacuation plans peeps and the lift maintenance servicing and testing policy in tmo controlled buildings
00:26:45 buildings dear miss ray after our meeting yesterday tuesday 22nd june 2010 at 10 30 at the hub 300 council road north kensington i would like to clarify the following
00:26:56 i would like to clarify the following items and issues about employee induction and refresher fire training the policies and documents covered today also have a relevant for fire warden training which is given to selected employees
00:27:07 to selected employees now um it looks from that and i'll continue with the rest of it later but it looks from that that carl stokes was meeting you in his capacity as a fire risk assessor for carl for cs
00:27:21 as a fire risk assessor for carl for cs stokes and associates limited is that right i my recollection is that during the salvas period i all of our contact was through salvus
00:27:34 i all of our contact was through salvus so i didn't actually know carl stokes other than his name on the bottom of print
00:27:39 print um he made contact with me um and said that he he was a consultant in his own right and if we were going to be tendering um he you know he just wanted to give me
00:27:51 he you know he just wanted to give me information about his company and he would like to have the opportunity to tender
00:27:54 tender so i i think that i sort of said well i'm happy to chat to you i'm happy to consider it i'm happy to consider
00:28:01 consider anybody who can go on the tender list so i think this is notes of a conversation that we had i think when he was working for salvas um i got the impression that he didn't always have all of the information that
00:28:13 always have all of the information that i was providing to salvas so he was asking more questions about how we operated
00:28:17 operated um what our staff did what our maintenance regime was et cetera what was the purpose of the meeting do you recall um i don't really think there was a purpose i think he just wanted to get more information about how we operated
00:28:29 information about how we operated and obviously he was he wanted um me to give strong considerations to including him on the tender list right so did you did you ask him or did you discuss with him in what capacity he was
00:28:41 discuss with him in what capacity he was coming to a meeting with you um i don't recall other than what i've i've just outlined really he he was eager to meet um because i knew he'd been our assessor and he provided a number of um
00:28:53 assessor and he provided a number of um assessments fire salvage then i i was happy to meet with people generally okay i mean did you realize he was attending that meeting not as a salvas
00:29:04 that meeting not as a salvas employee or contractor but as a sole practitioner um i think i would have done yes and you would have done anyway having seen this letter on the 24th of june yes absolutely yes now this was at a time wasn't it
00:29:18 yes now this was at a time wasn't it after salvas had completed the high risk fra program yes yes that's right yes and is it right that at that time so late or late june 2010 you had decided to
00:29:29 or late june 2010 you had decided to tender for a new fire risk assessor but hadn't yet undertaken the tender process i believe so yes and and i think at that stage you were still some three or four weeks away from issuing the consultants brief july 2010
00:29:42 the consultants brief july 2010 yes now let's just continue with the letter if we can we look at the second paragraph that goes on when completing any fire risk assessments for buildings under the control of the tenants management organization tmo of the royal bar of kensington and
00:29:54 of the royal bar of kensington and chelsea in future and where tmo employees are present in the buildings the information in this letter will be used as a basis of the fire training and fire warden section of the document the information on lifts will be used in the relevant
00:30:06 on lifts will be used in the relevant section for fixed installations as well as in the section on disabled persons and their evacuation procedure when using lifts the peeps documents again will be used as evidence in the disabled persons section
00:30:17 section and now just pausing there again if you hadn't yet gone through the tender process at the point of the fire risk assessor to undertake further fras for the tmo why were you meeting him to discuss
00:30:28 why were you meeting him to discuss matters to be used in his fire risk assessments um he we we met when he was clearly doing some information gathering um this is his take on what i said and
00:30:40 um this is his take on what i said and the information i provided this wasn't me asking him to come to come back and say how would this look it was literally from my perspective it was information gathering
00:30:49 gathering where he wanted to know what our plans were what
00:30:52 were what more detail of how the organization worked and what policies and practices we had in place right you know this is clearly looks like him trying to sell himself to me but
00:31:02 but that's but not really how i took it did you go through the same process of meeting
00:31:08 meeting other applicants to give them the same information that you'd given carl stokes um i would have been available too did you
00:31:17 you i don't recall doing it did you tell any of the other applicants that you've provided
00:31:21 provided one of their number with the information we can see set out and reflected in this letter uh and
00:31:27 and make sure that they had the same information no i didn't but salvas were one of the other applicants so two of them had this information and the others didn't yes uh no no i don't recall that
00:31:38 didn't yes uh no no i don't recall that i did why is that um i've no idea really um i don't he was doing ground work where he
00:31:48 he obviously was hoping that this work would come his way um but when we did the procurement exercise when we interviewed we were fair and we tried to treat people equally so
00:32:00 people equally so i would have been aware if we hadn't had this conversation salvas would have been the people who'd had a lot more information than the others but i would have tried to make sure that we treated everybody consistently and as you know we had a colleague from
00:32:12 and as you know we had a colleague from housing from housing in the council and another professional services colleague so we were all assessing everybody independently against the same standards
00:32:23 independently against the same standards uh i mean you say selves had this information did you actually provide salvas with the information that you see reflected in carl stakes's letter over the course of the time that they were working for us yes they needed
00:32:35 they were working for us yes they needed this in order to produce the the assessments that they were producing i mean do you accept that it doesn't it doesn't place all applicants in a tender process on a level playing field if you only provide one possibly two
00:32:46 provide one possibly two of the applicants with uh information that you don't provide to the others potentially potentially no not potentially actually it actually doesn't it actually distorts the playing field
00:32:57 the playing field because you're giving one or two of the applicants an informational advantage aren't you the point i was going to make is a lot of this would be covered verbally when we introduced when we did our
00:33:08 when we introduced when we did our introduction to the the at the beginning of every interview i would have said this is the kind of organization we are this is where we're at with fire risk assessments um i would have covered a great deal of
00:33:19 um i would have covered a great deal of this and they would have had an opportunity to question me further so sorry that's why i'm saying potentially because they wouldn't have had it in writing but they would have had
00:33:27 had verbal updates and the opportunity to question me now we'll look at the letter in a little bit of detail in a moment but from this letter would you accept that it would appear at least that mr stokes intended to use the
00:33:38 that mr stokes intended to use the information from your meeting on the 22nd of june 2010 in certain sections of his fire risk assessments that's what he's saying yes can we just ask something looking at the first paragraph of this letter
00:33:50 the first paragraph of this letter yes it gives me the impression that it's directed to mr stokes putting together some form of employee induction or refresher fire training
00:34:02 or refresher fire training and not subsequently doing fire risk assessments do you recall anything about that um i think one of the questions he would have asked me was how we trained our staff um and we did we did um part of the
00:34:15 um and we did we did um part of the training was annual fire safety training so he you're right it's worded as if he's he's um
00:34:22 um making recommendations when he's i think reflecting back some of the information that i gave him yeah all right thank you yes sir yes yes um
00:34:37 and therefore was your intention at that point that mr stokes would be appointed or might be appointed for one year to carry out the fire risk assessments for the medium risk properties i didn't have any intention at that
00:34:49 i didn't have any intention at that stage as as we said the procurement hadn't happened um i based on my discussions with and i was happy to add him to the tender list but that didn't give him any advantage that anyone else had
00:35:00 that anyone else had i hadn't thought beyond that and it was going to be a fair process the the information itself that you were giving whether it went to mr stokes or anybody else was was only ever going to be current for one year wasn't it because
00:35:11 current for one year wasn't it because it was relevant to the the medium risk program or is that not right um some of it will be the approach to peeps and fire training may
00:35:22 may have continued going forward but yeah potentially you're right i'm sorry now we'll come back later to the specific topics in the letter which are and i'll count them for you employee fire training
00:35:33 employee fire training personal emergency evacuation plans now he says personnel emergency evacuation plans that might not be an error
00:35:43 error lifts and
00:35:46 lifts and um more general matters but but can i ask you please to look at the end of the letter where he says at page three
00:35:57 where he says at page three in the last paragraph i'd like to thank you for all the help you gave to me yesterday
00:36:01 yesterday because as we discussed during our meeting the items covered and policy and procedure documents you showed me will help tremendously to reduce the question i may have needed to ask and gave me a very good understanding
00:36:12 gave me a very good understanding of tma operating policy in relation to health and safety issues what policy and procedure documents did you give him i don't i gave him any um i
00:36:24 i don't i gave him any um i gave him verbal information i didn't prepare any i mean he was coming in um called for a chat about how we how we did things i'm pretty confident i wouldn't have given him anything
00:36:36 wouldn't have given him anything uh same question again what policy and procedure documents did you show him even if you didn't give him any
00:36:45 well as you know we hadn't we hadn't produced a fire strategy at that stage so that wasn't something i could have given him
00:36:50 given him um i i really don't know and i really can't think that there was anything obvious that would have related to this that i would have heard readily to hand or be prepared to give him so i'm sorry
00:37:01 or be prepared to give him so i'm sorry i can't help you can't help no and as as you know the lift information is information that would have been held by contracts management building services team so i wouldn't have had
00:37:12 services team so i wouldn't have had ready access to anything that could have been given we'll come back to the lift information in detail later on um looking more generally at the chronology moving
00:37:24 more generally at the chronology moving forwards
00:37:26 forwards uh on the
00:37:29 uh well let me just show you something uh that i've just been prompted with can i ask you to go to cst
00:37:48 303077
00:37:57 cst three zeros three zero zero seven seven
00:38:08 now this is an invoice issued by c s stokes and associates limited addressed to you dated the second of july 2010. can you see
00:38:19 july 2010. can you see yes and it says invoice as instructed i've undertaken and completed the fire risk assessment for and then there are three addresses within the tma stock
00:38:30 within the tma stock in accordance with the fire safety order 2005
00:38:35 2005 from these fire risk assessments i've produced a significant findings and an action plan for each building costs as agreed net 700 pounds v80 gross 822 pounds 50p
00:38:47 v80 gross 822 pounds 50p can you explain that invoice no i have absolutely no recollection you've never seen it before i must have seen it before it's addressed to me but i've absolutely no recollection
00:38:59 absolutely no recollection are you able at all to explain uh the circumstances in which c s stakes and associates was instructed to undertake and complete the fire risk assessments for those buildings
00:39:10 buildings shown in that invoice as at the second of july 2010 no i'm not and i'm looking this is addressed to me when i was based at um 346 kensington high street
00:39:22 based at um 346 kensington high street so i wasn't even based at the hub at that stage sorry i it's i i must must have had it but i um given that you must have had it do you accept that you
00:39:33 must have had it do you accept that you must have known that mr stokes was conducting fire risk assessments for four buildings in the tma stock on his own account as cs takes an associate's limited before the tender process was started
00:39:47 before the tender process was started that seems to be the case these are all offices
00:39:50 offices um or archive storage areas but i i really have no recollection but you're right this is what it looks like and therefore taken together perhaps with the letter i've been showing you might it not be the case that in fact
00:40:02 might it not be the case that in fact the tma had already you had already decided to appoint mr stokes to conduct the medium risk program even before the tender no absolutely not what other explanation is there for his uh
00:40:13 uh undertaking uh the and completing these three fire risk assessments i don't know what the explanation is but that isn't it i'm sorry we absolutely hadn't decided and it it
00:40:24 we absolutely hadn't decided and it it wasn't
00:40:25 wasn't my decision it was a joint decision and rightly so
00:40:30 now moving forward in the chronology uh can we go please to cst 403061
00:40:44 this is a letter dated the 27th of september 2010 which mr stokes and i discussed at some length repeatedly during his evidence it's an important letter
00:40:55 it's an important letter and it happened or it was sent to you uh after a meeting with you on the 24th of september 2010 at the hub do you see in the first paragraph that that is what it records yes
00:41:06 yes now we will examine each of the specific topics in this letter later on in your evidence but for the moment my question is this
00:41:13 is this is it right that at this point so late september 2010 karl stokes still had not been formally appointed as the fire risk assessor um
00:41:26 i i don't know you've got you've got all the documentation i'm not sure what the dates were i thought he was appointed on the 23rd of september but probably hadn't signed the documentation let me help you can we go to tmo double zero eight
00:41:38 zero eight four two three one six please
00:41:46 this is the letter date of the 23rd of september 2010.
00:41:53 so it's the day before the meeting okay thank you for submitting carl stakes thank you for submitting a fee quotation and attending the interview
00:42:00 interview further to satisfactory responses to our additional queries i'm pleased to inform you
00:42:03 you that your fee quotation has been accepted and is it uh it is our intention to appoint you to carry out the program of fire risk assessments on the council's medium risk blocks
00:42:12 blocks i will prepare your formal appointment which you should receive within the next week
00:42:15 week in the meantime as discussed i will endeavor to set up meetings with my colleagues a project briefing meeting and introductory meeting with the fire brigade all of which shall take place as soon as possible yes
00:42:26 shall take place as soon as possible yes now looking at that this is this is the 23rd of september the meeting was on the 24th of september his letter as we've seen was on the 27th of september it's right i think that
00:42:38 of september it's right i think that that uh although you'd sent him the letter of intent the contract hadn't yet been signed yes you're right yes now let's get back to the letter of the 27th of september please cst 403061 please at page one
00:42:52 uh having referred to the meeting he goes on to say in the second line as follows i would like to put in writing the management procedures topics and issues etc we discussed so that when completing any fire risk assessments for residential buildings
00:43:03 assessments for residential buildings under the control of the tenants management organization tmo of the royal borough of kensington and chelsea in future these standards and observations will apply what did you disposing there what did
00:43:14 what did you disposing there what did you expect him to do with this information in his fire risk assessments um i expected his fire risk assessments to reflect the processes and the training um and
00:43:27 the processes and the training um and the
00:43:28 the our approach to maintenance and fire precautions i was trying to give him as much information as possible so that they would be as comprehensive as possible
00:43:36 possible um in relation to each block and when you received this letter did you read it thoroughly and ensure that it reflected accurately the information you had given him at the 24th of september meeting um i
00:43:49 at the 24th of september meeting um i would have thought so yes yes now after this after this letter do you recall that there was a meeting that you held to introduce carl stokes to the lfb and that that happened on the 8th of october 2010. i'll show you a document
00:44:01 october 2010. i'll show you a document okay i recall that we did but particularly for the meeting very well zero five two rbk3029052
00:44:14 now this is an email from janice ray that's you two and much more below uh and you're you're actually sending this on to to miss much more
00:44:25 on to to miss much more uh at the top and we can see the main email below that and it goes on and further to our meeting yesterday can you you see the first paragraph yes i can confirm that we met with the lfb on 8th of october to introduce carl
00:44:36 on 8th of october to introduce carl stokes our new risk assessor they agreed to produce the minutes for that meeting however in order to assist i sent through some notes which i was hoping they would incorporate into the minutes
00:44:45 minutes but no minutes received yet my notes are on the attached email below now
00:44:55 that email is i'm showing you is dated 26th of january 2011. yes um we need to go to the email on page two
00:45:05 page two for the main information this is an email from you of the 12th of october to gary soto of the london fire brigade copy to and much more
00:45:15 much more subject friday's meeting with the tmo you see that yes and he says you or you say rather gary i believe we agreed the following which you you may wish to include in your minutes
00:45:28 and if we look down at paragraph two
00:45:34 which starts aim to use same approach as before you'll can you see the fourth line
00:45:38 line and it says this however the intention is for the consultant to do as much work in advance of the program commencing as possible
00:45:46 possible to establish the extent of our fire safety plan preventative maintenance contract
00:45:50 contract and associated asset registers our inspection regimes fire safety training programs policy on installation smoke alarm peeps etc we're hopeful that this will result in fewer recommendations being made and will allow us to focus our attention
00:46:02 and will allow us to focus our attention on the significant findings now was carl stokes supposed to work on all of the tmo housing stock or just the medium risk buildings he was
00:46:13 just the medium risk buildings he was appointed for the medium-risk buildings as we discussed yesterday yes doesn't look like that from what this paragraph says well then that's me wording it
00:46:24 well then that's me wording it inappropriately he was appointed for the medium
00:46:27 medium right and that was the approach that we were trying to adopt because if i could just explain um we got as you probably gathered we got bogged down in actions um we were getting significant volumes
00:46:39 um we were getting significant volumes of actions but often they were actions requesting the same information how do we train our staff um you know what is our approach to maintenance so we we thought what we needed to do
00:46:51 so we we thought what we needed to do was provide as much of that information in advance of assessments being produced so they would be more comprehensive and then the actions and the significant findings that came out would be what we needed to focus on
00:47:02 would be what we needed to focus on rather than um yeah a lot of extra sorry now the first paragraph does say that that he'd been appointed to carry out the fire risk assessments on the council's
00:47:13 council's medium risk blocks but it goes on to say assessment program likely to begin on site we
00:47:18 site we commencing 18th of october 2010 and aim to complete in six months
00:47:25 so is it right that the intention set out of paragraph 2 was to enable mr stakes to complete the entirety of the media risk program
00:47:36 program by march april april essentially 2011. ideally we wanted it doing as soon as possible in order to to be as compliant as possible and to meet the fire brigade's deadline at
00:47:48 meet the fire brigade's deadline at their three-year deadline yes i see and did mr stokes then undertake that word yes now i want to ask you about the implementation
00:47:59 implementation of fras and the process of that different topic can we start by looking please at your first witness statement of page 33 paragraph 148
00:48:15 and you describe here the process of addressing the actions and findings identified by mr stakes and you say this the process was that i would identify a property and carl would attend
00:48:26 attend and send to me an fra report and a significant findings in action sheet i would then extract the relevant information and log them as actions on w-2
00:48:34 w-2 are civica electronic document and record management system each action would be assigned to the rel to the appropriate team who would be advised of the recommended time frame for completion
00:48:45 time frame for completion the team would then undertake the work and update the system by describing the action as partially or fully complete and by adding any relevant notes or evidence and returning to the health and safety team we would then
00:48:56 team we would then close down the action now looking at the systems that you used for monitoring actions you you say in other parts of your evidence that you used a spreadsheet
00:49:07 used a spreadsheet tracker and the w-2 system is that right the w-2 system did not come in until the 1st of august 2013. we
00:49:18 the 1st of august 2013. we recognized the need to have a dedicated workflow electronic workflow but unfortunately we didn't actually have a system that we we could use so the company eventually
00:49:29 eventually um realized the advantages of having such a system that could we could have workflows for all sorts of the business right can you just give me some dates so the spreadsheet tracker was that what you started using straight away
00:49:39 away in and after october 2010. that was my recollection although it may be that i used word documents as well because the significant findings and action plans came in as word
00:49:50 and action plans came in as word documents
00:49:51 documents so unfortunately and that's why we needed to have a proper electronic management system because it was quite difficult to keep to keep a handle on and after the w-2 system came into effect yes
00:50:03 the w-2 system came into effect yes on the 1st of august 2013 did you continue to use the spreadsheet tracker system
00:50:09 system uh no everything from that point onwards and actually from i think a couple of months prior to that was loaded into the w-2 system and and was
00:50:17 was uh monitored and progressed in that way right so from august 2013 you were only using the w-2 system
00:50:25 system and what i can't recollect is whether we transferred information in from historical stuff or whether we we kept monitoring that separately i think we did it separately because it was it was quite an onerous task because
00:50:37 was it was quite an onerous task because there were still some historic actions outstanding so i think i was
00:50:41 i was chasing on that as well but our focus was on the w-2 system right can you just help me a little bit more on that answer when the wt w2 system started on the 1st
00:50:53 when the wt w2 system started on the 1st of august 2013. what information got transferred into it um
00:50:59 um my recollection is that we knew it was coming
00:51:03 coming we'd trialled it so i think we put in the the fire risk assessment action plans that we'd received for at least
00:51:11 least that i'm guessing but at least the two months prior to the introduction and then from that point onwards we put we put everything through w-2 so we did have a historic spreadsheet i
00:51:22 so we did have a historic spreadsheet i think with some historic information that didn't i might be wrong but my recollection is it didn't get added to w-2 it was monitored separately
00:51:34 so does that tell us that there was an incomplete information transfer from the spreadsheet tracker to to the w-2 system when it started in august 2013. i've really tried to remember
00:51:46 really tried to remember but my recollection is that we didn't transfer all the historic information but we did still track it understood yes understood but the answer to my question is is yes the information transfer was incomplete
00:51:57 the information transfer was incomplete in summary it wasn't comprehensive yes no and
00:52:01 no and does that mean that from the 1st of august 2013 you essentially had two systems
00:52:06 systems or two repositories of information the w-2 system and the historic uh spreadsheet tracker which was still continuing in parallel i think we did yes yeah and was that the position
00:52:18 yes yeah and was that the position until the 14th of june 2017 the night of the fire
00:52:22 the fire no no because eventually again um eventually the spreadsheet items to the best of my recollection
00:52:35 items to the best of my recollection were closed down and all the newer stuff from the date we discussed
00:52:39 discussed had gone into w-2 and when do you think all the spreadsheet items were closed down
00:52:46 down i'm sorry i i don't know i i was awash with information and i couldn't give you a date on that now uh when you assigned the action to the appropriate team the fra action to
00:52:57 the appropriate team the fra action to the appropriate team how would you do that mechanically what buttons would you push um my recollection is that the workflow gave us the
00:53:09 that the workflow gave us the opportunity to uh basically cut and paste the action that um came out of the action plan so it got transposed into um
00:53:21 it got transposed into um into the tracker there was a a box where i could provide additional information so if i thought that perhaps it wasn't clear what action people were required i might say could you just make sure
00:53:32 i might say could you just make sure that the caretaker checks this or whatever and and then there was
00:53:37 there was um a drop down box where you could reflect the priority high medium low and there was a corresponding um time frame which had been preset
00:53:48 um time frame which had been preset against each of those um priorities sorry and then it was allocated to um i can't recall if it's individual or team right there sorry i'm so sorry would you
00:54:00 right there sorry i'm so sorry would you then
00:54:01 then send that in a pdf form or as a document or
00:54:04 or would you send an email how would it how would you then transmit that um the the w-2 system meant that everybody had um their own inbox within
00:54:15 everybody had um their own inbox within the w-2 system so it was sent electronically within the system and everybody within the organization was supposed to monitor their own w-2 inbox but to supplement that i would run
00:54:27 inbox but to supplement that i would run regular reports everyone else had access and opportunity to run their own reports but status reports for each team so they would know at um at that point in time which i think was
00:54:38 in time which i think was probably at least every two months what they've been allocated what was completed what was partially completed and what was outstanding and while
00:54:45 while uh the spreadsheet tracker was in use what system did you use to allocate or assign actions to appropriate teams from that data and that would have probably had to be
00:54:56 and that would have probably had to be done by email because we didn't have another system
00:55:07 another system when you were sending uh spreadsheets did that include the color coding of the actions so that each team knew the priority level ascribed to the action whether whether it was through
00:55:18 action whether whether it was through the spreadsheet tracker or the wd yes i believe so yes can we just look at an example uh now this i think predates the uh arrival of w2 and this is tmo1 triple
00:55:33 uh arrival of w2 and this is tmo1 triple zero
00:55:33 zero two three three zero this is the composite fra tracker from mid-march 2013
00:55:42 tm01 triple zero two three three zero
00:56:05 and we can see that this is in fact uh one that runs till as i say till march 2013 you can see that from other parts of the document you can see the high risk items in red just on the screen in front of you
00:56:17 just on the screen in front of you yes um was this the form in which it went
00:56:20 went to the relevant teams i think it must have been right but i'm presuming there's a sorry i was just going to say there
00:56:31 sorry i was just going to say there should be a um a legend explaining high medium low time frames however all of these people were getting this information regularly so they knew what the time frames were you say all of these people just picking a couple of those responsive
00:56:43 picking a couple of those responsive repairs
00:56:44 repairs is that repairs direct uh depending on the time frame i don't think in 2012 repo i'm not sure when they came in right who in the repairs direct team would you send this this spreadsheet to this given
00:56:55 send this this spreadsheet to this given this is march 13. okay so stuart thompson was our repairs manager
00:57:00 manager i think prior to repairs direct so um
00:57:05 early early actions would have gone to him as their responsible repairs manager direct situation frustratingly fluctuated and i would have gone to them
00:57:16 fluctuated and i would have gone to them on a regular basis to say who is the most appropriate person to receive this information and once graham webb was imposed as the managing director of repairs direct from january 2016 that's the time
00:57:29 from january 2016 that's the time uh would he receive these spreadsheets or would he get something else because w-2 was on stream by then
00:57:36 um yeah he wouldn't have had these he'd he'd have had extracts from from w2 i can't recall who i think one stage it was john tatum they they had a series of
00:57:49 was john tatum they they had a series of of um responsive repairs managers and they would have been the people who received
00:57:54 received the equivalent version of this from w2 would you ever send any of these teams whether it was contracts or whether it was project management or
00:58:05 or whether it was project management or responsive repairs um a copy of the fra itself or a copy of the significant findings and action plan for particular properties uh possibly um why would you
00:58:18 uh possibly um why would you what would be the circumstances in which you would do that it's a very good question they could i mean they could request it they may have requested it they might um be planning some work so they're trying to collate all relevant
00:58:29 trying to collate all relevant information in relation to a specific block um they may have wanted to share it with some new contractors that they were appointing a variety of reasons really
00:58:46 did the w2 system send you automatic notifications of overdue items no i don't believe it did it wasn't programmed to do that not to the best of my knowledge so how
00:58:57 not to the best of my knowledge so how do you know whether a particular item identified in the significant findings and action plan was overdue um i would have run a report it was very simple there was um on the wt system there was
00:59:09 there was um on the wt system there was a very simple way that i could run a report and i would usually have run a report
00:59:13 report for everything and then filtered what i wanted how often did you run a report after 20 after august 2013 regularly um because
00:59:21 because how regularly god um eventually got to the stage well i would i was sending them out to teams eventually we're sending them out to
00:59:32 eventually we're sending them out to teams
00:59:32 teams certainly before every health and safety committee meeting so teams would have been getting their own specific updates at least two monthly um i think barbara would ask for them more regularly than that um i was i was looking at what was going
00:59:45 um i was i was looking at what was going on and
00:59:46 on and what was being completed on a regular basis
00:59:49 basis i i would receive the completions into my inbox and i would open each of them individually and would only close them down completely if i was happy that i was confident that the works have been completed or i might request additional
01:00:02 completed or i might request additional evidence in which case i would send them back so if i'd gone um and completed quite a lot which was going to impact on the overall stats i might then run another report just to see
01:00:12 see what i need to home in now who should i chase for the next did you do all that for all 650 odd blocks in the tma stock that required an fra yes because sorry i probably didn't
01:00:23 because sorry i probably didn't make it very clear um when i ran a report the report could be for the entire system so i could so then i could filter on specific blocks or i could filter on what was outstanding or
01:00:34 filter on what was outstanding or specific kinds of works or or um against individual teams depending
01:00:39 depending yeah and yes and did you have any help in performing that task printing it off and reducing it analyzing it deciding what was and wasn't overdue
01:00:50 what was and wasn't overdue communicating with the teams no not really all you pretty much all me i mean
01:00:55 i mean my colleagues um cyril particularly who was my facilities colleague but actually sometimes had a little bit more capacity than than adrian or i um was helpful in terms of
01:01:06 um was helpful in terms of manually inputting the information and allocating the actions but i would have said to him here's a word document can you allocate and i would have told them where they needed to go um but yes it was
01:01:17 needed to go um but yes it was it was just me really um you know that sounds quite sad i don't mean it to sound sad because because everybody
01:01:24 everybody in the organization who received actions had the opportunity to run their own reports
01:01:29 reports i just was doing it as belt and braces to make sure that they had this information that they were focusing on it
01:01:34 it um but yeah it was it was pretty intensive
01:01:38 intensive i was going to ask you how you could do that alongside any of your other work it sounds like a full-time job it was pretty full-on but i didn't let it go i was fairly dogged about chasing down
01:01:49 i was fairly dogged about chasing down outstanding actions because i thought it was really crucial and i would raise it every opportunity that i could i'm sure i was a pain but i did did you ever go to your seniors and say
01:02:00 ever go to your seniors and say i'm overstretched here i need some help um
01:02:04 um i may have done but there just wasn't any budget to be had so i would as we said yesterday i would re-prioritize regularly but fire safety was always at top of the tree
01:02:17 you mentioned cyril morris a moment ago yes let me just pick up on him um can we please look at your june 2020 statement tm00873629
01:02:29 statement tm00873629 page 16 paragraph 65.
01:02:42 and you say there in the second part of that paragraph whilst everyone could update their own spreadsheet only cyril morris and i could close down actions and only when sufficient evidence had been provided
01:02:53 sufficient evidence had been provided to confirm completion adrian bowman did not close down actions yes does it follow from that that it was your responsibility to monitor that actions were completed so as to decide
01:03:05 were completed so as to decide that they should be closed out um yes unless they were fairly simplistic um and cyril could could close those i did most of the closing right
01:03:16 closing right um sometimes we would look at it together and i would go yes i'm happy with that and then he would do the actual admin right and with cyril morris at your side as it were all through the
01:03:28 at your side as it were all through the period 2010 to 2017. um i think he started in 2011 i believe possibly march 2011 um and yes for the rest of that period yes now um adrian bowman
01:03:42 yes now um adrian bowman has explained um in his uh statement that uh
01:03:45 that uh he would follow up the completion of actions during his inspection program did he report uh his findings to you uh yes and how would he do that um so i
01:03:56 uh yes and how would he do that um so i think we sort of covered this to some extent
01:03:58 extent um in that he would take out the action plan which as we know is a word document to the blocks that he was going to be inspecting um and he would identify if uh
01:04:11 and he would identify if uh what we believed had been completed had been completed um and we would i my recollection is that we would add he would add another column
01:04:19 column um and then that would be it would be um and then the information would be taken from that and sent to repairs or sent to wherever it needed to be to be sent right sticking with paragraph 65 of this
01:04:31 right sticking with paragraph 65 of this june 2020 statement you say and i've read it to you already but you say only when sufficient evidence had been provided to confirm completion yes um how would you decide whether you
01:04:43 yes um how would you decide whether you had
01:04:43 had sufficient evidence to confirm completion what would constitute sufficient evidence in that context it would depend on the action really if it was
01:04:52 it was in relation to
01:04:56 housekeeping issues for example then i would allocate it to the the manager of the esa and say this needs to be undertaken sometimes they would send me
01:05:08 undertaken sometimes they would send me photographic evidence sometimes the team leader would say i visited the block yesterday and i can confirm that that's in place um so there was sort of a second tier of checking where that was feasible sometimes if my colleague
01:05:19 feasible sometimes if my colleague adrian happened to be in the vicinity of a block where i had specific concerns or queries he would divert and go we just tried to use whatever
01:05:28 whatever we had available really
01:05:32 sorry i'm not sure that answers your question and when teams reported to you that actions were completed did you yourself undertake any kind of quality check or or empirical checks just even on a spot
01:05:45 or empirical checks just even on a spot basis to ascertain whether the work had been completed satisfactorily um i i would have if i was going to be in the vicinity i would tend to pop into local blogs
01:05:57 would tend to pop into local blogs that i didn't have a lot of opportunity to do that adrian was out a great deal of his of his working week so i would i would regularly say oh where are you going to be oh can i just
01:06:08 where are you going to be oh can i just get you to double check so i would often for a man had loads of lists of things to check for me um so yeah you were you were essentially reliant on their judgment yes but adrian adrian bowman's very
01:06:20 yes but adrian adrian bowman's very experienced and safe pair of hands really yes and there was no way that he would say something had been completed if it hadn't because he just wouldn't so you trusted him absolutely and we've worked together a very long time and
01:06:31 worked together a very long time and he's totally trustworthy and um yeah i relied on his judgment
01:06:35 judgment you did um did you rely on his judgment and trust him to the extent that you never checked his work no no so what circumstances in what circumstances we would do joint inspections
01:06:46 inspections um would you check his work uh he he didn't just do on-site work he um he produced the estate staff handbook he minited for a period of time the the
01:06:58 minited for a period of time the the health and safety committee he had he had a range of of work where i was we worked quite closely together and we were a small team so it was really important that we worked together um but no i i absolutely checked his work but he
01:07:10 work but he was very competent and very experienced at what point would an action be considered to be outstanding is would it be
01:07:18 it be when the action was raised but not remedied or would it be once the relevant period had passed within which it ought to have been remedied from my perspective if it's not remedied it's outstanding
01:07:30 remedied it's outstanding it needs to be done we may not have reached the target date but it still needs
01:07:34 needs to be done so from my perspective that's what i would be using as a basis for outstanding so every fra item is outstanding until completed regardless of the time frame yeah it's not completed is it so
01:07:45 yeah it's not completed is it so maybe that's this that's my interpretation right
01:07:55 now uh
01:07:59 barbara matthews describes in her evidence
01:08:02 evidence um the fact that you sent her monthly a spreadsheet with outstanding actions on it yeah you did did you yeah please did you ever discuss that spreadsheet all those spreadsheets with barbara
01:08:14 all those spreadsheets with barbara matthews do you remember yes most likely we would have discussed them in regular one to ones or um when she she was based in another office but when she worked at the hub
01:08:25 office but when she worked at the hub she
01:08:26 she um the desk beside me was often empty so she would sit by me and we would go through a lot of the details did she offer you support in ensuring that actions outstanding actions were completed
01:08:35 completed she did she um we um discussed it in detail in increasing levels of detail really at the health and safety committee after particularly after barbara came along and she would also
01:08:48 along and she would also meet privately with her peers and where she saw that there were there were significant actions she would she would make it her business to go and have separate meetings with individuals as well to put pressure on them so yes
01:08:59 as well to put pressure on them so yes she did
01:08:59 she did right in her first witness statement she says that it's paragraph 33 that she would chase managers if fra actions were not being closed down as quickly as they should have been was that your experience yes it was and
01:09:11 was that your experience yes it was and were you aware at the time that barbara matthews was chasing managers down in those circumstances yes and she was she was fairly vociferous in the health and safety committees when when she was unhappy with the stats where she felt that people were still
01:09:23 where she felt that people were still not
01:09:24 not um perhaps giving uh actions the priority that they needed i mean some were complicated and were never going to be closed down in the time frame that was set and we recognized that but we she always
01:09:36 and we recognized that but we she always felt there was more we could do more we could do and so she um she pressed that now apart from the health and safety committee or perhaps it's precursor the health and safety operations committee can you please explain which committees
01:09:47 can you please explain which committees you would report to about the status of fra actions um those would be the main committees uh as we know we spoke yesterday about the as an asset investment engineering a
01:09:59 the as an asset investment engineering a kind of precursor to the operations health and safety committee
01:10:05 but the health and safety committee reported into the executive team by the nature of of the chair so that would have gone up to that level um i also had one to
01:10:16 up to that level um i also had one to one meetings regularly particularly with the um
01:10:20 the um head of contracts management and his alex bosman and um his predecessor keith feifield um and i did find some
01:10:31 keith feifield um and i did find some some notes actually of of i did keep notes of those kinds of things because there were often quite a number of issues that we were raising some were frie related and some weren't but it covered the whole downturn so you did find some notes yeah i found
01:10:42 so you did find some notes yeah i found some progress meeting notes when i was wading through information recently with keith field and i know i kept notes of the meetings you say you found some notes did you find those in the documents disclosure yeah yeah when i say notes i mean
01:10:53 yeah yeah when i say notes i mean electronic i don't know not documents you had didn't just be very clear about this you didn't find these documents in your own private i don't have any private documents so that's my my fault for misleading electronic documents
01:11:04 electronic documents no no that's very helpful now the purpose of reporting to those committees the
01:11:08 the operational operations committee and the health and safety committee uh at least during the time they were separate
01:11:15 separate was that in order to make sure that they were fully informed uh and could take action and report up yes absolutely because that that's principally my role
01:11:26 principally my role was to monitor and to escalate and to chase and cajole and do everything that i could but make sure that everybody knew who had a lot more authority than than i had if there were problems if there were issues and was that was that always the case
01:11:38 and was that was that always the case right from the start 2009 2010. yes it was and i i think scrutiny was was very intense in the beginning as zuccine in terms of of the council and and the the fire
01:11:50 of the council and and the the fire brigade but also in terms of the tmo operations board level committee and i think also team or board i was asked to do repeated reports um and then in
01:12:01 repeated reports um and then in more recent years um the chief executive did his his regular report to board and and he he then started always including a health and safety or a fire safety aspect to do it
01:12:12 it so there were things that were brought to the attention of of the elected um board members right which is not the chief executive of course well he's presenting it yeah yeah sorry it goes by him apologies
01:12:25 yeah yeah sorry it goes by him apologies yes well we'll see um now um as of november 2013 which is the date of your
01:12:33 your fire safety strategy yes um you you i think had a more fixed procedure didn't you well well yes i mean as of the workflow
01:12:44 well well yes i mean as of the workflow we things were just much easier to manage
01:12:47 manage yeah yes so i see so chronologically is this the position that the work you call it workflow let's call it w-2 came on stream on the 1st of august 2013
01:12:58 came on stream on the 1st of august 2013 and then on the in november 2013 you produced your first safety strategy yes so things got more organized yes i mean it
01:13:06 mean it probably practically gave me more time to do the finishing off bits of things that had been kicking around and hadn't been finished let's look at the fire safety strategy of that month and that
01:13:19 of that month and that 830598 please and i'd like to show you page 10
01:13:23 page 10 in in on and on that page paragraph 14.4.1
01:13:30 you can see at the
01:13:34 middle of your screen under fra action plans which is part of 14.4 uh under the first sub paragraph there um you
01:13:42 um you uh you can see that it says uh in the penultimate line statistics on status of all fra actions are presented to the operations h s group the tmos h s committee and the
01:13:55 s group the tmos h s committee and the executive team on a regular basis did anybody set any targets for completion of fra actions um no i don't think we did because we everybody
01:14:06 everybody recognized that they needed to be done and they needed to be done in terms of the priority and the time frame that had been set
01:14:12 been set by the by the consultant right so there wasn't we wouldn't have been happy until we'd done as many as we could but because of the nature of the ongoing assessment program we were never
01:14:23 ongoing assessment program we were never going to reach zero because if we got anywhere near that then we'd get a whole deluge of note of new assessments and associated actions um you you say statistics
01:14:34 um you you say statistics on status um why do you mean there statistics on cleared and outstanding fra actions i think i do yeah um because sub certainly
01:14:45 certainly when i've been providing them what that's what i've been asked for is how many were allocated per team how many were completed partially um how many are outstanding and then it got a bit more sophisticated where i was asked to actually clarify
01:14:58 was asked to actually clarify the time frames in relation to those that are outstanding was there any discussion of the risk to life presented by the outstanding fra actions
01:15:07 actions there would have been really it really was some things that we you know
01:15:14 know did take a lot of time and effort but um and and people recognized the importance and the need to comply with the rro
01:15:22 the rro and and also that you know these things have been identified for a reason so yes i think there was universal understanding that that of how crucial they were well that's not quite the question perhaps my question was a bit shrouded
01:15:34 question was a bit shrouded um why why were statistics have cleared an outstanding fra actions used as the metric the measure to discuss the status of fra actions i think i think it's visual isn't it
01:15:45 i think i think it's visual isn't it some people just work better with a visual message if you can see that you've got you know what looks like a significant number of potentially high risk actions outstanding and you can demonstrate that they've been
01:15:56 demonstrate that they've been outstanding for a period that's better than me just talking to people about how important it is to comply with the rro so people people respond to different things it was just another
01:16:04 another way of yes providing it i can see that the numerical or quantitative count might provide you with with some information but using statistics on status wouldn't tell you anything about
01:16:15 anything about about the risk nature of outstanding items
01:16:19 items whether they were high medium or low um i i can't really answer that i'm inviting you to accept the proposition that's right isn't it yes what my the reason i can't answer it
01:16:30 yes what my the reason i can't answer it is because i i thought that at some stage that's exactly how i did start presenting them um but but i may be wrong was there any mechanism ever put in place to review
01:16:41 mechanism ever put in place to review the fire risk overall of outstanding fra actions on a building-by-building basis i don't recollect either one so is it right that nobody ever actually looked
01:16:52 right that nobody ever actually looked at the outstanding fras as a group for a building and and performed some kind of holistic assessment of the fire safety risk presented by that collection of outstanding items
01:17:04 that collection of outstanding items no i don't believe we did why is that time
01:17:07 time time you didn't have enough time i i don't know where i had to find the time to do that i could see that there would be value in doing that but i don't know how i'd find the time to do that could you ask carl stokes to do that at least periodically
01:17:18 periodically um he didn't even have access to our w-2 system
01:17:23 system um why not because he produces the actions
01:17:27 actions it's our responsibility to get on and get them completed yes um that's rather what he said so what i'm interested in is why didn't you gather up uh all the outstanding fra
01:17:38 outstanding fra actions for a particular building doesn't matter which and then present them back to carl stokes and say mr stakes you lasted an fra for this building 14 months ago
01:17:49 building 14 months ago these are the outstanding fras on the building can you please give us a holistic risk assessment for this bill this building based on these this collection of outstanding fra items um i didn't do that
01:18:02 items um i didn't do that no but why didn't you do that
01:18:07 i was busy trying to get the actions completed and treating that as my big priority
01:18:12 priority and doing everything that i possibly could to get them completed and i maybe naively hoped that we would be able to get to a stage where as many were completed as possible
01:18:23 as possible and so i had hoped that what you're proposing wouldn't be required do i take it from that that neither you nor the executive team nor the board nor any scrutiny body
01:18:34 nor the board nor any scrutiny body within rbkc ever suggested to your knowledge at least
01:18:40 least standing back on a building by building basis and looking at the collection of outstanding fra items to perform a holistic fire assessment risk analysis not to my knowledge and it's actually not something that ever got suggested in
01:18:51 not something that ever got suggested in any of the forums that i i sat on with with colleagues across the sector
01:18:56 sector did you present specific written or all rule reports or was your reporting all by way of provision of minutes of health and safety committee meetings or operations committee meetings
01:19:07 or operations committee meetings for the executive team to see um i was occasionally invited to attend the executive
01:19:15 executive team meeting if there was something specific that they wanted me to cover that probably at some stage included fire safety excuse me
01:19:27 sorry um but i i saw that unless i was invited to attend i saw that as being the executive director's responsibility they they're aware of what is going on
01:19:39 they're aware of what is going on they've got the statistics they've got the opportunity to speak to me about they've been chasing their um team leaders where their stats where their actions outstanding so at that level that that the
01:19:52 so at that level that that the conversations would be had with their peers that was my understanding right do you you remember whether when you did when you made minutes of health and safety committee meet
01:20:03 health and safety committee meet meetings and they were provided to the executive team whether they were accompanied by your reports detailing the fra action statistics
01:20:14 fra action statistics i don't know the answer to that i would certainly think that in barbara's time it's quite likely that they would have been accompanied by the papers that i prepared and we were preparing an increasing number of papers um
01:20:27 number of papers um in terms of all sorts of things but i think i think that the the last one i think there were three individual fire safety related papers so i would like to think having gone to all that time and trouble that they were
01:20:38 all that time and trouble that they were provided but i'm it wouldn't be for me to come from will you say that i'm just interested because at the end of paragraph 14.4.1 you provide in your own fire safety strategy
01:20:50 strategy that statistics on status of all fra actions are presented to the committees and the executive team on a regular basis to your knowledge did you
01:21:00 you prepare statistics on status of all fra actions
01:21:04 actions for presentation to the executive team on a regular basis not not specifically because they generally
01:21:12 generally would have would have been receiving what the health and safety committee were receiving um my understanding was that when there had been a health and safety committee it would be agended on the executive
01:21:23 it would be agended on the executive team so that they could discuss what had been coming up at the health and safety committee and it was my understanding that the papers went there but because i didn't sit on that group it would be wrong of me to be to be saying it
01:21:36 wrong of me to be to be saying it definitely happened to your knowledge did you ever prepare statistics on status
01:21:40 status of all fra actions regularly for the purposes of presentation either directly or ultimately to the executive team
01:21:52 i didn't prepare anything specifically to go directly to the executive team but it was always my understanding that they would receive the information that the health and safety committee were viewing right but
01:22:05 were viewing right but if you didn't provide if you didn't compile the statistics on a regular basis for presentation to the executive team would that not have been a departure from your own fire risk
01:22:16 from your own fire risk strategy for our safety strategy we see here no because because the health and safety committee were looking at them regularly and there was an automatic escalation and feed into the executive
01:22:27 escalation and feed into the executive team so my understanding was if they'd requested it they could have had more or different but that was already in existence had been scrutinized by the health and safety committee
01:22:36 committee and would go to the executive team i didn't i didn't unless i was asking i didn't provide something specific for them
01:22:41 them they would be looking at the same information did you provide statistics on status of all fra actions regularly for the h s committee yes yes i can't remember when that started
01:22:52 yes i can't remember when that started but i think post w-2 it was um i'd always been given feedback but not sort of quantitative once i had the opportunity to do that relatively straightforwardly then that's what i did so can we leave it like this then that
01:23:05 so can we leave it like this then that whatever statistics you prepared on a regular basis and provided either to the operations committee or the health and safety committee you you assumed would be passed on in that form to the executive team yes
01:23:17 in that form to the executive team yes so that they could see direct statistics directly yes and the fact is that the ops group was chaired by sasha jevens who's an executive team member and the health and safety committee by barbara matthew 2 of the executive team
01:23:28 barbara matthew 2 of the executive team had already seen them so it really just meant having the same discussions with yvonne and robert which i believe that they did
01:23:36 they did right now um i want to turn to the question of implementation time scales um can i just ask you to look please at the first significant findings and action plan produced by call stakes to accompany
01:23:48 call stakes to accompany his 29th of december 2010 fra for grenfell tower this is at cst403165
01:23:57 cst403165 and we can see on that page there if we can have it expanded please um under the fifth entry done priority time scales
01:24:08 time scales let's just read across together high two to three weeks medium one to two months low three to six months you see that yes can you explain how those time
01:24:19 yes can you explain how those time scales for those actions came to be decided upon i can't um
01:24:27 that from my perspective that was done to the assessor to set the time frame it wasn't for me to set the time frame he's the assessor he knows what um the priority rating is and i thought that he actually i don't know
01:24:40 i thought that he actually i don't know what i thought those were his recommendations and we just went with them i see you see carl stokes told the inquiry it's day 37 page 36 lines 1 to 13. i don't think we need to go there
01:24:52 to go there that these were agreed jointly as between
01:24:55 between the tmo and him and the lfb does that is that your recollection no i don't i don't recall ever having that level of detailed discussion with the lfb i mean
01:25:06 discussion with the lfb i mean i think they would have perceived that to be our responsibility and they wouldn't
01:25:09 wouldn't would want to be assured that we weren't setting ridiculously long time frames particularly for high risk but i don't think i ever recall having conversation with them about it right so
01:25:22 this is the first time that you so far at least grenfell tower is concerned that you saw the stokes risk stages or levels yes yes and how then did you
01:25:33 or levels yes yes and how then did you ensure
01:25:34 ensure that the actions were prioritized according to risk once you received this document
01:25:42 to be honest i don't i don't think i allocated them in terms of you you must focus on high and then medium and then low i allocated them on the basis that these are all crucial
01:25:53 crucial they've got corresponding time frames but you need to do them all and that's always been my message so you didn't prioritize them according to risk well we
01:26:04 to risk well we we did in terms of we passed on the information to the people who were responsible for completing the actions they were absolutely clear what the priority had been given but they also knew my expectation was that
01:26:15 they also knew my expectation was that they completed all of them in priority order where that was it was appropriate but they needed to do all of them would you say in priority order where that was appropriate it was always appropriate wasn't it because of the
01:26:26 wasn't it because of the the order of risk set out in this document yeah the point i'm making obviously not very articulately is that sometimes you would look at this and think oh that medium is really easy i could
01:26:37 i could i could do that first that wasn't what i wanted them to do i wanted them to do it but if they had a finite resource they obviously had to target the high risk that was pretty evident
01:26:48 risk that was pretty evident but let me just see if i can understand this you wanted them to do them all like that i understand but here you have uh a set of uh what we can what we call fra actions with three levels high medium and low
01:27:02 did you take any steps to make sure that the people who to whom you were passing on these items for completion pursued a particular order according to
01:27:13 pursued a particular order according to the risk level um i think probably the answer to that is no because everybody who had actions were very clear and had been briefed on the process and briefed on the priorities
01:27:24 process and briefed on the priorities and briefed on the time scales and then when we went into the w-2 process we had a stakeholder meeting on the draft workflow where everybody was briefed again
01:27:35 was briefed again um so everybody with actions was absolutely clear so i i'm not sure what more i could have done to ensure that they targeted they they already were on message they knew that was the
01:27:47 message they knew that was the expectation right so just take the first one we can see on the page by way of example only uh high priority i item one uh identified risk or hazard you can see
01:28:00 uh identified risk or hazard you can see that in the box there holes through the fire compartment wall of the ground floor electrical room recommendation is the electrical wiring in the ground floor electrical room is checked by an electrician to see that no damage has been caused to the electrical
01:28:11 damage has been caused to the electrical supply of the building by the contractors did you you would presumably send that to somebody for sorting out would you tell them that that was a high priority time scale
01:28:23 that was a high priority time scale and had to be done within two to three weeks
01:28:28 weeks yes and how would you do that um i
01:28:34 um i i suspect that um when we started receiving the salvus report
01:28:42 report i think what i possibly did in the beginning and it's just so long i can't remember the detail it's quite possible that they their actions came in in a spreadsheet and i have i suspect that i sent the
01:28:53 have i suspect that i sent the spreadsheet having identified the responsible department to each of those departments so that they could see all of the actions that related to them and the priority and the time frame
01:29:04 and the priority and the time frame right and how did you then ensure that the actions were actually or had been actually addressed and completed within the allotted time scale
01:29:12 scale in this case two to three weeks
01:29:15 and and before w-2 it was a challenge but i
01:29:18 but i know what i had sent them i would chase with them i would we when when um we started to receive the salvage report i met with the the team leaders and stuart thompson whose name you saw
01:29:30 stuart thompson whose name you saw earlier and some of his other corresponding team leaders who were getting the actions on i think it was a two weekly basis and we went through those schedules those those
01:29:41 those schedules those those spreadsheets and what happened when an action was not resolved within the allocated time scale the only thing i can do is escalate it i i would obviously start with the
01:29:53 i i would obviously start with the manager and say you do realize this is crucial this is outstanding um and they may or may not give me what they consider to be a valid reason um and i would escalate and i recall
01:30:04 um and i would escalate and i recall that russell thompson who was the interim technical director at that stage um had been involved in the recruitment and procurement of the the con the fire consultant so was well
01:30:16 the con the fire consultant so was well aware of the need um to get to give priority and i would probably i would escalate it to my line manager as well who was on the executive team and i would keep doing that now can we go to the uh next action plan for
01:30:28 go to the uh next action plan for grenfell tower november 2012 uh at cst403083
01:30:39 and you can see there that the priority time scales
01:30:46 are now for medium instead of one to two months it's now two to three months and uh for the low it'll change from three to six months to six to 12 months uh why do the priority time scales
01:30:58 uh why do the priority time scales change
01:31:00 change i don't recall mr stokes said that he changed it on the basis of the lga guide being published and the time scales in there but
01:31:11 and the time scales in there but we've had difficulty identifying why that should be the case can you help no i can't i'm sorry did you have any discussion with mr stakes about why he had changed the priority time scales for grenville tower at least
01:31:23 for grenville tower at least uh in the way i've identified um i'm sure any changes he introduced would have been would have been introduced across
01:31:30 across all of his assessments but i i mean he may well have spoken to me but i i'm sorry i don't recollect did you have any discussion with mr stakes about those changes
01:31:38 changes not that i recall did you did you notice them
01:31:42 them um i'm sure that i would have done but sorry uh it's gone did you just to be clear had you or any of your
01:31:53 just to be clear had you or any of your your colleagues ask mr stokes to change these time scales no that's absolutely not my role um he's the assessor it's for him to set the time frames
01:32:04 the time frames and it's for us to to work to them and publicize them amongst our colleagues and make
01:32:08 and make sure that everybody's clear about the deadlines can we go then to cst sorry before we do that can i just ask you um
01:32:16 you um how did you understand these priorities time skills what did they mean as far as you were aware we did i do recall conversations about um
01:32:26 um i had some pressure shall we say sometimes from colleagues who went oh but i've started this now can i say it's completed
01:32:32 completed absolutely not um but and i would have had conversations with carl about when we could use partially completed and i think what we agreed was particularly with something that was
01:32:44 particularly with something that was going to be a challenge and and quite a long time scale
01:32:49 scale if we had an order number and a start date and those that sort of information then that that could be stored on the system and then that
01:32:57 that that action could be considered i think you're quite seeing my point sorry what did you understand it to me priority high priority time scale high two to three weeks
01:33:08 weeks um i understood it to mean that from when i
01:33:12 when i uh received the action and put it on the system
01:33:15 system that there was two to three weeks and i um to do what well well that's sorry that's what i was trying to explain that in my view um we were trying to complete them
01:33:25 them however um in conversation with the assessor his view was that in some cases
01:33:32 cases we at least needed to be able to demonstrate that we had partially completed we started the work that we that um that yeah i'm not fudging it well you are a bit because it either means completed within
01:33:44 because it either means completed within two to three weeks or started within two to three weeks which did you understand it meant i understood that it was not possible to always complete in two to three years the question is what does the what was
01:33:55 the question is what does the what was this telling you whether you could comply with it or not is perhaps a different question what was this telling you it's telling me that i should complete within two to three weeks okay sorry sorry it's just that i
01:34:06 okay sorry sorry it's just that i understand the qualifications you seek to make but i just wanted to understand how you read this
01:34:12 this um because we've had evidence from mr stokes and i wanted to know what you thought yeah no no sorry i'm sorry if i misled you no no that that's from my view in an ideal world that's what we were
01:34:23 in an ideal world that's what we were working to and that's what we should have been achieving so sorry yeah thank you very much right so so
01:34:28 so so that's that's very helpful um in light of that and it perhaps clears up something i was going to ask you uh a little bit later but can we look at the
01:34:37 the 2014 version of the action plan for grenfell tower which is cst403177
01:34:48 uh and here we have uh the record of significant action significant findings in action planned 17th of october 2014. and here now we see priority time scales
01:34:59 and here now we see priority time scales high two to three weeks medium two to three months low six to 12 months as we had in the november 2012 version but now we can see words in brackets after that
01:35:11 words in brackets after that to start to action any works now mr stokes told us that it applied to all time scales not just the the low ones uh
01:35:25 not just the the low ones uh had you or your colleagues discussed the this addition in the brackets there with mr stokes
01:35:34 um we may have had conversations with him
01:35:37 him but we certainly didn't ask him to incorporate this i mean he he could see that some things were challenging um but and and we we've probably reflected that back to him but we didn't
01:35:48 reflected that back to him but we didn't we wouldn't have requested that he put this
01:35:50 this in this was this is his document this was his um jurisdiction are you able to explain from your own knowledge and recollection why that text in those brackets were at was added
01:36:00 was added no i'm not sorry what what it means at least according to this but what did you understand it to mean um
01:36:08 um i understood it to mean that in in situations where it would just not be feasible for procurement reasons or whatever um to to achieve the time frames
01:36:21 um to to achieve the time frames that are set by the priority that we at least
01:36:24 least need to ensure that within that period we can demonstrate that we have um sort of substantially put in place or started to take action take action whether that be procurement
01:36:36 take action whether that be procurement or
01:36:37 or whatever where did you get that understanding from uh i don't know sorry okay um
01:36:47 it meant then didn't it on the basis of what you've just told us that the tma was no longer required to complete and close off
01:36:55 close off actions within the relevant time scale as it had done in the previous two fras for grenfell tower we've been looking at but now only to start them
01:37:06 but now only to start them or substantially start them within the time frame no it it my understanding and my interpretation was that it related to those
01:37:15 those which were where there was a significant amount of work um you know to go back to my original to like months master doors that that was something there was no way that we could have turned it around anywhere
01:37:26 could have turned it around anywhere near this
01:37:27 near this um so something substantial and and kind of
01:37:31 of just just beyond the capacity to complete in that time it wasn't it wasn't applied routinely to everything it should only have been those kinds of works but with great respect it doesn't say that does it it says to start
01:37:43 that does it it says to start to action any works not those works which
01:37:47 which mr stokes should decide uh because of the amount of work involved could safely be started only within that period
01:37:58 be started only within that period um it doesn't say that you're right but i'm telling you what my interpretation was and and generally in the organization anyone with any queries would come to me and i would
01:38:09 queries would come to me and i would tell them
01:38:09 tell them what i've just said um and to be honest by then we're on w-2 land
01:38:16 land so i'm probably the only person who's seeing
01:38:19 seeing mostly the only person who's seeing this document as it stands because we're lifting the information out and putting it into w-2 so people aren't that's not kind of widely circulated
01:38:31 widely circulated on the face of it it means doesn't it that
01:38:34 that outstanding actions could continue indefinitely so long as the work was started but not completed within the relevant time scale not to me it doesn't never on the face of it well if you want to be really literal then i suppose
01:38:45 literal then i suppose it it could but my point is hardly anyone seeing that and i'm not interpreting it that way so so does it come to this that despite what the document says you understood it to mean that a
01:38:57 you understood it to mean that a judgment would have to be made whether or not the works had to be started within the period or had to be finished within the period depending on what the works involved were
01:39:08 were um you could put it that way i would i would how would you put it i would put it that we were endeavoring to work to those time frames except in exceptional circumstances where it was just beyond the capacity
01:39:22 it was just beyond the capacity um because of significant factors mr chairman can i just finish off this live questions very briefly then we can where we will change topic if you look at the last column just on the screen in front of
01:39:34 column just on the screen in front of you
01:39:34 you yeah date to be completed by would you complete that routinely um once you fill it in um once we had the workflow i wouldn't have used
01:39:46 had the workflow i wouldn't have used this other than just to scribble to my colleague
01:39:49 colleague allocate this to this person um because all of the document all of the um information would be on the workflow and could be extracted electronically historically i would have filled that in and what date would you you have
01:40:00 date would you you have known to use um well i would have used these time frames and then i would expect anybody with um if there were circumstances that i wasn't aware of i expect people
01:40:11 expect people allocated those actions to be giving me those explanations especially when i was circulating their outstanding list they you know ultimately barbara was holding them into account and saying why have you got this many and explain
01:40:22 why have you got this many and explain to me and i want to report on on what those issues are so it would be that point that we'd be able to identify any that um
01:40:30 um just were significantly large or complex so in respect of any given fra item a judgment had to be made about the date
01:40:41 a judgment had to be made about the date by which it had to be completed is that right so well if that's what i said that wasn't what i i was meaning what i meant was we were still trying to work to these time frames ignore what it says
01:40:53 to these time frames ignore what it says in the brackets and over and and when the allocations were done
01:40:58 were done then these time frames were allocated because we were trying to be more rigorous about ensuring the completions and we're sending out regular updates um and asking for explanations
01:41:10 updates um and asking for explanations why things were exceeding those sometimes it was at that point that people were saying well actually that wasn't realistic because what you didn't appreciate was um so and so it obviously had to be
01:41:23 um so and so it obviously had to be it had to have the input of the people who are completing the action because they knew
01:41:27 they knew um what complexities there were so does it come to this i'm just trying to understand your evidence tell me if this is wrong that you treated these priority time scales
01:41:38 scales as the time scales by which the works had to be completed save in a particular case a special case where the works for good practical reasons couldn't be completed in that
01:41:49 reasons couldn't be completed in that time frame yes i wish i could have put it that way but yeah you were the person who would who would make that judgment call uh um
01:41:58 uh um no i don't think i was because i wasn't in control of most of the actions were allocated elsewhere
01:42:04 elsewhere um i was the person who would chase up and have discussions with people and help identify where that was the case or reluctantly accept
01:42:12 accept um but it but it wasn't for me to make that judgment so who would um well if it was a contract management issue then it would have been the head of coming and speaking to me saying this is
01:42:23 and speaking to me saying this is unrealistic because um you weren't aware that we would have to follow all of these issues so that would have been um generally would have been a dialogue with the head of
01:42:32 of the team allocating the action i can understand that that person would have come to you and provided you with information but isn't it the case that you would have been the person who would have analyzed that information
01:42:43 that information and dismayed the decision about whether or not
01:42:46 or not it could still and should still be finished within the time frame or not um
01:42:53 or not um i don't entirely agree because they're the technical expert and they understand the remit i i can i can um i can go through what they're telling me and i can see whether legitimately it
01:43:04 and i can see whether legitimately it can be finished in the time frame or not but i can't control the work so if i if i accept that it can't be done in two to three weeks i'm still saying to them you still need
01:43:16 i'm still saying to them you still need to do it as soon as possible and you need to give me a time frame but i can't control that and where you were unable to comply with the time scale set by the action plans reading them as completion dates and not start dates did you ever go back to mr
01:43:28 start dates did you ever go back to mr stokes and and tell him that you've been able to complete a high-risk item in three weeks say and ask for his view
01:43:39 say and ask for his view no i don't i don't recollect sorry why is that
01:43:42 is that why didn't you do that
01:43:46 run that by me again please well we've got no record of you ever going back to mr stokes and saying to him we have a high risk item here that we cannot complete within three weeks what is your view about whether it's
01:43:57 what is your view about whether it's risky to
01:43:59 risky to oh yeah we would have had those conversations most definitely um and and sometimes i would have sought his view when i'd had a conversation with for example alex um this is what alex is telling me you
01:44:10 um this is what alex is telling me you know and in that case do we need an interim measure i mean do we need to advise the brigade or or you know i would have thought sorry i i'm over jaded today apologies um
01:44:22 i'm over jaded today apologies um yes i would have thought his view if i thought that it was a particularly significant issue that was going to be delayed um excessively uh so yes sorry and that may have been verbal
01:44:33 verbal apologies no that's very clear thank you mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think we ought to take a break now uh mr ray so we will and uh we'll resume please at 20 to 12.
01:44:44 and uh we'll resume please at 20 to 12. and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room
01:44:48 the room all right thank you very much we'd like to give the usher please [Music]
01:44:59 thank you 20 to 12 please
01:49:39 [Music] [Applause]
01:52:13 [Music]
01:53:06 [Music]
01:53:59 [Music]
01:55:03 [Music]
01:58:42 [Music]
02:00:23 [Music]
02:00:44 yes would you ask us ready to come back in please
02:00:57 all right mr ready to carry on thank you very much
02:01:01 very much yes mr millet yes
02:01:07 miss ray can i just ask you to look please
02:01:10 please at jw27 which is at tm0084 2277
02:01:20 i want to see if we can work through by way of a worked example how your how this system of prioritization would work so far as you were concerned now um if you look
02:01:33 um if you look at this this is uh w-2 isn't it yes now uh it was generated in the summer or after the
02:01:45 in the summer or after the last fra for grenfell tower on the 20th of june 2016. you can see what's on the screen relates to grenfell tower and under the process start date you can see uh that there is a date of the eighth of
02:01:58 uh that there is a date of the eighth of august yes 2016. yes and it was it was it you who entered that on the system that day do you think
02:02:05 you think um i can't remember if it was if it was allocated automatically or if i just clicked on the date sorry i can't recall no was it well was it you click you press the button to put the date in the in the machine that's my point i can't remember if it
02:02:17 that's my point i can't remember if it would automatically come up because that's a date that i'm manually inviting it sorry um it could have been me i i can't i understand now um the 8th of august is itself evidently
02:02:28 the 8th of august is itself evidently some two and a half months after the 20th of june 2016 isn't it can you explain why uh this uh process start date is being entered only on the uh eighth of august uh six
02:02:41 the uh eighth of august uh six weeks or so after the 20th of june sorry one and a half months uh no did i receive the the fra on the 20th of june well it's dated the 20th of june
02:02:50 june let me ask you would there normally be a time lag between the date of the significant findings and generated by mr stokes and it coming into your hands um there
02:03:01 it coming into your hands um there wouldn't be much of a time lag there would often be a bit of a discrepancy no but a bit of a discrepancy what sort of time frame not six weeks well no i wouldn't have thought so no um therefore can you explain why it is
02:03:12 um therefore can you explain why it is that you're only beginning it appears on this document to uh enter the enter the information into w2
02:03:19 w2 some six weeks or so after the date of the fra even allowing for a short time lag between him generating it and you getting it i can't explain
02:03:30 getting it i can't explain um what i would say is if um if there were if i hadn't had the opportunity to put it into the workflow when i was going on leave or something like that
02:03:40 like that what i'm what i would have generally done would be send out the action plan to the teams and say this will be coming to you through w-2 but this is to just you can start working on it but i don't recall so i'm just speculating
02:03:57 i don't recall so i'm just speculating uh now if you um if you look at um the high priority the ones yes you can see
02:04:08 that there's a column for priority high you see that yes uh and uh you can follow them down on this page on this screen there are some four uh which are high priority
02:04:19 some four uh which are high priority uh which fall into either miscellaneous or the inspection regime yes yes if you look across to action
02:04:29 yes um you can see um that there's a description of each of them
02:04:36 them taking the uh
02:04:45 uh taking the what's here where is it h3 can we go to page three please
02:04:55 yes and look at the last entry on that page uh
02:04:58 page uh yes you can see under action there that although this is high it says the flat entrance door of flat 23 is damaged with the letterbox missing you see that yes uh and um this was uh assigned
02:05:10 yes uh and um this was uh assigned to health and safety you and your name do you see that yes uh uh the
02:05:17 the the opening date is the 9th of august 2016
02:05:20 2016 and the close-out date predicted or projected is the 6th of september 2016. you see that yes 6th of september and the description of what should be done under action is the door should be repaired and a new
02:05:31 the door should be repaired and a new fire-rated letterbox fitted alternatively a new self-closing certified 30 minute fire rated door fitted with intumescent strips and coal smoke seals could be installed installed response repair requested
02:05:42 installed response repair requested order number and there's an order number now 6th of september who chose that date would it be you um
02:05:54 again i can't i can't recall but the 6th of september is is against each of the high categories isn't it so i don't know if it's system generated or if i put it in
02:06:05 generated or if i put it in well that's the question if the system generated it what would be the basis on which 6th of september would be picked whether by you manually or by the system automatically
02:06:18 i wish i could remember the detail there was some detailed instructions which came with the workflow which set out exactly the criteria and what screen to be
02:06:28 be what needs to be under each screen what's manual what's computer generated and i haven't seen them for ages you see 6th of september is about 2 and a half months after the 20th of
02:06:39 months after the 20th of june which was the date of the fra can you account for why this uh platform or document or database
02:06:50 this uh platform or document or database had the 6th of september 2016 as the completion date for a high risk item for this high-risk item
02:06:57 item no i can't
02:07:01 and we can see that there's no completion date is there
02:07:06 um well there would have been it's just that we didn't widen the columns because those asterisks will be numbers right
02:07:15 right now let's look then at the question of interim measures which we touched on can we look please back again at your 2013 fire safety strategy tmo double zero eight three zero five
02:07:27 tmo double zero eight three zero five nine eight and i'd like to get a page ten in that document please paragraph 14.4.2 we looked at 14.4.1 earlier under 14.4.2
02:07:40 we looked at 14.4.1 earlier under 14.4.2 it says where a high priority action cannot be progressed with the appropriate degree of urgency such as where significant resources and or lengthy procurement are required then entering measures to reduce the fire safety risk in the short term will
02:07:52 fire safety risk in the short term will be implemented specifically these interim measures will be contingency plans instigated when fire protection measures are out of use their repair is delayed etc did that apply to actions which could
02:08:05 did that apply to actions which could not be completed within the time scale set by carl stakes in his significant findings and action plans
02:08:12 it would not have applied to every action that was there was outside the time frame because it just physically wouldn't be possible to go through it it was aimed at sort of significant um
02:08:25 it was aimed at sort of significant um significant issues where there is going to be a delay um i can give you an example um we were doing fire safety works at relic tower trellic tower is a listed building
02:08:36 tower trellic tower is a listed building and we had to work on the corridor doors which needed very specific bespoke hinges um
02:08:42 hinges um so in the meantime they were not behaving as they should and we agreed with fire brigade in that case with the interim measure would be to install temporary um temporary doors in those locations so in in big um in in terms of significant
02:08:55 in big um in in terms of significant risks
02:08:56 risks yes that's what we tried to do right you say we tried to do on the face of it it looks as if uh a decision would have to be made on a case-by-case basis
02:09:07 case-by-case basis whether significant resources or lengthy procurement were required is that right um i suppose what i'm suggesting is that um
02:09:18 what i'm suggesting is that um where people for all the reasons we said for
02:09:21 for if there's going to be a very complex issue which will cause significant delay those are the ones we should be looking at as the initial priority but there may be others
02:09:29 be others um yes and again the uh other side of the coin of decide of the decision that significant resources or lengthy procurement was
02:09:40 resources or lengthy procurement was required is that interim measures would be implemented yes
02:09:46 yes where they're required then yes they should be they should be investigated and
02:09:49 and and progressed when necessary do you remember whether there were any fra actions in respect of grenfell tower specifically where interim measures were implemented in accordance with
02:10:00 in accordance with this part of your fire safety strategy
02:10:08 i think there were some in okay my recollection is that when there were problems with the alv which was either not working completely
02:10:21 not working completely not working comprehensively or it was certainly
02:10:25 certainly potentially defective um that there were some interim measures discussed with the fire brigade i believe between ryden's and the fire brigade there were a range of of things where we
02:10:36 there were a range of of things where we tried to things like some just proactively increase the familiarization but also
02:10:41 but also there were issues about um being control of hot works um i can't recall it was really for the project team to came up with with a range of of
02:10:52 came up with with a range of of of things so i think i think there were um sorry i can't recall what else can't recall the detail apologies
02:11:04 apologies [Music]
02:11:08 but can we take it the policy at least according to the 2013 fire safety strategy was that where a judgment was made that because significant resources or lengthy
02:11:19 significant resources or lengthy procurement was required so that the high priority action could not be completed within the stokes time scales
02:11:26 scales there would be interim measures put in place
02:11:29 place that was the policy that was the policy and they should be considered and where appropriate they should be put in place so does that tell us that for every red item not completed within the three week
02:11:42 not completed within the three week outer
02:11:43 outer limit because of special considerations there would inevitably be interim measures in order to reduce the fire safety risk in the short term
02:11:54 safety risk in the short term i don't i don't believe that it was perceived they would be necessary in every case but there should always be a consideration given to whether it's appropriate to have injury measures
02:12:05 appropriate to have injury measures and what they would be
02:12:16 now can we go just briefly to dr lane's report at blarp25027
02:12:30 dr lane's report at blarp25027 page 141.
02:12:35 page 141. and near the bottom of the page you will see paragraph 8.2.37
02:12:44 and she having quoted from the november 2013 fire safety strategy that i've just shown you says that there was a stated commitment
02:12:56 says that there was a stated commitment that contingency plans would be instigated where when fire protection measures are out of use their repair is delayed etc now
02:13:05 etc now and then she goes on to say at 8.2.38 note i have found no evidence of any such contingency plan being made by the kctmo for grenfell tower
02:13:16 by the kctmo for grenfell tower for example the lobby smoke control system in grenfell tower was known to be non-functional for an extended period c-section 12 below in my chapter 7. in my opinion if the arrangement set out
02:13:27 in my opinion if the arrangement set out in 1404 were implemented adequately this could enable kc tmo to comply with article 9 of the rrfso now um leaving aside the aov which we're
02:13:39 um leaving aside the aov which we're going to come back to in detail later in your evidence were there any contingency measures put in place in the circumstances described by dr lane and indeed by paragraph 14.4.2 of your
02:13:51 and indeed by paragraph 14.4.2 of your rep of your strategy i believe that there were over the years there were a number of interim measures put in place um i suspect
02:14:02 put in place um i suspect there weren't as many as there should have been in as many circumstances but um can you identify any well other than the aov can you identify it you're
02:14:12 it you're going forward yes um
02:14:20 sorry i just can't recall i can't recall the detail of would interim measures which as we can see would be put in place where the high
02:14:31 would be put in place where the high priority action could not be progressed within the time frame uh be recorded anywhere in any system not specifically although i would um
02:14:44 not specifically although i would um i would have put details into the w-2 system of anything that i knew i'd been made aware of was being put in place
02:14:53 place would have updated um the information there
02:14:57 there we don't i think my writing's saying see a column
02:15:01 a column in wt no there isn't a dedicated column no so where would you put it um so the the last thing that you showed me which which actually had responsive repair and an order number
02:15:12 an order number that would have been input by me to as an update
02:15:16 an update i could have added any subsequent information to that box i see so we would have to look in that column would be uh yes in order to find what interim measures yes have been put in place right and that's assuming that i've been
02:15:29 right and that's assuming that i've been advised of them because i may not be can you just help me with this i think what you said a moment ago was that if there were a high priority item which could not be
02:15:44 completed within the time scale indicated
02:15:48 indicated that at least there would be consideration of interim measures and then possibly the implementation of interim measures how would we know whether interim measures
02:16:00 measures had been considered was there any record of that
02:16:04 of that we probably wouldn't um i might remember but i don't know that that there's an obvious place for that to be logged um
02:16:18 logged um i mean obviously in a specific example of of grenfell tower there's lots of discussion about inter measures in terms of the aov but i don't think that's even all captured in one location yeah but there
02:16:29 captured in one location yeah but there was no system for as it were recording well the fact that there was a high priority item and a decision being taken whether or not interim measures
02:16:40 taken whether or not interim measures would be appropriate no and and
02:16:44 that should have been somehow rather captured in the workflow europe you're right but i think it was an oversight um and yeah i can't really give you enough experience thank you very much yes thank you mr
02:16:57 thank you very much yes thank you mr chairman
02:16:58 chairman what follows from that at least one thing that follows from that is the question of whether mr stokes was told of any decision to put in place interim measures where his time scales could not be met did you have a system for reverting to
02:17:11 did you have a system for reverting to mr stokes to tell him that although a particular high-risk item could not be completed uh within the three-week outer limit
02:17:20 limit nonetheless interim measures have been put in place i would have told him verbally i would have told him by email or on the telephone because we would have probably started off having a discussion about
02:17:31 discussion about what potential interim measures might be adequate
02:17:34 adequate we would have usually engaged him in that process so i think he would have he would have been aware right verbally by email
02:17:41 by email or telephone doesn't sound like a system it sounds more ad hoc is that right yes probably therefore things could get missed things could get missed um now
02:17:53 things could get missed um now i want to ask you some questions about backlog can i ask you to look please at your first witness statement at page 34 paragraph 151
02:18:04 you say that the number of actions to be completed arising from the fra fluctuated and inevitably at times there was a high level of outstanding actions
02:18:15 was a high level of outstanding actions i found this could be challenging to resolve because as mentioned earlier in most cases the actions had not been assigned to me for completion i often queried why actions have not been completed with the responsible team and was given a variety of explanations
02:18:27 and was given a variety of explanations as to why they could not be completed more quickly now you say that it was or you found it could be challenging to resolve
02:18:36 resolve outstanding actions why was that
02:18:40 um i think i probably meant frustrating really because i was chasing people and meeting with team leaders and taking on stats and escalating um further up the organization and
02:18:52 um further up the organization and sometimes
02:18:52 sometimes felt that things were still not moving as swiftly as as they should so it was out it's the frustration in that it's out of my control yet i really need to try and achieve it and i haven't got control of it and you
02:19:05 and i haven't got control of it and you say as i've read to you i often queried why actions have not been completed how were those queries communicated was that email or on the platform um or what um a variety of ways again i
02:19:16 um or what um a variety of ways again i would often go and speak to people because i think um when you eyeball them sometimes you're you're unlikely to get more of a commitment um some you know
02:19:27 um some you know sometimes we had poorly performing contractors so we had issues which were challenging for the teams to resolve um or other things that i was i was not necessarily aware of because i wasn't in that team
02:19:37 that team i would i would go and speak to people i would as i've said before i would have regular meetings particularly with the head of the contract management team um probably probably every three weeks
02:19:48 um probably probably every three weeks something like that but i would have a lot of dialogue with him in the meantime um i would escalate we would have discussions at all of the committees that we've we've mentioned before you say you were
02:20:00 we've mentioned before you say you were given a variety of explanations as to why they couldn't be completed more quickly what kind of explanations did you receive
02:20:09 receive in general so sometimes it was to do with performance of contractors sometimes we had polar performance contractors that we were trying to take action against sometimes it was that contractors were getting towards the end of their
02:20:20 getting towards the end of their contract and were sort of a bit disinterested and quite challenging to to to get them to do what they they were required to do by the contract um i i can't really
02:20:33 um i i can't really i'm sort of answering other people's behalf really um so i mean i think that's responsible because you were you received these explanations and i just wanted to know what what kinds of experts
02:20:42 experts you received fair enough um so in terms of responsive repairs i i think we didn't anticipate the volume of repairs um we initially i think we had
02:20:54 um we initially i think we had outsourced the repairs to a williams or morrisons or whatever there was an external contractor they were quite that was a difficult um contract and again was there were
02:21:06 contract and again was there were performance issues um yeah just just various things like that really when i say well why didn't oh well we've got a subbie and there's a problem with them and we're recruiting there just seemed to be an endless sort
02:21:17 there just seemed to be an endless sort of series of reasons they sound like excuses rather than reasons well i can only tell you what i was told now did you ever see any improvements
02:21:28 now did you ever see any improvements to the backlog as a result of your queries and chasing up uh why it was that these outstanding actions couldn't be completed more quickly
02:21:36 quickly yeah and i think people were committed to trying to get the backlog down it wasn't something they were blase about i think they were constrained by other factors some of which i i won't be aware of um
02:21:47 some of which i i won't be aware of um and
02:21:47 and you know there was a sustained procurement in terms of particularly contract management but also i think in terms of subcontractors that repairs direct
02:21:55 direct had access to and things did improve and they were definitely moving in the right direction and we were we were constantly looking at how the actions were coming in and how we could did the process need
02:22:07 and how we could did the process need more streamlining you know was it clear what the action was because i think as occasionally people would say well i've been given a choice here surely the assessor should just say do this and my view was always that that wasn't
02:22:18 and my view was always that that wasn't his his role his role was to say this needs doing you could these are suggested ways of doing it for us as a responsible person we should have been deciding however there were there were kind of various things which were were put to me
02:22:30 things which were were put to me which were perhaps impacting on the number of
02:22:33 number of outstanding actions and and i investigated and tried to act on all of them
02:22:37 them yes now when you say outstanding just to understand what you mean by outstanding there
02:22:42 there do you mean uh undone or do you mean undone past the due date by which they ought to have been done um i mean undone right
02:22:54 so an outstanding action was an an item one day after the fra had been received was it is that right well potentially i don't see the value it's been identified by the fire risk assessment as needing
02:23:05 the fire risk assessment as needing doing i don't see the value in waiting for the two months or three months or whatever is up and then calling it outstanding i was just trying to keep people focusing on the need to do them and so i didn't think that would be helpful to
02:23:16 think that would be helpful to differentiate but wasn't there a difference in your mind and in your approach between an item that was outstanding because you'd only been told about it the day before by mr stokes on the one hand and an item that was outstanding because it was past the due date
02:23:27 it was past the due date yes i would have put a lot more rigor into everything that was beyond the due date
02:23:31 date um however i i still looked at it holistically and i tried to get the message across holistically right now i'd like to look with you at some of the actions taken to address the outstanding fra actions in light of that
02:23:44 outstanding fra actions in light of that qualification um can we look please at tm01001026
02:24:00 um can we look please at tm01001026 this is a set of minutes of the tmo health and safety committee 26th of january 2012. and we can see that you are present there
02:24:11 there is second listed can we go please to page
02:24:14 page three paragraph eight tenth line where you s you see that you s it is
02:24:22 is recorded as follows janus was continuing to chase up outstanding actions from the various fra action plans in particular from the high risk program unfortunately
02:24:34 from the high risk program unfortunately a significant number of these have yet to be completed see that yes when it refers here to the high risk fra program is the note
02:24:45 high risk fra program is the note speaking of the fire risk assessments completed by salvas yes it is right and that concluded in about may 2010 didn't it yes yes so is it right that even though the high-risk fra program had concluded
02:24:58 the high-risk fra program had concluded in may 2010 you were still having a problem in completing fra actions from that program over a year and a half later that seems to be what it's saying yes
02:25:08 i we as we looked at before with the fire risk assessment that was completed by carl stokes uh in september 2009 on the 30th of september 2009 for grenfell tower
02:25:19 september 2009 for grenfell tower the time scales there required completion of actions um at the latest for level four within three months or agree plan within six months we looked at that yesterday you recall yes can you explain in light of that uh and
02:25:31 can you explain in light of that uh and we can go back to the documents if we need to but can you explain why there was why there were any high risk items at all still outstanding as of may 2010 no i can't
02:25:43 and would you agree with me that even taking the latest date you were 12 months behind in completing some of the fra actions yes yes were you concerned by that absolutely did you identify what it was at the time
02:25:55 did you identify what it was at the time that was causing the problem i tried i as i said to you i met regularly with all of the teams who who had actions allocated um i tried to figure out if there were blockages in the system of
02:26:06 the system of things which were unclear if we needed particular contractors that we needed to procure
02:26:11 procure um and during this time there was endless um reports to to the ops committee
02:26:18 committee didn't have statistical breakdown but said there are still issues that are unresolved some things were simple and were completed really swiftly and some some were not um
02:26:29 really swiftly and some some were not um yeah it was a concern for me
02:26:32 right uh did you raise the concern that you've just identified with anthony parks who i think was your line manager
02:26:40 manager at that time you did what did he do um i'm not really clear to be honest um i imagine but i i imagine that he spoke to in the first
02:26:52 imagine that he spoke to in the first instance sasha javens who's the executive director for the ops department and all of all these outstanding actions pretty much were within the ops department um but i wasn't party to any of those conversations so i can't really tell you
02:27:04 conversations so i can't really tell you for sure
02:27:05 for sure now there appears at least on the face of this note or minute to be no specific action agreed at this meeting uh for how to deal with this problem is that right um yeah that seems to be right at that
02:27:17 um yeah that seems to be right at that time yeah right what action did you take yourself to try to resolve it other than the general chasing up exercise um
02:27:28 exercise um chasing up and escalating and raising at every opportunity and trying to get people to put it on their agenda senior managers to to to um acknowledge that this is an
02:27:39 to to um acknowledge that this is an issue
02:27:40 issue um so it was the problem that people weren't taking it seriously no i don't i don't think that is the case so why did you why would you need to make sure that people would put it on their agenda and senior manager would acknowledge
02:27:51 and senior manager would acknowledge that it was a an issue clearly it was an issue
02:27:56 issue so why i mean the fact that it's being sorry to talk of you um the fact that it's being discussed here regularly discussed here and it's an ongoing problem and anthony chose his group and feeds into the executive team and the executive team
02:28:08 executive team and the executive team know that that we're not where we should be with this um and
02:28:14 um and i just keep on hassling people because that's what i i do because i want it to be resolved i want to figure out why it's not being progressed in a timely manner
02:28:24 and um
02:28:31 at this stage did you begin to have a clue about what the real underlying problem was that was causing these outstanding actions to remain outstanding for so long
02:28:44 outstanding for so long not consistently actually no i mean i know i keep harping on about non-performing contractors but there were particular contractors where potentially a lot of of actions would
02:28:55 potentially a lot of of actions would have ended up with with them so if they weren't performing um then that started to be a backlog very swiftly um right i i can't really give you an
02:29:06 right i i can't really give you an explanation um let's um let you mention repeat reporting this up the stream let's look briefly please at the annual health and safety report for this period
02:29:18 health and safety report for this period which is dated 31st of march 2012. it's a tmo100
02:29:27 and if we go to page 9 in that report
02:29:33 you can see there that you cover fras there
02:29:38 and
02:29:42 if you look at page 9 and over the page to page 10.
02:29:53 uh you you see that you report uh action plans and what's happening in that respect
02:30:00 respect uh and then you say 817 on page 10 in the second sentence in general the recommendations which relate to neighborhood management have been
02:30:10 been relatively straightforward and have been resolved swiss swiftly however quite a large volume of technical actions which have ranged in complexity and in cost and these have often taken some time to progress in particular some actions have required
02:30:21 in particular some actions have required a capital budget uh etc
02:30:26 and then 8.1.11 you say whilst progress to date has been worthy of note on the old phoebus timescale for completion of the high and medium risk action plans items by july 2014 is still a long way off a
02:30:39 july 2014 is still a long way off a significant amount of work remains if we are to ensure that all actions are completed additionally any further actions identified by subsequent fra reviews must also be resolved swiftly the continued commitment of staff and
02:30:50 the continued commitment of staff and contractors will therefore be required uh two things following from that last paragraph
02:30:55 paragraph first were you satisfied in your mind that you were bringing adequately to the attention of your seniors through this report the nature of the problem
02:31:04 problem about backlogs arising from the salvus report
02:31:07 report for the high risk program
02:31:13 possibly not um but this wasn't the only way that i was i was raising it with my seniors it's this wasn't the only reference to it or the
02:31:21 the the only time it had been escalated to them and secondly in the last sentence there you do say that the continued commitment of staff and contractors will therefore be required
02:31:29 required was that actually the problem that the staff and contractors were not continually committed i keep coming back to contractors
02:31:40 keep coming back to contractors there were often problems with contractors um and sometimes things that looked like they should have been easy to resolve we i recall
02:31:49 i recall around this time we had problems with unserviced extinguishers which should be the easiest thing in the world to complete we had a ppm contractor in place
02:31:59 place and it seemed to be really difficult just to get them to do what they're contracted to do and i don't believe um that there was a problem with commitment of staff other than some
02:32:09 than some some of them had lots of priorities and perhaps were focusing in on other operational responsibilities that's always a possibility yes um yes i understand now can we then look
02:32:19 look on at the minutes of the next health and safety committee meeting this is 22nd of may 2012
02:32:25 may 2012 at tm01 triple zero 1194. let's look at page one
02:32:32 we can see that you were there as well as uh
02:32:36 as uh among other people and if you look at the item one on the main points for consideration by executive team you'll see uh the fire risk assessment program for the low risk properties is complete
02:32:48 the low risk properties is complete with only two properties outstanding where access has not been possible but lock changes are now being progressed a significant amount of action plan items still need to be progressed was any action taken
02:32:59 any action taken or decided upon at this meeting do you remember given that there were still a significant number of actions outstanding um lornette pemberton obviously has apologized at that meeting and
02:33:10 apologized at that meeting and she normally chairs that meeting and definitely fed into her colleagues um i don't recall what i didn't know what i've forgotten actually is is we used to highlight
02:33:21 used to highlight this et to notice executive team to note we used to bring those points that if they if they for some reason didn't have time to go through all of the minutes they should at least pay attention to those right so the fact that it's the first thing on there then it's it's something
02:33:32 thing on there then it's it's something we want to bring to their attention i see
02:33:35 see i see now can we then look at the minutes of the assets and regeneration and repairs health and safety group we discussed that group yesterday and what it was um this is a tmo
02:33:46 what it was um this is a tmo one triple zero one eight five zero and this is the minutes of that group of uh meeting on the 13th of december 2012 and we can see that uh you were present
02:33:59 and we can see that uh you were present yes you see that if we go please to page three let's look at the middle of the page you could see that there under the heading fire risk assessment progress update
02:34:09 update section six outstanding actions its significant number of actions remain outstanding which is a cause for concern all were asked to ensure that these are progressed with action straight progress
02:34:20 progressed with action straight progress evidenced
02:34:21 evidenced and confirmed to h s team asap action all see that yes was it fair to say that for the entirety of 2012 which we've been looking at there were and remained a significant
02:34:32 there were and remained a significant number of outstanding actions um it looks that way did you raise uh that concern or problem with anthony parks
02:34:43 parks yes yes anybody more senior do you remember um i can't recall but i may well have done did any of your seniors propose a solution of any kind
02:34:54 solution of any kind not that i recall no now uh can we then go to 2013 please
02:35:04 tmo12002229 this is an email run and i'd like to go to page three in it please uh and if you go to
02:35:17 page three very top of the page it's an email from moira mcgarvey at rbkc so robert black of the 25th of february 2013 subject grenfell tower
02:35:28 february 2013 subject grenfell tower issue
02:35:28 issue now you're not copied into this particular email but
02:35:36 email but if you scroll up to page two what you do get
02:35:40 get is the email from robert black to sasha jevons the same day you see that yes yes now
02:35:51 do you remember any discussion between you and
02:35:54 you and peter madison about this email who's also involved in it um i remember this issue you remember the issue yes um let's um let's look at peter madison's email on page one
02:36:07 uh and on page one he says sasha i've met with my team and janice on this attack attached their actions from the meeting ricky's team and rge are working on a gap analysis of our fire equipment
02:36:19 on a gap analysis of our fire equipment servicing arrangements by friday this week
02:36:21 week and we will know what we need to do to recover the position by then janus is pulling together a gap analysis schedule of fire risk assessment actions by friday
02:36:29 friday and again we will be able to action them i've spoken to janice and insisted that we have an opportunity to check that everything is in order ahead of fire risk reports being issued to residents or auditors being taken to site to
02:36:40 or auditors being taken to site to inspect it's clear that there is a weakness in our management arrangements however we must ensure that our systems and checks serve to escalate and resolve these matters within kctma rather than flagging them up
02:36:51 rather than flagging them up outside the organization i think we need to talk to anthony about how we control this in future now can you just help us with why peter madison
02:37:00 madison was insisting that his team have an opportunity to check the fire risk reports themselves before they were issued to residents or auditors because uh mr o'connor francis o'connor
02:37:12 because uh mr o'connor francis o'connor had requested i sent him a copy of the current fire risk assessment for grenfell tower and i did and it stated very clearly that carl had identified some unserviced fire
02:37:23 identified some unserviced fire extinguishers um in the plant areas because that's the only locations that they were in and uh some of them were marked condemned and i
02:37:35 marked condemned and i obviously we'd had the fire risk assessment i think for a couple of months and that had been escalated to the team who are responsible for the servicing contractors and i had spoken to the head of that
02:37:46 and i had spoken to the head of that team
02:37:47 team a couple of times but it was still outstanding and so having given the fire risk assessment to mr o'connor he did what mr o'connor does and published some of it on his blog
02:37:58 published some of it on his blog and then uh that coincided with we were having an audit done by internal audit um warren mcgarvey's team and alpesh as part of the audit always wanted to go and do a random selection of inspections
02:38:11 and do a random selection of inspections he picked three blocks a high rise a low rise and a sheltered or something and and my colleague adrian would take him to the block and they would do a sort of joint inspection and unfortunately that also demonstrated
02:38:22 and unfortunately that also demonstrated to him
02:38:23 to him that there was a problem with the servicing of the extinguishers and that that was within the building services contract management team which was part of of peter's team in fairness to peter i
02:38:34 of peter's team in fairness to peter i think he'd only just started and been hit with
02:38:37 hit with um a problem right can you explain why well first do you agree with him that
02:38:48 well first do you agree with him that there was a weakness in the management arrangements well there clearly was a weakness in terms of the servicing and and the management of the the contractor and what did you take from him saying
02:39:00 and what did you take from him saying that the systems checks uh serve to escalate and resolve these matters within kctma rather than flagging them up outside the organization um i understood his position but if you
02:39:13 um i understood his position but if you asked me whether i would do the same thing again i would if a resident asked for a copy of the virus assessment i will give it to you so you understood his position what did you understand i think he was he was new he um had he came in and he'd
02:39:25 he was new he um had he came in and he'd immediately been presented with a problem
02:39:27 problem and so from his perspective it looked like we need to put our own house in order before we um and that's understandable um and if that meant that we were going to sort out the contractors and these issues were resolved then
02:39:38 were resolved then i was completely on board with them it sounds from what you're saying in a very delicate way perhaps that he was against the sharing of the fra with mr o'connor i don't think he he would have said that but i think he was frustrated
02:39:49 said that but i think he was frustrated that i had done it and i can understand why he was yes because he wanted to keep all the problems in-house without alerting
02:39:54 alerting the residents well i think he wanted to resolve them but he'd only just started and he hadn't had the opportunity to did you know that mr o'connor might publish parts of the fra on the blog when you sent it to him i thought it's possible that he would
02:40:05 i thought it's possible that he would but um
02:40:07 but um um now um
02:40:10 do you remember that you as part of this exercise at this time agreed to produce a master list of fras yes you did and did that include the compliance
02:40:21 compliance coding color and the details of the actions and works to be done i think so yes yeah um let's look at it rather than guessing
02:40:31 cmo1302288 please
02:40:39 uh now is that it is that the master list of fras
02:40:45 possibly sorry i don't uh well sorry you're only being shown the first page perhaps scroll down uh to um it's a long document which is why i'm not showing it to you all but if you
02:40:56 not showing it to you all but if you scroll down the first three or four pages you can see grenfell tower is item 2 november 2012. okay it may well be right um because it is prior to w-2 so it was
02:41:08 um because it is prior to w-2 so it was very challenging we've looked at it and it's up to date up to february 2013 and has a list of fras for previous periods
02:41:16 periods for lots of different buildings in the stock was this the first time you had ever produced a master list of fras which included color coding and actions and works required um
02:41:30 and actions and works required um i wouldn't have thought so but it but you probably know better than me um for interrogating this system it looks like it okay uh well in which case maybe maybe it was yes why had you not produced such a list before do you know
02:41:41 before do you know um i can't give you an explanation other than um i had hoped that i would get a system which was much easier to manipulate than working off word documents
02:41:52 off word documents um but you know the information was still
02:41:57 still being sent to the relevant people it just wasn't all in one master list i was probably working off it by property rather than right did you prepare one of these documents for each of the teams
02:42:10 for each of the teams so regeneration building services and contracts repairs direct i can't recall right did you discuss this document with mr madison once you've sent it to him
02:42:21 mr madison once you've sent it to him um i believe so i think i think we may have had a follow-up meeting to that initial meeting that he referred to right he says he he didn't recall seeing this document that was his evidence at day one two three page five line thirteen did you send it
02:42:33 page five line thirteen did you send it to him or not do you think um i would have i'm sure i would have copied it to him because he'd requested it i would imagine that he would be expecting his team leaders such as ricky sams to get on and do the
02:42:44 ricky sams to get on and do the the work that was required but i feel sure i would have copied it to him since it was a request from him right did did you discuss it with anthony parks uh quite likely to have because right
02:42:55 uh quite likely to have because right yes
02:42:56 yes what happened to this what what was the upshot of your production and dissemination of this document that you've been asked to produce um
02:43:07 i can't really recall to be honest i'm looking at the dates and thinking that um my business case so w2 was definitely coming on stream and we'd
02:43:18 and we'd be we were required to produce a business case for any workflows that we needed
02:43:22 needed and i know that i documented in i think health and safety committee in november 12
02:43:27 12 that i had prepared that with my i.t colleague
02:43:31 colleague so i'm thinking that this was was superseded fairly shortly afterwards by the the fra workflow unless i've got the dates wrong oh this is february 2013 that's the
02:43:42 oh this is february 2013 that's the uh the date uh we have on it through the document properties created by somebody called alex oni and i think you told us earlier that the w-2 system came on stream on the first of august 2013.
02:43:53 first of august 2013. that's right we had a stakeholder meeting with all of the people who would be allocated actions in the may yeah and then we took on board
02:44:01 on board their comments right so i i would imagine that i worked off this until that point in time and then they they ran in parallel for a while now i'm going back to the email run this is tm010002189
02:44:15 is tm010002189 can we go to page two in that email run please
02:44:21 if you look at the bottom half of page two you can see that on the 21st of february 2013 maura mcgarvey sends a an email to laura johnson subject mr francis o'connor
02:44:34 johnson subject mr francis o'connor and this looks like it was before your meeting with peter madison uh and it's it's about his complaint and and she says um hi laura i've just received a phone call from mr o'connor whom
02:44:43 whom i have dealt with some years ago he stated that miss rumble feigned him and was threatening him is it possible to provide me with an update on the situation with the fire risk assessment etc i'm in the office tomorrow
02:44:53 tomorrow if it's better to meet and that email got sent on by laura johnson to celia chaliscan if you look at the top half of the same page please as you can see
02:45:05 can see could you ask janice if she could give moira an update on how the fire risk assessment program is going or from yourself if you have it you see that yes um
02:45:15 did you explain that there was a backlog in completing the fra actions
02:45:23 we're called to be honest but it doesn't look like you did is there another bit of email well we can scroll up to the top if you keep keep scrolling up uh celiacan writes to you bottom of page
02:45:35 uh celiacan writes to you bottom of page one
02:45:37 one over the top of page two would you send would you be able to send an update either to me or moira directly yeah and then uh you write back to cedar chalice scan on the 25th of
02:45:49 chalice scan on the 25th of february and you say the fire risk assessment program is going well was that true i think in terms of completing the assessments it was
02:46:00 the initial program to complete to to assess the communal area of every block was completed in may last year so it was going well in the sense of carrying out fras but it wasn't going well was it in the sense of closing out
02:46:12 well was it in the sense of closing out actions
02:46:13 actions because there was a huge backlog yeah right
02:46:17 right why did you not tell celia chalice and rbkc that although the assessment program itself was progressing nicely uh the uh fra the closing out of fra actions was not
02:46:29 actions was not i haven't got an answer you're not giving her the full picture are you really
02:46:32 really by that first sentence it seems not now matt hodgson we discussed him a bit yesterday
02:46:40 yesterday um do you remember that in september 2013 he produced the final version of his safety management review for robert black
02:46:46 black yeah now let's look at that that's a tmo double zero eight seven three three nine eight
02:46:55 and if we go to page four in that document
02:46:58 document but he's this is under 1.1 objectives
02:47:05 and he says uh there in the first paragraph that the objective of this safety management review
02:47:13 review is to contribute to the success and continuing development of kctmo by improving management control of health and safety it's not the intention to identify failings in individuals but to identify those parts of the safety management
02:47:25 those parts of the safety management system sms that require attention in order to bring about improvements in performance and then he says this the overall aim of the review is to provide an independent and objective assessment
02:47:36 an independent and objective assessment of the degree of implementation of the kctmo health and safety policy and supporting arrangements do you know what it was that prompted robert black to request an audit of the health and
02:47:47 to request an audit of the health and safety management systems yes what was that um the limited assurance audit that we received um from the internal auditors in the council well i'm assuming it was sorry it wasn't
02:47:58 well i'm assuming it was sorry it wasn't party to the discussion but it followed on so
02:48:00 on so inevitably that was the case right for our record let's have that up briefly rbk50313 please
02:48:13 that is the first page of the final audit report draft circulated to you and the final additionally circulated to robert black and laura johnson is that the document yes so it was this document that
02:48:25 yes so it was this document that prompted mr black to commission the number the hodgson uh safe fire safe sorry safety management review yes yes right now um did you see a final version of
02:48:38 now um did you see a final version of the
02:48:38 the hodgson report when it was prepared in september 2013. um i will have done eventually yes eventually how long afterwards do you think
02:48:45 think i'm not sure because i i wasn't party to the brief so i wasn't ever really sure what matt's brief was um and it was i believe his work was commissioned by anthony parks
02:48:56 commissioned by anthony parks and so he would have been reporting directly into executive team so i'll i'll have seen eventually i i don't know how long it may have been almost
02:49:03 almost simultaneously i see let's get back to the hodgson report in its final version then
02:49:08 then tmo double zero eight seven three three nine eight if you look at page five you can see that
02:49:15 that you were interviewed among a long list of others
02:49:23 if we go to page eight as part of the summary in the last paragraph there it says the governance of hns requires a thorough review
02:49:34 thorough review as the responsibility of a different risk area sits within different departments due to the shortfall in compliance data sent up to the exec committee there is a lack of focus and leadership in making the important changes or
02:49:45 in making the important changes or decisions to manage risk effectively one such issue is the completion of actions resulting from statutory reports such as the fire risk assessments the business needs to decide who has the authority to enforce this process
02:49:58 authority to enforce this process and then over the page the competent person
02:50:02 person sits in the h s department providing h s advice and strategy to the tmo however it is felt that there is a requirement to support the head of contract management within the assets and regeneration team
02:50:13 within the assets and regeneration team in relation to technical compliance i.e a source of strategic support in relation to the planned preventative maintenance program for technical services across the estate this would cover such issues as
02:50:24 this would cover such issues as life safety legionella pressure systems fire safety equipment etc discussions are ongoing within management in relation to this additional
02:50:34 support looking back at the bottom of the first
02:50:38 the first of page eight the first part of that paragraph i read to you did you uh agree at the time with mr hodgson's
02:50:45 hodgson's assessment there um yeah i think i did did you agree that there was an issue about who had authority to enforce the process
02:50:53 process for completion of fra actions in particular well there seemed to be yeah do you know why there was an issue or problem in that respect
02:51:04 problem in that respect uh no not really i mean he's right in that most of the operational um teams responsible for delivering were obviously within the operations department health and safety sat within finance and
02:51:16 health and safety sat within finance and ict
02:51:18 ict my understanding was that was a deliberate decision so that we would have a bit of autonomy from the operational teams which would give us distance and would mean that we could degree there'd be a degree of auditing which was was facilitated um
02:51:32 was facilitated um i clearly i wasn't able to influence the backlog in the way that i would have wanted so
02:51:38 wanted so i think there was definitely some disconnect and who was actually enforcing the completion of fra actions at that point that it sounds as if it was you it was
02:51:50 that it sounds as if it was you it was me but
02:51:51 me but um it was me so why did the business need to decide who has that authority um i
02:52:05 i think what he was meaning is is there needed to be more kind of high level support i i said i sit very lowly in the organization um and i i think without high level
02:52:17 um and i i think without high level support
02:52:18 support then people may or may not be um taking on board my priorities and and my insistence i can't i'm only speculating really i can only give you my
02:52:29 can only give you my in my so it was your view when you saw this document that actually uh the problem lay in people
02:52:38 people not taking you seriously enough because you were too junior i think there's maybe an element of that that's not the whole the whole story um and you know people did have lots of conflicting priorities there was quite a
02:52:50 conflicting priorities there was quite a lot of work going on in terms of reprocuring contracts to make sure that we had
02:52:54 we had good contractors performing to the right specifications so and also we had just started w2 so and there was a lot of development going on in keystone so there were a lot of initiatives which were
02:53:05 initiatives which were in place and ongoing but hadn't yet completely got to fruition so understandably staff were probably quite stretched and we're working on those
02:53:14 those hopefully so that the end result would be we'd all be in a better position in relation to fire risk assessment actions under and other items but but it was definitely a transitory period
02:53:24 period um yes now did did any of these conclusions i've just read to you looking at this paragraph come as a surprise to you at the time um no probably not no
02:53:36 um no probably not no had you raised any of these concerns with anthony parks or the executive team at any point before september 2013. um anthony parks had been chairing the health and safety committee and he he knew and understood that we still had
02:53:49 knew and understood that we still had problems with fire risk assessment actions and he knew where the lion's share of those sat and um he was he was aware um and we we would have no doubt i had conversations as well now
02:54:01 conversations as well now can we look at the initial draft of this report which was published or circulated on the 19th of july 2013. this is at tm01 triple zero three one two four
02:54:21 tm01 triple zero three one two four and you can see the date in the middle there for the attention of robert black uh copper to anthony parks and angela bosniak cecares uh and uh if you go to page eight please
02:54:32 uh and uh if you go to page eight please we can see in the last paragraph on that page uh here he says uh the governance of h s requires a serious review
02:54:44 s requires a serious review etc and then if you look uh four lines down at the end of the end of the line he says this issue is not helped by a breakdown in communication between the h s and other departments specifically in
02:54:55 other departments specifically in relation
02:54:55 relation to the completion of actions as raised in statutory reports do you agree that there had been a breakdown in communications between departments uh in relation to the completion of fra actions no i don't
02:55:07 actions no i don't i don't agree do you know how he came to that conclusion i i was worked quite closely with matt and was interviewed by him at length and he he knew that i was frustrated that i was unable to influence it
02:55:19 unable to influence it more than i had and and to to get more actions completed um and he knew the efforts that i was i was trying to make i don't believe there was um a breakdown communication
02:55:30 there was um a breakdown communication but there was definitely frustration right again back if we can please to the final version of this report tmo double zero eight seven three three nine three nine eight
02:55:41 nine three nine eight uh page 31 if i can gain that in to that page please 31 you can see there that he deals with fire risk assessments specifically and the program and uh he looks at the
02:55:53 and the program and uh he looks at the completion rates and uh he says in the last paragraph on that page
02:56:05 as you can see that in the last line with regards to high priority items raised in fra reports the following completion rates are documented from 28 february 13 to 17 july 2013 and then over the page
02:56:17 to 17 july 2013 and then over the page page top of page 32 you can see the figures there are set out and if you look at those it shows that assets and regeneration surveying
02:56:28 surveying uh fourth uh group down listed had completed seven uh from 18 only that's some 39 percent
02:56:39 only that's some 39 percent and assets and regeneration building services have completed 110 from 324 that's 34 percent and he goes on to record underneath those statistics
02:56:53 to record underneath those statistics as follows assets and regeneration have expressed some concern regarding the validity and practicality of some of the remedial works raised in the fra reports this issue was raised at a meeting of 15th august and is to be investigated in
02:57:05 15th august and is to be investigated in more detail in consultation with the contractor can you can you comment on what the concerns of the assets and regeneration team were over the validity and practicality
02:57:16 practicality of some of the fra actions raised what is your take on that um i think i've referred to it earlier that
02:57:27 that where there are alternative ways of achieving
02:57:31 achieving um what was required in terms of um compliance carl would have been inclined to put both of them down um so peter and some of his team preferred to be told and structured what to do
02:57:43 to be told and structured what to do because they saw that as a more rapid way of being able to procure the works and get it in place so we had discussions about that i know that there were ultimately some
02:57:54 i know that there were ultimately some issues
02:57:55 issues there were some sprinklers sprinklers installed in um some basement conversion flats and there were issues about how we could maintain those to comply
02:58:06 how we could maintain those to comply with
02:58:06 with the requirements of the manufacturer's instructions etc and get the sufficient degree of access and it was something that it wasn't a lot of actions but it was difficult to get resolution on so it was a variety of things like that so
02:58:18 a variety of things like that so so in order to make sure that nothing we were doing was impacting on these these negatively on these response rates we did tease out what it was the issues
02:58:29 what it was the issues were meant to be um or that they were concerned about and and we worked with carl to see if there was any way of streamlining the process
02:58:38 process and ultimately i think they were happy with
02:58:41 with i don't believe we did a lot of tweaking but um
02:58:45 but um yes sorry uh it sounds from that evidence
02:58:49 evidence that peter madison at the very least was looking to carl stokes to advise about how to go about performing the remedial works and not simply
02:59:00 the remedial works and not simply identifying what had to be done there was a little bit of that yeah yes i see
02:59:05 i see um you you can see that there's a reference uh here to a meeting of the 15th of august 2013.
02:59:13 2013. we've been unable to locate any documents uh which refer to or record what happened at that meeting were you aware of it
02:59:22 um i actually can't i can't remember at this stage i i know when anything was expressed as as a blockage to getting things completed i would have acted on
02:59:34 things completed i would have acted on it really promptly but i don't know if that meeting happened on that date or subsequently sorry
02:59:39 sorry you could see the recommendation at the foot of the page if we can scroll down to the foot of page 32 please it says in under 23 investigate the assets and regeneration concerns in
02:59:50 assets and regeneration concerns in relation to the recommendations raised in the fra reports and seek opportunities to simplify and streamline the process it was understood that a consultation with carl stakes and associates was to be arranged
03:00:02 be arranged do you know whether a consultation with coal stakes was actually arranged yes it well it will have been i can't remember the dates but it gave him the opportunity to explain why he was expressing things in the way that he he was
03:00:13 in the way that he he was and and i think it was probably quite a good
03:00:16 good um opportunity for assets in regen to say
03:00:20 say what they were having problems with and we just all wanted to get it clarified so that we can move forward well let's just let's be careful here do you recall such a meeting
03:00:30 i think i do you think you recall whether you recall it or you don't you may recall it vaguely even vaguely do you recall it yes right do you recall even vaguely what was discussed
03:00:42 discussed um not the detail but really just what i have
03:00:45 have summarized do you recall whether anything was actioned or any any action points were decided as a result of that meeting in order to resolve
03:00:53 resolve the issue i don't remember the detail but i remember that we we took on board carl and i tried to take on board the
03:01:04 carl and i tried to take on board the concerns which we thought were legit could legitimately be incorporated into the assessments without um reducing their validity i suppose right and what was done to simplify and
03:01:17 right and what was done to simplify and streamline the process do you recall
03:01:23 actually no i mean the process stayed the same it was really more about the descriptions of terms because the process
03:01:29 process was very much based on the w2 system and there was no alternative system and it worked so so that process stayed the same so when you say that carl and i tried to take on board the concerns we thought could legitimately
03:01:41 concerns we thought could legitimately incorporated be incorporated into the assessments without reducing their validity are you saying that carl stokes went away and produced a clearer set of instructions about what should be
03:01:53 set of instructions about what should be done by way of remedy in in the case of fra actions i think going forward i think sometimes carl doesn't always communicate in writing maybe as effectively as he
03:02:04 effectively as he could um and i think going forward he took that on board there may have been specific examples but i can't recall what they were do you remember whether there was any improvement in the completion rates of
03:02:16 improvement in the completion rates of outstanding fra actions by the assets and regeneration team either surveying or building um yeah but i believe the building service
03:02:26 service definitely started to approve improve but and i think that's partly um probably to a lesser extent based on this discussion with carl and to a greater extent because they were reprocuring contracts
03:02:38 because they were reprocuring contracts and were very clear with their specifications and they had a resource where they could manage those contracts effectively now go to page 10 of
03:02:48 this document please which is back at page 10 and look at the main priority main recommendations priority one you can
03:02:57 can see i'm sorry we're going to have to
03:03:06 yes that's right recommendation you can see at the top of the screen the main priority one recommendations with suggested time scales are as follows you see that yes and then um you can see
03:03:18 yes and then um you can see uh time scale in the right hand column immediate response you see that and then three months to agree fine tuning import data and degree outputs
03:03:27 outputs that's another one and the recommendations then stated the following take action to resolve the volume of outstanding actions this is item two unresolved in statutory reports
03:03:39 reports in relation to fire risk assessments once the backlog has been brought under control establish a process to monitor and track
03:03:45 and track completion of report actions has matched against priorities identified in the reports and that that one's been given
03:03:53 given an immediate response for the first sentence and a three-month period to resolve the backlog in the so far as the second is concerned you see that yes do you remember what your response was to that finding
03:04:06 um i think i was quite glad that he put it in writing because it could it would be something that um the com the organization at
03:04:17 um the com the organization at all throughout the organization would have to sign up to right um there was a recommendation uh as you can see here
03:04:24 see here uh to uh establish a process for monitoring and tracking completion you see that
03:04:30 see that yes uh once the backlog was under control did you implement that recommendation yourself um
03:04:43 well it was really linked as i've said to running reports improving the management information that was being provided to the health and safety committee
03:04:55 and safety committee um and holding people to account right what did you actually do uh mechanically in order to establish a process to monitor and track completion of report actions as per this recommendation
03:05:08 as per this recommendation well i was i was running reports on at least a two monthly pace and allocating them to the individual team with
03:05:15 team with detailed breakdown of where their position statement was in terms of completions and non-completions and then they were discussed in detail with an overarching
03:05:26 discussed in detail with an overarching summary which supplemented those at the health and safety committee which at that time was was becoming um stronger um and also it coincided with the
03:05:38 um and also it coincided with the um the start of the operations health and safety group so that all of the heads of um contracts repairs whatever and housing management were sat
03:05:49 management were sat in the one forum under sasha and that was one of their um right standing agenda now we know because you told us earlier that the w-2 system started on the 1st of august 2013
03:06:00 system started on the 1st of august 2013 that's really between the july draft and the september final version of this report
03:06:05 report did anything change in relation to monitoring and tracking completion of of report actions as a result of mr hodgson's final
03:06:16 final september 2013 report i think we were just more rigorous and um about sending them out on a regular basis and and providing better information um for
03:06:29 and providing better information um for discussion at all of those various forums no that's a bit
03:06:33 a bit great respect but vague um he's recommending uh that you establish a process to monitor and track completion of report actions
03:06:42 actions after set in and after september 2013 did the tmo did you establish a process to monitor and track completion of report actions i did not produce a document that said
03:06:53 i did not produce a document that said this is my procedure but that i've explained to you what i did right um did any i repeat the question did anything change in the process for monitoring and
03:07:04 in the process for monitoring and tracking completion of report actions as a result of the hodgson report um i can only reiterate that i think we became more rigorous about what we had in place um and we looked to refine and continue
03:07:18 um and we looked to refine and continue to refine the information provided so that senior managers could make better scrutiny were you able to bring the backlog under control
03:07:30 to bring the backlog under control within three months
03:07:34 i can't recall but i doubt it and did you raise your inability to do so with anybody
03:07:39 anybody senior to you always did you ask for more resources either either personnel terms or money terms
03:07:46 terms um i don't recall i i suspect not because there wasn't any more money to be had um did anybody tell you that did anybody tell you i'm sorry
03:07:58 tell you i'm sorry but we can't establish a process to monitor and track completion of report actions because we haven't got the budget for it nobody did tell me that so this is your assumption was it um everybody in senior management has a
03:08:10 everybody in senior management has a copy of this report we're discussing it and we're tracking progress with it and at no point is anybody getting any extras
03:08:19 extras resource across the company see they might reasonably say well we relied on janice to tell us if she didn't have the bodies or the money in order to carry out what mr mr um hodgson had recommended now
03:08:32 um hodgson had recommended now why why not simply go to them and say well i don't have the bodies and the money this requires a new process over and above what we have i need to
03:08:43 over and above what we have i need to put it in place please help me and i may have done that i just can't recall doing it so i have to err on the side of assuming that i didn't no and we've certainly seen no record that you did
03:08:54 that you did now on the same page item three just looking a little bit lower down it says develop the technical services dashboard so that it covers all plant and equipment risk that the kctmo is exposed
03:09:05 equipment risk that the kctmo is exposed to across the estate this should tie in with the h s policy arrangements the dashboard should generate data on statutory risk assessments as well as test and inspection outputs associated with mandatory and best practice requirements
03:09:17 mandatory and best practice requirements such as british standards and approved codes of practice acop now this recommendation indicates do you accept that the dashboard should generate data yes indeed yes and
03:09:30 should generate data yes indeed yes and that would include fras as statutory risk assessments yes it would have done but but it didn't at that point because the dashboard didn't talk to the w-2 system it
03:09:41 talk to the w-2 system it it talked to the keystone system so in the first instance and this was all under the control of the contrast management team um and they worked on um
03:09:52 um and they worked on um electrical installation gas servicing lifts
03:09:56 lifts and a whole range of things and it was always anticipated that that would include
03:10:00 include the fire safety um maintenance contract but that hadn't come on stream right did the did the dashboard ever talk to the w-2 system
03:10:12 the w-2 system not to my knowledge wasn't that a problem
03:10:15 problem it was but at least we did have a w-2 system
03:10:18 system um so yes it wasn't ideal and it's something that i think we would have tried to iron out but for the time being we had two systems and we tried to work with the data on both yes who would
03:10:30 work with the data on both yes who would access or use the dashboard the technical services dashboard normally um i think they had it actually ultimately they had it up on a screen in the office so that everybody could see it in the technical services
03:10:41 could see it in the technical services office
03:10:43 office but it was largely the contracts management team it reflected their performance of their contracts
03:10:50 contracts right i see but if it didn't talk to the w-2 system then you wouldn't know where the performance of the contracts as indicated by the dashboard linked to the keystone system was telling was the problem in or
03:11:03 was telling was the problem in or creating a problem in closing out actions identified in the and the date by which they had to be completed in the w-2 system indeed and partly we
03:11:14 indeed and partly we when we were um devising kpis we tried to make sure that we covered both bases so that we had the dashboard information we had the statistics that we referred
03:11:25 we had the statistics that we referred to in terms of fire action we had a whole load of other things as well and we'd identified what we wanted to record in terms of fire safety servicing interaction maintenance but
03:11:37 servicing interaction maintenance but that had not come on stream because well i don't know the technical services would have to explain to you that that was the contract that was let at the end of the process and i think they just hadn't quite got there right
03:11:48 they just hadn't quite got there right i mean you can see from this recommendation that he mr hodgson is recommending that the two will be tied in
03:11:53 in so that you get a single set of data yeah absolutely and that never happened it didn't happen why not well i'm i'm not technical so i can't give you the the reasons
03:12:05 you the the reasons it didn't happen and i can only explain what i've explained before that they were in two systems and the best one i didn't talk to each other um technical services concentrated on getting the dashboard
03:12:14 dashboard going for the areas of compliance that were and
03:12:18 were and we're working towards it i for you were in charge you're gonna have to slow down sorry you were in charge of health and safety and you were the competent person uh for the purposes of the rra was it not essential
03:12:30 not essential for you in order to be able to discharge your personal functions and for the tmo to just to discharge its statutory functions as the responsible person
03:12:39 person to make sure that this recommendation was carried into effect as best you could
03:12:48 all i can do is tell you that we i was trying to work in the absence of having this technical capacity which was out of my
03:12:55 my reach we were trying to work with the systems that we had but that's the point why given that you were told you shouldn't and you should unify all the systems my question to you
03:13:06 unify all the systems my question to you is
03:13:07 is why didn't you do everything you could in your power to make sure that those to whom you reported understood the seriousness of not carrying out this recommendation i'm confident that i will have done
03:13:19 confident that i will have done but as you saw how long it took us to purchase
03:13:22 purchase software in order to have a workflow system
03:13:26 system those kinds of decisions don't happen how quickly and budget isn't readily available for them so
03:13:33 them so in the absence of that i was trying to do the best i could to comply with the information that i had you say those kinds of decisions don't happen quickly this one didn't happen at all
03:13:44 quickly this one didn't happen at all did it
03:13:48 no i actually i think it's something that you should you should ask contract management about because they dealt with the dashboard and they will know what conversations they've had and what holdups there were
03:14:02 they've had and what holdups there were and in an ideal world i would know but i don't know the detail i'm sorry sorry now
03:14:14 were you yourself asked to implement any of the recommendations in the hodgson report
03:14:21 um probably training matrix uh yep training matrix definitely i'd have to scan through uh i can't
03:14:32 i'd have to scan through uh i can't recall at the moment sorry
03:14:35 mr chairman it's five to one i'm i'm i'm anticipating the witness might need a a slightly earlier break than perhaps we might ought to take normally i'm not i could finish this topic in five minutes
03:14:46 five minutes but it's unlikely how do you feel have you got i'd rather finish it if you don't mind i'm sorry i'd rather finish it and if you can finish this topic in five minutes i think i'm happy to do that well let's see yes dude yes interesting
03:14:58 well let's see yes dude yes interesting right um
03:14:59 right um yes well let's do that can we go then to uh to see how this um developed tmo1 tmo12003604
03:15:26 now this is a meeting minute for the operational health and safety committee of the 12th of september 2013 at which you were present and you can see that under introduction it says the purpose of the meeting is to review the current health and safety procedures
03:15:38 the current health and safety procedures and enhance current processes ensuring the correct members within the organization have the appropriate management strategies and the necessary resources in place to meet compliancy uh
03:15:50 resources in place to meet compliancy uh do you remember whether this meeting was summoned in response to seeing the draft hodgson report from july 2013 um i think it was created i think this group was created as a
03:16:01 i think this group was created as a result of the matt hudson report and also the um audit right the reason i'm slightly cautious about that is because the date of this meeting is the 12th of
03:16:12 the date of this meeting is the 12th of september that's the day before the final version was produced by matt hodgson on the 13th so at that stage you've only got the draft but nonetheless you think that the group was created in response to the draft i think so because i'm sure that would
03:16:24 i think so because i'm sure that would have been discussed at executive team level right do you remember whether the meeting had the draft hodgdon report before
03:16:30 before it i can't because there's no indication that we've been able to see in this note or minute that that there was or it was um can we then go down to page
03:16:41 or it was um can we then go down to page three please
03:16:55 agreeing agenda can you see that yes uh it says under paragraph 2.2 jw that's you
03:17:02 you explained that she felt much of the h s approach was reactive and responsive rather than proactive and was in line with budgetary implications and felt there was no assurance that agreed actions were being met going forward i.e void standards
03:17:15 met going forward i.e void standards fire stopping and felt processes needed to be put in place to confirm things are effectively progressed and concluded what led you to raise those concerns do you remember was it site of the
03:17:27 you remember was it site of the draft hodgson report
03:17:30 not especially um
03:17:34 cultures of organizations changed don't they over time and i i felt like and i i felt like sometimes people relied on adrian and myself as being health and safety and didn't always
03:17:46 safety and didn't always integrate health and safety effectively into their role and i actually felt that the hudson report and and the the per audit rating was an opportunity um and and so i felt like it was my
03:17:58 um and and so i felt like it was my opportunity to say that and i um i'm glad i did right and what did you mean by in line with budgetary implications um i think in terms of budgetary implications i think i was referring to
03:18:09 implications i think i was referring to um kind of health and safety matters that um
03:18:13 that um adrian would would identify on his inspections i think for a period we were quite because budgets were extremely tight we were quite they were quite rigorous definitions of repairs um and if if you
03:18:26 definitions of repairs um and if if you reported something that was very clearly defined as a repair um then the chances are it would be progressed if if you if you reported something for example if adrian came back and said this is how we do this but actually i
03:18:38 this is how we do this but actually i think we should replace that or improve that often that was
03:18:43 was class to be an improvement and there was no perceived budget for that so i was sort of flagging that up to say you know sometimes we we need to think outside the books or perhaps
03:18:53 perhaps um review our approach to that and what's the point put shortly that you felt that the much of the h and s approach was governed by
03:19:04 was governed by budgetary risk constraints i don't know that i would say much of it but it was certainly an issue and sometimes an issue at a relatively low level so it could be quite frustrating that you couldn't
03:19:15 that you couldn't put in place things that were you know could obviously improve right situations and was budget or budgetary constraints to some extent at least causing a problem in getting to grips with fra actions at
03:19:27 in getting to grips with fra actions at this point actually no i don't think it was budgetary uh i i don't think that was the issue right uh mr chairman i've got one more meeting
03:19:38 uh mr chairman i've got one more meeting to cover i can probably cover it in five minutes
03:19:40 minutes and then we turn do we change topics a little bit right
03:19:51 847277 this is the minute of the tmo health and safety
03:19:57 safety committee operational meeting as it's called
03:20:01 called uh operational health and safety meeting on the 17th of january 2014 so not the tmo health and safety meet committee but the operational health and safety committee um and if
03:20:13 health and safety committee um and if you go you can see your present there if you go to the bottom of page one if we scroll down to that please you can see that under mat is a rising fourth bullet point done it says the fire brigade haven't come back with dates for visiting they have said that
03:20:24 dates for visiting they have said that they're interested in seeing the w-2 workflow process and looking forward sorry looking particularly at any outstanding fra actions which relate to compartmentation janice has been asked to talk to michael
03:20:35 janice has been asked to talk to michael about the information they will be shown as they will be looking to make sure that we are completing the actions which means they will be looking at things in more details now
03:20:46 in more details now michael is michael lyons isn't it i think why did you need to speak to him about the information that the lfb were to be shown i have no idea let me suggest one and see what you make of it was it to
03:20:57 see what you make of it was it to control the type of information that the lfb would see um well it would have been futile because i i wouldn't have
03:21:04 have let that happen right if we go to the top of page two next paragraph it goes on at the moment we are working from the fire risk assessment reports and have until june to complete all actions
03:21:14 actions michael suggested that the fire brigade be advised of the volume of outstanding fra
03:21:18 fra actions however consensus of the group was that this would result in more scrutiny from the lfb and also possible enforcement action so we agreed we would not disclose this level of detail at this stage
03:21:30 do you remember what mr lyons particular concern was i don't just i presume it was just as he says the the volume of action right did you think it was appropriate
03:21:42 right did you think it was appropriate not to inform the lfb of concerns over the volume of outstanding fra actions simply to avoid proper scrutiny by the brigade no of course not no we don't see any record of you objecting to that approach
03:21:54 objecting to that approach i didn't do the minutes um did you object to the meeting i certainly wasn't the consensus of the group so i'm sure i would have done it right but you've seen would you have
03:22:05 right but you've seen would you have seen
03:22:06 seen this minute and in draft form before no no right do you recall expressing objection to the appropriateness of the approach
03:22:16 approach uh contemplated by mr lyons i can't say i recall but i'm confident i would have objected and looking at the next bullet point you can see
03:22:27 point you can see it says there was further discussion about the fire risk assessment process and janus agreed to set up a meeting with michael and our fire consultant so that he could be fully briefed and would have opportunity to raise any concerns
03:22:38 concerns do you know why that meeting was needed um
03:22:42 um i would be speculating but i i would think it may have been because we're putting pressure to get the outstanding responsive repair items actions completed and and that there may
03:22:53 actions completed and and that there may have been he may have had an issue with again he may have had an issue with how they were drafted or how they were presented or i don't know really i'm sure it was all in order
03:23:01 in order to to progress outstanding actions do you remember whether a meeting was set up with
03:23:07 up with michael lyons and your fire consultant that's mr stokes i don't recall i suspect it would have been but
03:23:15 been but i don't recall sorry mr german is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you very much well we'll have a break now so we can all have some lunch um i'm gonna say return it five past two
03:23:26 um i'm gonna say return it five past two please
03:23:27 please and uh remember not to talk to anyone about your evidence over the break please
03:23:31 please all right thank you thank you very much
03:23:42 thank you five past two please
03:24:00 you