London Fire Brigade deputy commissioner gives evidence on the Brigade's response to the Lakanal House fire, regulatory failures, and the lack of government action on building fire safety between 2009-2015.
00:16:39 yes would you ask mrs jackson to come back in please
00:17:00 right this is dexter ready to carry on yes good thank you very much yes yes mr chairman thank you um miss dexter can i now take you back to your witness statement please at lfb3032363
00:17:14 and i'd like to go to page eight and look with you at paragraph 27 and there you say that you were present at the second meeting that's of the latino house working group on the 28th
00:17:25 latino house working group on the 28th of august 2013 assistant commissioner steve turek who reported to me gave a presentation on the rro his presentation included a contribution from information management colleagues who also reported
00:17:37 management colleagues who also reported to me about the problems of defining and identifying high-rise premises given the absence of adequate and appropriate data et cetera i'll come back to that
00:17:48 et cetera i'll come back to that presentation in a moment if we go over the page to page nine
00:17:54 nine and look at paragraph 28 we'll lower down the page you say you say this dave crowder from the building research establishment bre also gave a presentation on the key
00:18:05 also gave a presentation on the key factors that influenced the latino house fire development it was a highly detailed presentation which made a very significant impression on me as it detailed the actions taken in multiple
00:18:16 detailed the actions taken in multiple refurbishment or improvement projects undertaken at lachen house that had the unintended consequence of diminishing the fire safety protections of the building
00:18:26 building now against that background let's look together at dave crowder's presentation it's at lfb3086101
00:18:35 can we please have that up
00:18:39 you can see there's the first page it's dated 28th of august 2013 and it's called an elfipa briefing and it's given by dave crowder who was the then business group manager fire
00:18:50 business group manager fire investigation at bre global now um it's 38 pages long and it explores in some detail the construction at latino house including the refurbishment work and i just want to look at some slides
00:19:02 and i just want to look at some slides with you by way of example can we go to page 16
00:19:05 page 16 please
00:19:07 please here is a fire on comp here is a slide on composite panels which were installed at la canal if you look at the photographs there you can see the
00:19:17 the panel itself and the core the foam insulation core and the third bullet point down says no fire resistance and the final bullet on the page
00:19:29 and the final bullet on the page if you look down a little bit uh further on that page says introduced during refurbishment 2006 to 7 replacing asbestos
00:19:37 asbestos and if we go to page 18 the next but one slide suspended ceiling in common corridor
00:19:43 corridor you can see uh under the gap the pre-penultimate bullet points ceiling panels did not support flaming timber structure and fuel above contributed significantly introduced in the 1980s
00:19:56 significantly introduced in the 1980s for central heating works and then if we go to the conclusion slider page 37 on in the report the last three bullet points read large number of issues crept
00:20:07 points read large number of issues crept in over a number of years overall worsening of conditions through years of neglect knows no one single factor sufficient to have caused death in isolation
00:20:18 in isolation now i've picked out some parts of a lengthy report there but
00:20:23 but can you tell us in general um what was it about the presentation that had such a significant impression on you as you say in your statement
00:20:34 uh two different things um uh
00:20:43 is it two different things um
00:20:48 uh
00:20:51 maybe it might not be two different things
00:20:54 things the first thing might be um and this will come from my prior experience as a local government officer the impact of successive local government reorganizations on
00:21:06 reorganizations on the responsibility of the building over time so
00:21:10 time so it had been responsible the responsibility i think of an urban district council and then a local authority and then the involvement in terms of various refurbished
00:21:21 refurbished projects
00:21:23 projects had
00:21:25 been the responsibility of externalized parts of southwark council some of it remain the responsibility of in-house departments um
00:21:37 in-house departments um so
00:21:38 so the general impact of local government reorganization and contracting out made a big impression on me [Music]
00:21:50 [Music] the fact that some of the things that had been done to lachenal house over time had been done for good reasons so to improve the thermal efficiency of the
00:22:01 improve the thermal efficiency of the building
00:22:02 building um to improve the safety of the building in terms of community safety so uh you know doors key control doors at the end of corridors or at the front door that
00:22:14 of corridors or at the front door that that kind of thing so they've done a number of they've made a number of changes to the building which were about improving the security and comfort of the building but but
00:22:24 but but in consequence had sabotaged
00:22:27 sabotaged some of the fire safety protection features of the building so for example i think maybe the smoke control system was effectively sabotaged by some of the features they'd introduced in order to
00:22:39 features they'd introduced in order to improve the security of the building and then there was the list of the things that happened in the fire so you showed a picture there of
00:22:50 you showed a picture there of the suspended ceilings and the voids above them um
00:22:57 and that's an example of a number of features of the fire uh
00:23:04 uh which
00:23:07 which made which made a big impression on me um
00:23:11 on me um probably first on my list was compartmentation there were so many different aspects of what happened to the compartmentation or the absence of compartmentation in la canal
00:23:23 canal that is very surprising to me um so that's that's three sets of things really isn't it but they are the things that i recall now yes
00:23:33 yes and
00:23:35 and were you impressed not in a good way but were you impressed by the realization perhaps that the problems that latin identified by the bre in this report were not limited to that one building
00:23:46 were not limited to that one building but might be endemic across london um
00:23:53 i don't think that david crowder pointed us in that direction i can't remember him doing that um
00:24:01 um but this was the this was the second part of 2013 wasn't it and
00:24:07 it and [Music]
00:24:08 [Music] and
00:24:10 and i think you can see from the bundle attached to my witness statement that shortly after i was generating reports which gave
00:24:21 which gave other examples of uh the failure of fire safety features so
00:24:27 so i think several of my reports have different collections of incidents that were known to london fire brigade where uh
00:24:38 uh issues such as breach of compartmentation were an important explanatory factor in uh in what happened in the fire um but they were all of
00:24:49 um but they were all of they were
00:24:50 they were they were very different in nature one to the other but there are attached to several of the reports that attached to my witness statement um you know pen pictures maybe of 12 or 15 incidents in total where as a
00:25:03 12 or 15 incidents in total where as a result of fire investigation work we were able to identify in a
00:25:10 in a in a more accessible way for the audiences that we were that i was aiming at um what what had happened in those fires and why you mentioned the fact that you were impressed by the
00:25:22 the fact that you were impressed by the idea
00:25:24 idea that the work the refurbishment work at latino house in your words sabotaged some of the fire safety control systems did you know already or did you learn from this report that in general
00:25:36 that in general there was a problem across london possibly
00:25:39 possibly from refurbishments which might uh sabotage fire safety control systems in other high-rise buildings uh not not i don't recall that as being something that i learned from this particular presentation let me let me try it this
00:25:52 presentation let me let me try it this way around when you read this presentation uh you didn't think did you that the problems identified by the bre in this report were a one-off
00:26:02 i didn't think that no no and if we go back to your witness statement again please lfb3032363 page nine just picking up where we left off in paragraph 28
00:26:13 where we left off in paragraph 28 in the sixth line you say it was clear uh it was clear that it had significant implications for local government more widely as they were the bodies that controlled and often provided the
00:26:25 controlled and often provided the building control function that should have contributed to preventing what had happened at latino house the presentation had a major impact on many of the actions that i subsequently directed or undertook including for example action i took to make better use
00:26:37 example action i took to make better use of fire investigation findings and the design of the audit tool issued to local authorities in january 2015 and you produce that as an exhibit and we'll come on to discuss the audit tool and
00:26:48 come on to discuss the audit tool and some of your other work in more detail a little bit later but for the moment my question is this did you ever stop to consider how and in what ways the information in the bre presentation had operational and
00:27:00 presentation had operational and training implications for local crews as first responders at fires in compromised buildings uh
00:27:11 i think the answer to that is yes because
00:27:15 because either later in this report or in another report i explained that i thought it was important that davy
00:27:26 i thought it was important that davy crowder's
00:27:27 crowder's presentation was available to a much wider audience and that included but wasn't confined to the borough commanders
00:27:38 the borough commanders and the borough commanders were as it were
00:27:42 were the line management chain for fire stations what to your mind were the implications for local crews which this report
00:27:54 which this report prompted
00:27:56 um what were the implications for local crews
00:28:02 uh well
00:28:05 well we will already have said a number of things internally um with within the brigade by this time about the lucknow house fire i couldn't possibly itemize them
00:28:18 i couldn't possibly itemize them for you um to you um
00:28:21 um but it
00:28:23 but it but i i i make that point simply to emphasize that it wasn't a blank sheet of paper for the brigade
00:28:31 brigade at this point um
00:28:35 um no no sorry so basically you just understood my question okay forget process
00:28:39 process you look at the report yes you think of local crews what were the implications for station managers watch managers of this report what was it telling you that it had implications for their work uh
00:28:50 it had implications for their work uh that that this uh that this building in particular uh
00:28:57 uh demonstrated
00:29:00 a wide range of faults which individually and collectively contributed to a disastrous fire and
00:29:09 and that they were that they were not predictable or reliably predictable in nature why did you think that um
00:29:22 i think i i think i thought that because because of the way they combined in this fire
00:29:31 fire so
00:29:33 so i said this morning i'm not recommending that anybody does this but
00:29:37 this but you could make a list of 10 things that commonly you find in fires as you know things that go wrong or are the cause of things that go wrong
00:29:49 cause of things that go wrong and
00:29:51 and that that list might have really substantial big ticket items and it might have smaller
00:29:58 smaller uh less significant items and individually and in combination they
00:30:04 they they contribute to the nature of the fire and how it develops and what happens to the people um
00:30:09 um but i think the luckiano house fire was the most
00:30:15 multi-faceted fire that i had come across so of course london fire brigade had experience of you know big dangerous fires
00:30:26 dangerous fires but
00:30:27 but but this fire seemed different in nature because of what at that time i felt was a fairly unique or at least unusual
00:30:38 unique or at least unusual combination of factors which had ruined the building and which contributed to what happened in the fire what
00:30:48 what information data expertise did you draw on to conclude that
00:30:55 that what
00:30:57 what was present at lacanal was as you put it a unique or at least unusual combination of factors
00:31:06 um the fact that i had not before la canal seen any fire
00:31:13 which displayed as many
00:31:19 sabotaging factors as we found at lucknow house and
00:31:24 and you already know that by this time you know i was reading every single fire investigation report so that might be an individual dwelling fire or would be a more significant fire but
00:31:37 would be a more significant fire but it was the it was the length and combination of factors in this fire which seemed to me to make it exceptional exceptional but not impossible
00:31:49 or well it obviously wasn't impossible because it happened you do no no quite so
00:31:54 so would it be fair to say that at the time you were impressed by this and that the implications for
00:32:03 front line responders was that they might encounter a building which had unusual or exceptional features which might perform in a fire in an unusual or exceptional
00:32:14 in a fire in an unusual or exceptional way
00:32:17 way yes
00:32:18 yes and that
00:32:19 and that and that had already been identified in
00:32:24 in i think the coroner's rule 43 letter so i think in her list of issues for incident commanders i'm i'm not certain but she had a list of six or
00:32:35 not certain but she had a list of six or seven things which she felt were relevant to the subject of instant command and i i believe that was i believe that was one of them and so in that sense we had already begun to work
00:32:46 that sense we had already begun to work on it internally and i think gary reason um
00:32:50 um possibly at this meeting or one shortly before or after provided a report on
00:32:57 report on what we were doing about the incident command
00:32:59 command actions required by the coroner and included in that list was you know
00:33:11 you know you need to uh take action to ensure that incident commanders are clearer about
00:33:18 about the unpredictability of some factors in some fires right well we will come back to that answer perhaps with you perhaps with others
00:33:27 others for the present on this can we take it that
00:33:30 that as at least in august 2013 just over
00:33:36 just over four years after the fire the lfb was not dismissing lachenal as a one-off exception
00:33:45 no we weren't no no i i mean many different things follow from that
00:33:50 from that mr miller but no we weren't no no and was one of the learning points just on your reaction to this document that any frontline responder should not
00:34:01 that any frontline responder should not trust that the building in front of him or her complied with the building regulations
00:34:08 no is the answer is the the very honest answer to that um what what tipped me personally nearer to that position happened after i left the brigade so the
00:34:20 happened after i left the brigade so the brigade prosecuted suffolk council under the provisions of the rro
00:34:25 the rro and as part of that prosecution in mitigation southwark council told the court that they had since spent 52 either 52 or 62 million pounds on
00:34:36 either 52 or 62 million pounds on improvements to their stock and lewisham council in relation to i always get it confused is it marine tower where there was a high-rise fire
00:34:47 tower where there was a high-rise fire and again there was a prosecution they'd spent 18 million pounds on improvements to their stock as a result of these respective incidents but i'd left the brigade by then but you know the idea that southwark had to
00:34:58 know the idea that southwark had to spend 52 or 62 million pounds on fire safety improvements to their stock you know sitting in my own home by that point i was tipping nearer to well i'm
00:35:09 point i was tipping nearer to well i'm just not sure how reliable this assumption is did it ever occur to you that crews needed to be alerted expressly
00:35:16 expressly to
00:35:17 to this
00:35:18 this potentially widespread risk that high-rise buildings across london were not compliant with the building regulations and couldn't be trusted to perform reliably in a fire
00:35:31 um
00:35:38 i'm simply not in a position here now to say that didn't happen in any form before this presentation it's not the case that we did nothing between 2009 and 2011
00:35:51 between 2009 and 2011 or 2013.
00:35:53 or 2013. you've already seen the lack of house action plan and um i i just can't be reliable today about
00:36:00 about whether that in fact happened i mean let me
00:36:03 me let me put it more bluntly when you when you got this presentation from dave crowder at the ba bre the end of august 2013 was your reaction to say gosh this
00:36:14 2013 was your reaction to say gosh this building was horrendously non-compliant we better tell all frontline responders so that they don't assume that the building in front of them is compliant we better roll that out did that occur to you at the time it's
00:36:25 did that occur to you at the time it's the question uh no no it didn't occur to me at the time but
00:36:30 but um
00:36:34 but a learning point that embraces that was there in the action plan for incident commanders and to that extent had been taken forward right as a learning point um developing
00:36:47 right as a learning point um developing that
00:36:48 that was was any thought given to just at this point any any thought given to the interactions between the fire safety department and operational crews and whether the dialogue between the two
00:37:00 and whether the dialogue between the two needed to be enhanced in order to make sure that operational crews could see what you could see
00:37:18 i can't i can't tell you with any confidence
00:37:24 my answer definitely isn't emphatically yes we did and but we were beginning to have discussions and they may already have started by this time but i simply can't recall but it'll be in record somewhere
00:37:35 recall but it'll be in record somewhere we were beginning to have discussions about
00:37:38 about the interaction between fire safety audit work as performed by fire safety regulation and 72d work as performed by fire station staff and the need to
00:37:50 and the need to um
00:37:51 um bring bring those closer together and uh
00:37:56 uh to make
00:37:57 to make to make the whole better than you know what what happened for a long time has been two different constituent parts but i can't i can't date that if i'm honest well that was
00:38:08 well that was actually my next question and you've answered that and that's helpful but we touched on that earlier this morning where you told us that you'd seen reports
00:38:16 reports to you about those interactions and you can't date those uh
00:38:23 uh would you say it's after it's after august 13 is that is that right no oh uh was it i can't remember whether it was after you mean the reports to my directorate management board uh you
00:38:34 directorate management board uh you mentioned the board this morning to which those reports were made uh i can't remember uh i can't i i can't put it down to 2013 i'm afraid i'm sorry
00:38:46 put it down to 2013 i'm afraid i'm sorry right
00:38:48 right i mean can you offer us anything else while you're sitting there to identify these reports or how the lfb might be able to find them uh
00:38:57 uh there's definitely one in my bundle i'm really happy to provide the details right if that is the case then i'm quite sure that can be um identified now um
00:39:10 let's just look further at the working of the latino house working group and correspondence with the dclg again can we look at the minutes of the august 2013 meeting of the working group we'll
00:39:23 2013 meeting of the working group we'll find those at lfb 3032115
00:39:31 now there it is and you can see the members are present and the brigade officers present include you this time with gary reason and steve churrick
00:39:41 churrick and john johnson from committee services and the guest was dave crowder misspelt but nonetheless present bre and then item two is headed the overheaded overview of fire safety
00:39:52 overheaded overview of fire safety regulatory reform order rro gender item three and we saw that on the agenda when we looked at it the assistant commissioner fire safety regulation gave a presentation to the working group regarding the rro and fire safety and
00:40:04 regarding the rro and fire safety and residential blocks and answered questions from members you see that um now i'm looking a bit further down the list during discussion the working group drew up a list of issues for
00:40:15 group drew up a list of issues for possible future consideration as follows and i just want to look at three of those topics under the bullets there and just explore with you the basis of the working group's desire to investigate those topics
00:40:26 desire to investigate those topics starting with the second bullet point done it says the regulation of leasehold properties within high-rise buildings how landlords are dealing with leaseholders making modifications to doors strike interior walls etc which potentially compromise the fire safety
00:40:39 potentially compromise the fire safety of buildings and then if you look at the um well we'll look at the next one in a moment just pausing there why was it that the working group wanted to focus on that area
00:40:51 i imagine because it was a feature of steve turek's presentation um so i know that the fire safety regulation department uh regularly encountered
00:41:02 uh regularly encountered issues associated with leasehold properties in high-rise buildings and in a number of boroughs for example we're in discussion with uh significant housing providers about how to deal with that so i imagine
00:41:14 about how to deal with that so i imagine it was the feature of i can't remember i remember the fact of steve's presentation but not the detail but i imagine it was instinct's presentation now the third bullet point says the need for a recognized government standard for competent
00:41:26 government standard for competent persons carrying out fire safety preventative measures uh why did the why did the black house working group consider it important that that was given future consideration
00:41:39 um reading it here it strikes me as odd wording
00:41:47 i um remember and we know that the competitive competency council had been set up in 2011 for fire risk assessors yes but that doesn't quite say that does it which is why i was struggling with the world no it doesn't which is why i'm asking the
00:41:58 it doesn't which is why i'm asking the question yes um there are two things first of all the need for a recognized government standard as opposed simply to market or trade regulation and and competent persons
00:42:09 regulation and and competent persons carrying out fire safety preventative measures doesn't quite tell you whether it's the fire risk assessor or the responsible person can you help with that i i can't i'm i'm puzzled by the way
00:42:19 way were you and assistant commissioner cheryk aware of the fire safety federation and the guide to choosing a competent fire risk assessor at this point
00:42:30 point uh
00:42:31 uh tell me again what fsf was fire safety federation um sorry fire sector federation yeah i i might have referred this morning to the fire protection association but i think they were at
00:42:42 association but i think they were at least closely aligned with fsf or one may have become the other so i think the answer
00:42:47 answer the answer is yes you were st steve was undoubtedly more more familiar with it than i was right i may have misled you as to the data i think in fact the competency council criteria were
00:42:58 competency council criteria were published in 2013 but earlier in the year
00:43:01 year does um
00:43:03 does um do you know whether anybody considered that document and its fitness for purpose i don't at that time you don't fourth bullet point down the need for further guidance to the rra on the
00:43:14 further guidance to the rra on the definitions for a parts used in common common areas and how the rro is intended to operate where the responsible person does not have total control over those common areas and b a window installed
00:43:25 common areas and b a window installed under the fencer scheme as the current definition does not stipulate whether composite systems with supporting frames were included the supporting window panels that lack in the house were not fire resistant and greatly influenced
00:43:36 fire resistant and greatly influenced the spread of fire
00:43:39 do you know what instigated that issue as a possible topic for the latter house working group's deliberations
00:43:47 why was that on the list well i i think b was on the list because uh
00:43:57 the failure of composite systems at lac and old house was oh yeah sorry i spurred the second half of that for supporting uh b was because
00:44:08 of that for supporting uh b was because the issue was was a feature of the luck and all house fire and
00:44:13 and uh a parts used in common i i admitted to this morning to struggle a struggle uh to bring that to the front of my mind and i'm not in any better place now i'm afraid
00:44:25 place now i'm afraid um so i thought it was to do with doors and door frames potentially but i could be 100 miles off the mark right and there had been of course by this time discussions with louise upton at the dclg on that very point
00:44:38 dclg on that very point uh
00:44:39 uh we may come back to shortly um before we leave these minutes the sixth bullet point says if you
00:44:49 if you go down the page yes
00:44:55 uh that
00:44:58 that i'm sorry it's i'm so sorry if you turned turn the page it's i'm looking at the agreed parts okay um if you look at that
00:45:06 that um we we go to a list of bullet points there um there are six in all the fifth one not the sixth one i'll come to that in a minute the fifth one says the chair of the working group writes to the chair of
00:45:18 the working group writes to the chair of the strategy committee a outlining the list of issues drawn up by the working group as above in order to clarify what areas the committee will consider in this expected review of current fire safety legislation what was the
00:45:29 safety legislation what was the strategies committee's expected review of current fire safety legislation what was that
00:45:34 was that uh that is uh
00:45:40 uh that is a reference to the fact that the strategy committee had asked for a report [Music]
00:45:51 [Music] an informative report about fire safety legislation tell us what fire safety legislation there is and
00:46:03 tell us about any issues that arise from it tell us about its relationship with other relevant pieces of legislation so it was
00:46:11 it was and
00:46:12 and i i simply can't remember whether by this time i had begun to surface the proposition of an outside study which you'll probably come to at some point but
00:46:22 but um
00:46:23 um but that but but in my own mind that's that's where it was heading and the sixth bullet point says the chairman of the authority be consulted as to the possibility of him writing to the fire
00:46:34 possibility of him writing to the fire minister to follow up the commissioner's letter of the 11th of december 2012 and to raise the various issues still outstanding now we saw commissioner dobson's letter of december 2012
00:46:45 dobson's letter of december 2012 uh didn't we uh earlier which which raised the question of external walls and the scope of the rro
00:46:54 and there was a reply received from louise upton on the 6th of february to that letter which we've also seen um do you know why the lack of house working group wanted
00:47:05 the lack of house working group wanted to follow up on that correspondence i think because we presented that we made that correspondence available to them and they said this isn't very satisfactory is it right
00:47:16 this isn't very satisfactory is it right so
00:47:17 so they've been they've been a gap from february to december uh
00:47:22 uh sorry from february to august and uh
00:47:26 and uh is it the case that the authority was unsatisfied with or dissatisfied either with what the dclg had been saying and wanted wanted further work done the working group was certainly dissatisfied
00:47:38 working group was certainly dissatisfied yes yes
00:47:42 yes um can we then go to your witness statement at page 11 moving it on a month or so into september 2013 paragraph 35 you say
00:47:53 paragraph 35 you say in september 2013 i presented a report to the strategy committee that invited it to consider where it wished to focus its work
00:48:01 its work the report referred to many of the topics referred to elsewhere in this evidence including the adequacy of the legislative framework for fire safety lessons from latino building information fire safety risk targeting fire investigation etc this was part of my
00:48:14 investigation etc this was part of my ongoing endeavor to give fire safety issues a higher profile the committee decided to prioritize its focus on three topics which were one fire safety legislation and regulation two the
00:48:25 legislation and regulation two the collection and use of data and three equalities issues
00:48:32 now uh you you say you had an ongoing endeavor to give fire safety issues a higher profile
00:48:39 profile a higher profile to whom uh
00:48:44 uh uh anybody i could persuade to listen um so within the brigade and outside the brigade thank you and why in your view was fire safety not a top priority the top priority within
00:48:55 a top priority the top priority within the lfb at the time
00:49:01 we didn't have a top priority within the brigade at the time
00:49:07 uh but i i think i've said somewhere in possibly in my statement or in one of the reports
00:49:19 it was difficult to it was difficult to interest people in fire safety you know on the face of it it didn't seem as interesting a topic as fire fighting
00:49:32 as interesting a topic as fire fighting um it you know i think fire safety historically was overshadowed by
00:49:39 by by fire fighting and interest in firefighting you know if our if our members wanted to talk about fire brigade business it was about fire stations and firefighters and and less about
00:49:51 and less about fire safety and that was true in the boroughs as well even though they had fire safety responsibilities it was it was difficult to engage people
00:50:02 it was it was difficult to engage people certainly outside our organization in fire safety even where they had fire staging responsibilities
00:50:10 and and it it didn't in my opinion get a fair press internally either so once i became deputy commissioner and saw more about the fire safety regulation
00:50:21 about the fire safety regulation department um uh
00:50:24 um uh it was self-evidently deserving of uh
00:50:30 more airtime and more attention um and i endeavored to make that happen did you think ever about trying to promote some kind of
00:50:42 trying to promote some kind of structural change so that the intelligence within the fire safety
00:50:47 safety department or group or fire safety regulation department or group
00:50:53 group on the matters that you've identified in your statement here became familiar to frontline responders operational firefighters well
00:51:08 because you asked me about this before lunch over lunch i was you know thinking well
00:51:14 well if i you know if i had wanted to say something to the front line about brian martin's clarification of the building regulations in relation to
00:51:25 building regulations in relation to external spread of fire
00:51:29 of fire what what would that have been and i you know i couldn't work it out over lunch i'd need to give it some more time and thought but um
00:51:43 i did want the front line to be more aware of fire safety issues but we also wanted incident commanders in particular to
00:51:55 to be better equipped in the light of what had happened at la canal so
00:52:03 so i i just can't today
00:52:06 today um
00:52:07 um put my finger on how would that all of this you know in what way would that have distilled into what went to the front line you know what what would we have wanted them to do differently that would not have been
00:52:19 that would not have been as it were orchestrated by an incident commander at an incident and you know you've raised these questions with me today and i
00:52:28 i i don't quite know what it bears some thinking about and i'm not able to do that today well you posed a rhetorical question let me pose a practical answer how about telling all frontliners in
00:52:41 how about telling all frontliners in london all station managers watch managers in london that when they turn up to a high-rise building which is overclad there is a very significant risk that it might catch fire and there'll be fire spread in an unexpected way and to look out for it uh well look
00:52:54 way and to look out for it uh well look station managers by definition were also incident commanders and so we were doing that in the sense that
00:53:01 that we were saying to them look you know uh you need to be aware of the risk of unpredictability um and there's there's a whole uh
00:53:13 um and there's there's a whole uh body of experience and policies and training associated with that which peter carp and gary reason and dave brown will be able to tell you a lot about in a way which is
00:53:24 a lot about in a way which is uh much more significant than i had so you raised the question you were thinking about over lunch yes what's the answer to it and i'm just positing an answer tell the front liners that cladding on high rise risks burns
00:53:37 cladding on high rise risks burns out of control unpredictably and very rapidly
00:53:41 rapidly does it on all buildings mr millet you saw it at la canal yes and and you asked the question rhetorically i'm trying to persuade i'm trying to put you
00:53:53 trying to persuade i'm trying to put you an answer which i'm i'm inviting you to comment on and
00:53:59 and i'm i'm doing my best to comment on it but i'm i'm not sure i've learned as a result of
00:54:04 result of the work that i did or you know close following of the inquiry that all cladding is inevitably a serious fire risk i don't know that i've learned that if
00:54:15 i don't know that i've learned that if you know
00:54:16 you know maybe all is but i'm i'm just not sure and
00:54:21 and london fire brigade has a responsibility to
00:54:26 to um
00:54:27 um to be thoughtful about what it does and to make sure that if it's going to warn people
00:54:32 people of something that it's well founded and i think during the post-laccanal period where we were for example preparing the communications plan
00:54:43 preparing the communications plan one of the things that i was anxious about was
00:54:46 about was conveying to every high-rise liver
00:54:49 liver in london
00:54:50 in london that their building was inherently unsafe when that's that's not where the evidence that we had at that time pointed us um so
00:55:00 um so you know hundreds of thousands of people live in high-rise blocks in london and they're not all inherently unsafe and we had to be thoughtful about you know what was
00:55:11 you know what was what was accurate and based on evidence and should be openly frequently freely conveyed and what needed to be slightly more careful and more thoughtful
00:55:24 now
00:55:27 your september report to the strategy committee
00:55:31 committee is at lfb 303
00:55:41 it's dated the 9th of september 2013 so you can see and the summary is
00:55:50 is on the screen in front of you and it says new chair of the committee has expressed the desire that the committee should have a discussion about its future work program and priorities the chair is concerned that the committee should focus on strategy
00:56:03 committee should focus on strategy rather than detailed delivery issues this report sets out some suggestions for discussion by the committee the emphasis is on reports with the strategic theme either under the umbrella of the london safety plan or
00:56:15 umbrella of the london safety plan or setting up policy issues concerning the authority's current work and legislative powers and responsibilities now that's the summary if we go to page three
00:56:26 if we go to page three we can see uh
00:56:29 uh the workload or the proposals for the workload uh on that page under paragraph five there you see there's a table and the second item down in the table is fire safety legislation
00:56:40 fire safety legislation and under topic it says this review of current legislation and identifying any gaps does the regulatory reform fire safety order work should lfb be a statutory planning consulti is there
00:56:52 statutory planning consulti is there more lfb could do under current building regulations on policy objectives for example sprinklers why did you consider the fire safety legislation
00:57:04 the fire safety legislation in the way you've identified there should be an area that the strategy committee should be considering uh
00:57:13 uh because i thought the application of the rro in practice raised lots of issues that the committee ought to spend some time on so right oh uh
00:57:25 so right oh uh so
00:57:27 so the brigade had a legal responsibility in terms of the fire safety order in relation to
00:57:36 buildings with a responsible person in london and we had no idea how many they were or what they were or where they were that just seems bonkers to me uh dclg didn't know either of course so
00:57:48 uh dclg didn't know either of course so we had the fire protectionist act which
00:57:51 act which you know was pretty clear about which premises were covered and then we had the rro which was much less clear about an unspecified number or distribution or height
00:58:01 height or use of the buildings covered by the legislation i just thought it was very unsatisfactory and i mentioned earlier that in the arrangements that i established to review the progress of intended
00:58:13 review the progress of intended prosecutions you know there was a constant stream of issues uh so there'd be a fire there'd be a fire investigation there'd be a decide to take action and then we couldn't find a responsible person
00:58:24 responsible person you know it wasn't always easy in fact it was often jolly difficult that was just
00:58:28 just there were just lots of things i felt which were very unsatisfactory about it based on my experience of managing the function and seeing you know how how easy is it to take prosecution action if
00:58:39 easy is it to take prosecution action if that's what you're minding to do so so to get to the root of it this wasn't a lack of specific concern it was bright it was broader than that and we touched on that it was yes i see now go to page
00:58:50 on that it was yes i see now go to page four
00:58:51 four on that page you see paragraph six of the document following discussion with the chair of the committee her preferences for priorities are first bullet a focus on fire safety legislation and regulation to include a
00:59:03 legislation and regulation to include a review of current legislation identifying any gaps etc this topic would be highly relevant to the work of the latter house working group uh now was this the the same as the strategy committee's
00:59:14 the the same as the strategy committee's expected review of current fire safety legislation referred to in the minutes of the meeting of the latin house working group we saw earlier
00:59:25 yes yes yes
00:59:29 and then the third bullet point says a piece of work looking at the looking at equalities issues which would include consideration of whether and when to apply for reassessment against the equality standard a reassessment was due
00:59:40 equality standard a reassessment was due in 2011 but was deferred because of lsp5 preparatory work what were the issues that you were considering or you did consider should be addressed in that piece of work
01:00:01 um
01:00:16 i can't remember i i think i know what it wasn't but i can't remember for sure what it was sorry that's an unhelpful reply sorry i can't remember it's it's a you can't
01:00:27 can't remember it's it's a you can't remember you can't remember can you remember whether it was equalities within the lfb in other words inclusion and diversity
01:00:38 inclusion and diversity within the employees as between them and that's between them of the organization or was it equality's issues in delivery of the functions of the lfb
01:00:51 in delivery of the functions of the lfb i think it was more the former than the latter right um now
01:00:59 at let's go to lfb 3049140
01:01:05 we see at
01:01:07 at page
01:01:09 three on that run of documents the minutes of the next meeting of the national house working group on the 30th of september 2013. we've seen the orc 28th of august minutes we're now on the 30th of
01:01:20 minutes we're now on the 30th of september 2013 minutes uh you can see valerie shawcross was present maurice hester peter truesdale and you were there as the senior mace brigade officer yes yes and
01:01:33 senior mace brigade officer yes yes and then under item one notes of meeting held on 28th of august 2013 and matters are rising the minute lists issues or items which would form the part of the working group's future program
01:01:45 group's future program following clarification of the ambit of the strategy committee's review of fire safety legislation i think is that right yes yes
01:01:52 yes yes and then we find the clarification i think is this right at page five just help me
01:01:57 help me we find something called appendix one which is referred to in that paragraph we've just looked at briefly and here on that page is something that looks like a letter which is a letter so it looks like a draft letter
01:02:09 it looks like a draft letter strategy committee memorandum dear val and it's from if you just scroll to the bottom of the screen sorry page
01:02:16 page if you just have that it's from councillor sarah hayward chair strategy committee
01:02:21 committee and
01:02:22 and if we go
01:02:24 if we go back up a little bit to the second paragraph uh it says this in consultation both with colleagues on the committee and offices the main areas of appendix a that will certainly be included in our discussions are
01:02:35 included in our discussions are first bullet the regulation of leasehold properties within high-rise buildings how landlords are dealing with leaseholders making modifications to doors strict interior walls etc which potentially compromise the fire safety
01:02:46 potentially compromise the fire safety of buildings second bullet the need for a recognized government standard for competent persons carrying out fire safety preventative measures and then it goes on i understand that further guidance required to the rra
01:02:57 further guidance required to the rra will be emphasized in the letter from the commission of the fire minister 26 september 2013 it's um a few days before while there may not be any further work
01:03:08 while there may not be any further work required on this issue if the government do not respond in an appropriate way i will be asking for it to be included as part of our lobbying work that the strategy committee will be receiving a paper on it now the letter from the commissioner
01:03:19 now the letter from the commissioner that's referred to um
01:03:22 um to the fire minister brandon lewis we find that lfb3032149
01:03:29 and so this is a reader cross um
01:03:37 and it's dated the 26th of september 2013
01:03:40 2013 uh to brandon lewis mp from james cleverley who was then the chairman of the um el fipa um cooperatival shaw cross did you see this letter at the time
01:03:51 did you see this letter at the time yes
01:03:53 yes i was probably involved in its production right okay do you think it was before the meeting given that the appendix to the minutes referred to it was it before the meeting
01:04:05 referred to it was it before the meeting do you think
01:04:10 um i've lost focus i don't i don't know the answer to that i'm sorry that's okay now if we look at this letter on the second page it says this sorry second paragraph it says this in the course of their work members have
01:04:21 in the course of their work members have reviewed an exchange of correspondence between the commissioner yourself and your officials and have asked me to write to you again pressing the matters of concern having reviewed the issues i felt that the letter would be better sent by the commissioner whose best
01:04:32 sent by the commissioner whose best place to articulate the detailed policy areas however i wanted to include a covering note to stress the political commitment of the authority to this process and encourage that the areas of concern highlighted are duly addressed
01:04:46 concern highlighted are duly addressed and then
01:04:49 if you if you look down at page two we come to the letter itself from the commissioner to brandon lewis of the 26th of september now before i ask you about that
01:05:00 now before i ask you about that can i just ask you about james cleverley's letter was covering letter was there a feeling either within the lfb or within el fifa that brandon lewis mp or the officials
01:05:13 that brandon lewis mp or the officials within the department dclg were unlikely to cooperate with or respond to the letter if it didn't have the political weight of the elfipa behind it
01:05:28 uh i don't think that would be the right construction because i don't think it reflects the order of things so it was
01:05:35 it was decided or the luckiness house working group as you've already rehearsed asked the chairman uh as he was to write to the minister because they were dissatisfied with the quality of the
01:05:47 dissatisfied with the quality of the exchange earlier in the year but from memory when
01:05:52 when when it came to drafting that letter it was it was a dense technical letter and so we had a discussion at the time which may be via email
01:06:03 which may be via email about whether it was a letter for a politician to send to a politician or whether it would be better for the then chairman james cleverley to write to brandon lewis and say
01:06:13 say look you know these are detailed technical matters that i've asked the commissioner to itemize
01:06:19 itemize to you brandon lewis because we've already had a go with officials and not not got very far but i just want you to understand that he's doing so with you know with my very active support
01:06:33 you know with my very active support yes i mean in a nutshell is this the position that as you put it earlier in your evidence you weren't exactly pushing at an open door with the department and therefore you wanted the full heft of james cleverly behind you
01:06:45 full heft of james cleverly behind you yes right
01:06:47 yes right now um let's look at the commissioner's letter page two um it's on the screen 26th of september 2013.
01:06:54 2013. um did you have a hand in drafting this letter i think so yes yes and
01:07:00 and excuse me um the first two paragraphs of the letter set its context namely the work of the latin house working group and if you look halfway down the second paragraph in the fourth line
01:07:12 in the fourth line it says this whilst my first letter received a reply from one of your officials ms louise upton in february that's the 6th of february 2013 letter we looked at members have reviewed that exchange in the light of the outcome of
01:07:23 exchange in the light of the outcome of the inquest and the rule 43 letters are seen by the coroner they feel that their remain issues to be addressed the issues covered by ms upton's response were and then the first bullet point on this
01:07:35 and then the first bullet point on this page
01:07:36 page and indeed to the bottom of the page set out the lfb's request for guidance on the operation of the rro in relation to common parts and how the rro is intended to operate where the
01:07:47 intended to operate where the responsible person doesn't have control over features affecting common parts i i i summarize um then you can see it says this in her reply
01:07:57 reply after the italics in her reply ms upton explained that the department had no evidence to suggest that the order was intended to apply generally to the structure of a block of flats because it would be artificial to
01:08:08 flats because it would be artificial to delineate domestic premises in such a way that it excludes the structure such as external walls around a flat she added that the department believed this to be the case regardless of whether the structure is in property law
01:08:19 whether the structure is in property law terms comprised within the lease or tenancy of the flat because uh considering the variety of possible arrangements and extent to which various combinations might apply in any one building the results are anomalous she
01:08:31 building the results are anomalous she further added that she therefore did not consider that the order could have been intended to apply in this way then it goes on members of the authority have studied this response they think that it is reasonable to
01:08:42 they think that it is reasonable to expect the dclg should be authoritative on the policy intention but leaving that to one side with the best will in the world it is hard to penetrate what this means and the evidence of the latino fire and our widest fire safety work in
01:08:54 fire and our widest fire safety work in london is that it is an issue that is significant and deserves further attention
01:09:00 attention it is accepted that the department has over the years funded work which was intended to provide clarity but it remains a confused landscape which is too important not to resolve now i read that to you at length
01:09:13 now i read that to you at length partly because people need to see the letter and the concerns but also because there's a question given the fire safety department's investigations into external wall panels and cladding and the risks of external
01:09:26 and cladding and the risks of external fire spread presented thereby and given also the mention of lachnal uh in this letter the fire at latino house here would it be fair to assume that um
01:09:37 would it be fair to assume that um this was the driving force behind this request for further guidance like an old house yeah the concern and investigations into external wall planning
01:09:48 external wall planning panels and cladding and the fire at latin house
01:09:54 well lucknow was absolutely without like an old house this letter would not have been written right um despite the fact that you you had concerns anyway right on on a wider
01:10:07 concerns anyway right on on a wider basis you had these penumbral concerns around lachnal but lachen was this right was the
01:10:12 was the the catalyst for writing letters like this with this letter itself yes yes now given the lack of clarity and miss upton's response which is faithfully reproduced in the
01:10:23 which is faithfully reproduced in the paragraph i've just read to you just under the italics do you know why it took eight months for the lfb to ask for clarification of what ms upton meant
01:10:36 because we knew because as i said earlier in the year we didn't think we were going to make progress with dclg on this and it was helpful for me to be reminded
01:10:48 it was helpful for me to be reminded there that um
01:10:51 um that the inquest and the rule 43 letters provided
01:10:57 provided both the impetus and the opportunity to as it were have another go in indeed and uh perhaps let's let's pick that issue up in the letter if we go to page three
01:11:08 go to page three at the very bottom of page three you'll see that the letter continues it deals with the brigade's request for further guidance in relation to the operation of functional requirement b4 and then it says this
01:11:19 and then it says this underneath the bullet point ms upton provided comments in response to this recommendation with reference to the existing guidance given in the bre publication br 1355 performance of external thermal
01:11:30 performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi-story buildings
01:11:34 buildings however you will be aware that this is a subject that the coroner addressed very fully during the inquest and was one of the specific issues detailed in the rule 43 recommendation issued to dclg in dclg's response to the coroner's
01:11:46 in dclg's response to the coroner's recommendations there is confirmation that research work had been commissioned which would feed into a future review of this part of the building regulations it would therefore be helpful to understand the progress of this research and the time scales for reviewing this aspect of
01:11:57 time scales for reviewing this aspect of building regulations and and then if we look at the second bullet point on page four
01:12:06 there is a repeated call there for
01:12:11 for guidance on fire risk assessor competency and this letter noting that no response had been received at all from the dclg
01:12:21 and then then the last paragraph i expect that this will feel like we're going over old ground but members of the authority are extremely keen to ensure that no matters of concern and neglected or left unresolved it seems to them that
01:12:34 or left unresolved it seems to them that concerns set out in my letter remain to be more finely addressed especially as the inquest made very clear the need for clarity and guidance for residents and responsible persons of high-rise residential buildings the purpose of this letter is to invite you to look at
01:12:47 this letter is to invite you to look at the issues raised previously and to take a view about whether it would now be possible to take some more vigorous action in response to them now would it be fair to describe
01:12:58 now would it be fair to describe that last invitation and the lengthy passages i've read to you
01:13:03 you as an extremely polite kick up the dclg backside
01:13:07 backside yes
01:13:11 now brandon lewis replies and he does so at lfb305899
01:13:19 and he writes to james cleverley on the 16th of october 2013 and if we look at his response to the specific requests uh he sets out the substantive responses
01:13:31 uh he sets out the substantive responses and he uh
01:13:33 and he uh says this if you if you go to uh
01:13:37 uh the third paragraph down
01:13:41 on the question of guidance on the operation of the rro he says in respect of the revised guidance for sleeping accommodation we consider that lake horse and lga fire safety guidance documents tailored to
01:13:53 safety guidance documents tailored to the specific needs of housing providers are appropriate to assist those responsible for ensuring the safety of residents and others in multi-occupied buildings to compliance with the provisions of the fire safety order and the housing act we make both documents
01:14:04 the housing act we make both documents available on the fire safety pages of the government's website and if you look at the final paragraph on this page which is the question about the functional uh
01:14:15 the functional uh the guidance on the functional requirement b4 of the building regulations he says we have also commissioned a range of research to inform a future review of the building's regulations part b the chief fire officers association and
01:14:26 the chief fire officers association and others are involved in the research program to support the next iteration and individual fire and rescue authorities will have the opportunity to feed in comments at the consultation stage we plan to publish a new edition of approved document b in 2016-17
01:14:39 of approved document b in 2016-17 and then over the page page two in the second paragraph there you can see that he says i
01:14:44 he says i um finally your letter notes that the london fire brigade did not receive a response in respect of the recommendation that the government provide guidance to the responsible person on how they might assess that the risk assessor is competent to carry out
01:14:56 risk assessor is competent to carry out a suitable assessment of the risks of risk in complex and high-rise premises fire sector federation published in february 2013 the competency criteria for fire risk assessors that have been developed and agreed by the fire safety
01:15:08 developed and agreed by the fire safety sector these criteria which have been adopted by a number of certification bodies was published alongside guidance for responsible persons looking for help in finding an independently certified competent virus assessor to help them
01:15:19 competent virus assessor to help them comply with their duties under the fire safety order the guard is available on the federation's website and my department has along with the chief fire officers association encouraged individual fire and rescue authorities
01:15:30 individual fire and rescue authorities to make it available to the public on their websites now again i've shown you great chunks of that without asking you a question my question is first of all did you see this response at the time yes you did what was your reaction to it
01:15:45 um
01:15:48 i wasn't surprised by it so if you go back to the first page mr miller let's do that
01:15:56 where it talks about guidance for sleeping accommodation that paragraph reflects government philosophy at that time [Music]
01:16:07 [Music] did you agree with it which i would say was
01:16:10 was we think somebody else should do it so you'll see you know there are there are many examples of the dcog and probably other departments in relation to other functions um statutory functions but
01:16:23 functions um statutory functions but dclg
01:16:25 dclg um
01:16:27 um there was a there was a big thing at this time generally about being sector-led you know the sector can do it um we don't we don't need to do it the
01:16:38 we don't we don't need to do it the sector can do it and that's all together a better thing we buy the audit commission don't need to inspect any more the sector can do it and so there was a big
01:16:46 was a big sector-led thing going on and that seems to me to be an example of it and then in relation to um building regulations part b
01:16:57 building regulations part b you know
01:16:58 you know we're gonna do it it's you know it'll be in the post next week but i'm not sure the letter has ever arrived um so
01:17:07 so it didn't make a substantial difference um to my mind but it will surprise you to know that i can be overly critical of these things um
01:17:19 be overly critical of these things um i i i i wasn't i didn't think it moved things further forward but that would be my assessment of it so not surprised by it but not impressed by it indeed right now um do you remember how
01:17:31 indeed right now um do you remember how and a question for him when he comes i suppose but jeremy do you remember how commissioner dobson reacted to it probably the same and what about the other members of the latin house working group
01:17:43 group probably the same did anybody actually go and look at the um s
01:17:47 um s that's right the fsf competency criteria of pharah's cassettes and actually make it
01:17:53 it make a judgment about whether it satisfactorily answered the issue that the brigade had raised i don't know but i'd be very surprised if the fire safety regulation department
01:18:04 if the fire safety regulation department weren't involved in the work so there were people through sifoa for example involved in fire sector federation work
01:18:16 work but i didn't ask any i didn't check that with anybody as in have you done that did you or anybody else go and look at the lake horse guide or the lga guide in the light of the reference here in the third paragraph
01:18:27 third paragraph and see whether they adequately address the questions that you wanted answered by government
01:18:34 i'm reasonably sure that i had [Music]
01:18:38 [Music] not for the purposes of the this letter but as it were part of ongoing business um uh
01:18:46 uh read the lay cause guide and the lga fire safety guidance document right
01:18:53 right sorry
01:18:55 sorry in the light of this response and this is now october mid october 2013 so more than four years after the lagnal house fire is it fair to say that the lfb's concern
01:19:07 is it fair to say that the lfb's concern regarding potentially widespread use of non-compliant paneling and the obscurities relating to the rro remained entirely unassuaged at least by dealings with central government
01:19:22 uh
01:19:26 i'm sorry would you ask me again i'm just um i want to be certain that i uh properly take into account yes the first part
01:19:36 part would it be fair to say that
01:19:40 that more than four years after the latino house fire the lfb's concern relating to potentially widespread use of non-compliant paneling on the on the exterior of high-rise buildings
01:19:52 exterior of high-rise buildings and the obscurity surrounding the rro at least in that respect remained entirely unassuaged
01:20:05 i think yes on the obscurity point um
01:20:09 um [Music]
01:20:11 [Music] i think you're inviting me in effect to confirm that we had widespread concern about cladding i think and i'm i think i've been slightly reluctant to do that and i don't want to move away from that
01:20:22 don't want to move away from that position no i understand i didn't say widespread concern i said concern about potentially widespread use of non-compliant paneling yes i i i think i've i i think i have
01:20:34 yes i i i think i've i i think i have been
01:20:35 been on the side of cautious about that statement and i still am right and i could be wrong in being cautious but that's how i feel was the lfb left with the
01:20:46 the view
01:20:47 view that there remained absent government intervention a significant risk that
01:20:54 that combustible panels on the outside of buildings high-rise buildings might go undetected by building owners leaseholders or fire risk assessors
01:21:09 this is 2013.
01:21:15 uh
01:21:18 not that i'm aware of for reasons that i explained this morning
01:21:29 did this letter communicate to you when you read it that central government had yet done anything to obviate
01:21:40 to obviate the the risks posed by non-compliant uh external wall constructions on high-rise buildings
01:21:51 high-rise buildings um
01:21:52 um from your reading of the letter to me i don't think i've seen anything in there that would have that effect no
01:22:01 was it your impression that the government had basically kicked most of your questions on the rro and the building regulations into the long grass so to speak
01:22:18 i i didn't come away from any of this correspondence with the view that they were
01:22:24 were highly motivated to take interesting new action another delicate but nonetheless revealing answer so thank you for the diplomacy but i think we know what you're saying in the light of that
01:22:37 you're saying in the light of that did you or anybody else in the lfb consider taking matters into your own hands for example by writing to building owners and housing providers and asking them to check the specifications of their high-rise external wall panels
01:22:50 no why is that
01:22:57 uh
01:23:05 simply because we didn't mr millet uh it's hard sometimes to explain why you didn't think to do something that you didn't think to do but uh no he never crossed my mind right did you give any thought to giving the
01:23:17 did you give any thought to giving the government a slightly more strident and pointed message
01:23:26 if you if you if you'd asked me that question at the time i'd have said i i didn't think this was going anywhere and you know from my witness statement that i had
01:23:36 i had you know i had plans um but they were longer term plans
01:23:45 so we've got on this letter correspondence with the government whereby there is to be no forthcoming clarification either with the scope of the rro
01:23:55 the rro uh
01:23:56 uh uh on competency of fire risk assessors beyond the competency council criteria and an unanswered question about b4 fire spread in the light of that did the lfb take
01:24:08 in the light of that did the lfb take any steps
01:24:09 any steps to
01:24:11 to educate operational crews when preparing both operationally and educationally for another high-rise fire
01:24:23 preparation for high-rise fires was an ongoing activity of the brigade and i'm sorry may i just may i just go one stage back i i realized that um
01:24:36 whilst london fire brigade were sending these letters to um dclg but as we've seen not feeling that we got very far
01:24:46 very far it's it's quite possible that the lga were doing something similar in parallel and ron dobson would be um in a position i think he was an adviser to the lga fire committee or whatever it
01:24:59 the lga fire committee or whatever it was called and he he may well have he he he may know that there was something more substantial happening there although i'd be
01:25:10 i'd be i wasn't i wasn't aware of it you you don't know i don't know and i i like to think that i would have known um but i just don't want to exclude the possibility that you know ron knew we weren't succeeding in
01:25:21 know ron knew we weren't succeeding in london but it doesn't mean that there weren't other people um or also having a go and he was aware of that yes but that's is that that you're speculating aren't you uh i i i am but only because
01:25:33 aren't you uh i i i am but only because um
01:25:33 um you know the lga in one sense is the body that talks to government on behalf of local governments are you aware from your own knowledge of any discussions between the lga and
01:25:44 of any discussions between the lga and central government on these issues in 2013 i i'm not no
01:25:52 now uh turning to uh
01:25:56 uh the development of the rio report and the instruction of the bre is a separate topic can i take you back please to uh lfb3049140
01:26:09 and go to page five again this is back to the draft letter dear val from councillor sarah hayward
01:26:18 uh the letter itself that there it is in the appendix one to the minute of the um 30th of the september 2013 lack of house working group meeting
01:26:29 2013 lack of house working group meeting but let's look at the letter is sent it's at lfb00107305
01:26:37 just to show people that it was actually sent as opposed simply to being a draft oh this is a different letter isn't it this is the isn't isn't this the letter to to which sarah hayward is replying uh
01:26:53 well i'm you're asking me a question i'm sorry i i i i thought you were suggesting that this was as it were the final version of the one we've just looked at yeah was actually uh i don't think it
01:27:05 well if we go to page three
01:27:12 i'm sorry paragraph three of the letter sorry this is doug shaw crosses letter or is this sarah how hey so this is yes i'm afraid i don't know
01:27:23 so this is yes i'm afraid i don't know what's happened there this is this is the
01:27:27 the this is belshaw across to sarah that's right yes exactly it's an odd looking document because it appears it appears underneath the elf memorandum note paper but it is a letter
01:27:38 memorandum note paper but it is a letter can you help me why is it in that form
01:27:45 i'm sorry well it's it's a it it's in the form of a memorandum to councillor hayward from valerie shawcross on el fifa note paper
01:27:58 maybe you don't know what uh
01:28:06 not normal business practice right in our organization i see uh they're both elfipa people aren't they they are they are right one is strategy committee the others lack house
01:28:17 strategy committee the others lack house working committee but they've both got the elf even note paper yeah that's how they communicate yes yes right now um just to remind you if we go back to
01:28:26 back to um the the letter to which i think this is a response you are right let's just look back at it again
01:28:35 lfb3049140 page five
01:28:41 uh if we go to paragraph three in that document um you can see we read this before
01:28:47 before um i understand that further guidance required to the rra will be emphasized in the letter from the commissioner to the fire minister 26 september 2013 which we've now seen and then it goes on uh
01:28:58 uh whilst there may not be any further work required on this issue if the government did not respond in an appropriate way i'll be asking for it to be included as part of our lobbying work the strategy committee will be receiving a paper on it i read that to you before i'm reading
01:29:10 it i read that to you before i'm reading it to you again in light of what we've now seen from the actual letter and the actual response can you tell me what was the strategy committee's view on whether brandon
01:29:21 committee's view on whether brandon lewis mp's letter of the 16th of october 2013 by way of response to the 26th of september 2013 letter was appropriate
01:29:36 i don't recall i don't recall them having a view i don't recall them being invited to have a view or right or or having one did the strategy committee uh push
01:29:47 push uh
01:29:48 uh for lobbying work uh no i proposed it to them right
01:29:56 right did it ask for a paper on the rro
01:30:01 we promised a paper on fire safety legislation uh you know you members so it was a new committee with new members and we promised them a report which attempted to
01:30:12 attempted to describe
01:30:13 describe describe the fire safety legislation landscape right now let's go to lfb 30861
01:30:37 uh and if we look at this email chain if we go to
01:30:42 we go to uh
01:30:43 uh the
01:30:45 email right at the very foot of page one and over to page two we can see that you send an email to ron dobson on the 25th of
01:30:51 of uh october
01:30:54 in fact i think we need to start a little earlier than that if we go to page three
01:31:01 um this is an email from you to dobson on the 19th of october 2013 which is only three days or so after um brandon lewis mp's 16th of october response to james cleverley and you say this i'm
01:31:12 james cleverley and you say this i'm working on a p on a piece of work for the next strategy committee about the rro
01:31:17 rro and just pausing there was was that the piece of work as a result of the strategy committee's dim view of brandon lewis's response no i think i hope i've said i'm not sure
01:31:28 no i think i hope i've said i'm not sure the strategy committee had a view that the lucknow house working groups certainly did
01:31:36 [Music] and no i don't think one was the product of the other anyway i think it was um
01:31:43 um i think it was because so this we had a new chair sarah haywood a new committee strategy committee and officers went and met her in her office to talk about you know what she wanted
01:31:55 to talk about you know what she wanted to do with the committee and what she wanted to prioritise and we or i
01:32:01 we or i absolutely wanted them to receive a report about fire safety legislation and what we saw some of the issues and problems as being and you go on to say when i look back over the last three to four years i feel
01:32:13 over the last three to four years i feel disappointed with myself that we haven't effectively enough marshaled our arguments
01:32:17 arguments about the effectiveness of the regulatory fire safety environment government have approached in a piecemeal way and we have not and we have responded on the grounds that they have set but when you stand back and think about whether it all works not
01:32:29 think about whether it all works not just the rra but the way it works alongside housing act duties and responsibilities and the separate structural fire safety regimes including building control you have to question whether we should go back to the drawing
01:32:40 whether we should go back to the drawing board one of my own tentative conclusions was that a single regime for lots of very different classes of premises might be wrong in principle and having concluded that i was then a bit dismayed and a bit amused to find that
01:32:51 dismayed and a bit amused to find that brian robinson had written something similar in that fire futures stuff it asked for a copy of a report which dealt with this idea and when it arrived yesterday brian was given as the author with a contribution from nick collins
01:33:03 with a contribution from nick collins dclg published an evaluation of the rro in march 2009 but in truth this was much too soon which the report itself acknowledges and it is quiet on issues that since then have emerged as key
01:33:14 that since then have emerged as key issues and problems sue budden was whispering in my ear about nog money has national operational guidance money at cmb this week much to
01:33:25 guidance money at cmb this week much to seb's
01:33:27 seb's annoyance i think but it has caused me to wonder whether there are grounds for taking a lump of that up to 50 to 100 000 to commission a new national query study of what works and what needs to change
01:33:39 and what needs to change we ourselves spend over 15 million a year on fsr and it's difficult to know if that's all good value and effectively targeted what do you think now when you
01:33:50 now when you sent that email what sort of study did you have in mind i wanted just to commission a piece of uh research to be undertaken by an external an external provider
01:34:02 external an external provider so you know yeah if you work in another part of local government and you want somebody to review your sen provision or your
01:34:13 review your sen provision or your uh or do an organizational development study there are consultants falling over you to to do this work price waterhouse and arthur anderson and ernst young
01:34:24 and arthur anderson and ernst young so they specialise in doing you know reviews of issues and structures in local government and [Music]
01:34:34 [Music] and i wanted some kind of
01:34:38 i wanted some clever people from outside the fire service to do a piece of research for us and we would as part of an open procurement process
01:34:49 as part of an open procurement process which we had we would publish terms of reference saying these are the things we're interested in go away and study them and make a report back to us and we'll come back after the break to look at the response
01:35:01 look at the response uh that you got from the commissioner the following week perhaps that's a computer is that the point you'd like to break yes thank you all right well we'll have a short break now mr dexa we'll come back at least 25 to four
01:35:13 come back at least 25 to four and again discuss your evidence within one while you're away please
01:35:28 right 25 to 4 please
01:52:48 yes would you ask mr dexter to come back in please
01:53:07 right mr texas ready to carry on yes thank you very much yes mr millet mr chairman thank you um we were looking at your email of the 19th of october 2013 to ron dobson which i read to you in
01:53:18 to ron dobson which i read to you in full um i'd like now to look at the response from ron dobson the following week the 25th of october can we go back please to lfb 3086147
01:53:30 there it is and he says this i've been thinking quite a bit about this since your email i think my conclusion is that i agree that we do have a hodgepodge of legislation that has been developed over
01:53:42 legislation that has been developed over many years and probably does not best serve all of those involved in dealing with safety in the built environment i also agree that a wholesale review of this would be a good thing to do however i'm not convinced that it is for us to
01:53:53 i'm not convinced that it is for us to do a loan and it is certainly not for us to do alone on a national basis however i would be supportive of a collaborative approach between us and possibly london councils the mayor's office and maybe others involved in the area the funding for this is something
01:54:05 area the funding for this is something that i have some ideas about but i would prefer to discuss these rather than commit to them to email i do have a think that a consideration before we take this any further is where it might end up particularly in an environment
01:54:16 end up particularly in an environment where government is only interested in reducing the legislative burden and certainly not on increasing it want to discuss next week before it goes any further i think thanks
01:54:27 any further i think thanks now what do you understand ron dobson to me in saying as he does at the end there particularly in an environment where government is only interested in reducing the
01:54:38 is only interested in reducing the legislative burden and certainly not on increasing it
01:54:46 i think it's a statement of i think we're recognized fact at that time so that you know the government had formally declared policies about reducing the burden on business for
01:54:57 reducing the burden on business for example
01:54:58 example and i think maybe the public affairs strategy report which you'll probably come to refers to the government policy i'm not sure this was formally declared policy but the
01:55:11 policy but the one in two out as it became it started as one in one out and it became one in two out uh you know if you get get rid of one item or the other uh you can have one new
01:55:22 or the other uh you can have one new item if you discard two new items so it was it was openly recognized that the government had a a deregulating agenda and certainly a reducing the
01:55:35 agenda and certainly a reducing the burdens on business um although i'm i'm not sure that what what i had in mind would have been more more burden on business but it may well have been more burden on public
01:55:47 well have been more burden on public authorities and that would have given rise to you know issues about funding as well
01:55:54 well right
01:55:54 right let's look at your response to the email at the top of this page page two just a little bit later that day it starts at the bottom of page 1
01:56:06 it starts at the bottom of page 1 just to show you the timing of the email which is at 1931 on that evening and if we go to the top of page 2 please we can see you say this okay we should discuss further this is the draft report that has been issued for the pre-meet with
01:56:17 has been issued for the pre-meet with councillor hayward on tuesday it doesn't mention a study but it does refer to questions about whether the current regime is fit for purpose towards the end it says also appearing on the agenda for the meeting of the committee is a draft of public affairs
01:56:29 committee is a draft of public affairs strategy that paper reflects the analysis in this report that there are problems with the current regulatory regime which may well need changing it notes that this would not be an easy objective to achieve would likely take
01:56:40 objective to achieve would likely take some some years possibly four and any campaign to achieve it would need to be based on some detailed legal and policy work to develop a model for a revised rro that we would consider satisfactory you would also need to consider the
01:56:51 you would also need to consider the interaction of the rra with other relevant legislation including approved document b and other building regulations and the housing acts 1985 and 2004.
01:57:02 and 2004. i produced the attached report only last saturday and ian and i discussed it during the week as a result we thought that if well put together we might be able to sell a change to the regulatory structure under the general deregulation
01:57:14 structure under the general deregulation framework if we get rid of old ones and introduce a new clearer and more functional new one one in two out rule bit of a stretch but not impossible so we have also added a further sentence to
01:57:25 we have also added a further sentence to the public affairs report to that effect now the draft report that you attached to that email is at lfb3086144
01:57:41 and it's some dated 12th november 2013 which was two days before the next latino house working group meeting but i think i'm right in saying it wasn't on the agenda for that meeting and did you
01:57:52 the agenda for that meeting and did you write this yes you do let's look at um uh the title fire led safety legislation does it work question mark
01:58:01 mark so this was a draft uh indeed and it says draft yes and watermark across it yeah but this is am i right in thinking this is what you sent to ron dobson in your 25th of october response i can't be
01:58:12 your 25th of october response i can't be certain but i think if you if you say so i accept that right now i'd see it has the title first safety legislation does it work and the first paragraph of the summary reads at its last meeting on 9th september 2013 the committee agreed to
01:58:24 september 2013 the committee agreed to report fep 2117 setting out a forward work program one of the topics agreed was a focus on fire safety legislation and regulation to include a review of
01:58:35 and regulation to include a review of current legislation identifying any gaps etc
01:58:39 etc you see that now skipping to the next paragraph this paragraph is essentially an initial discussion paper which gives consideration to the scope of this review of fire safety legislation and
01:58:50 review of fire safety legislation and seeks members views on what issues should be included in the review now in writing this draft at least what was your view as to whether the fire safety legislative framework was working or wasn't working
01:59:04 uh
01:59:07 more not working than working so
01:59:12 i think particularly out of lucknow but more widely there was particular confusion between about the interaction between the rro and the housing act for example
01:59:24 and the housing act for example but there were many other issues as well um
01:59:27 um i've already said the work on prosecutions in particular um highlighted many issues uh uh we'd had a coroner's inquest in
01:59:39 uh we'd had a coroner's inquest in relation to uh or there'd been a coroner's report in relation to a london fire death where the coroner was you know was uh close to furious that even at the
01:59:51 uh close to furious that even at the time of the inquest the um the responsible person for the building which was a private sector um a high-rise block it's still not been identified it took us some time before we were able to do that so that there
02:00:02 we were able to do that so that there was there was a long list of things that we had encountered as a result of fires and prosecution activity and other enforcement activity that
02:00:13 enforcement activity that needed to be addressed yes now if um we well
02:00:18 we well the sentiments that you set out in this report clearly you held them were there others in the lfb who shared the same views of the rro
02:00:30 yes yes they were [Music]
02:00:40 yes so in legal and democratic services for example
02:00:44 example uh
02:00:45 uh they could see some of the problems addressed by these reports there were colleagues in fire safety regulation who who [Music]
02:00:55 [Music] would would certainly talk about the issues individually but they may not they may not then have added them up in the way that i did but that's in one sense that's what you have seen your managers for isn't it um
02:01:06 managers for isn't it um so
02:01:07 so yes they were concerned about um various combinations of the i think were the subheadings of the headline um a public affairs person um
02:01:18 um uh
02:01:19 uh uh in wilmore at that time who who was closely involved in the drafting of the public affairs strategy um he he was an experienced public sector lobbyist and he he could
02:01:31 public sector lobbyist and he he could see
02:01:32 see what the problems were and what we were trying to do and there was it wasn't extensive but there was some external uh concern well i say it wasn't extensive but i think
02:01:43 i say it wasn't extensive but i think housing housing providers in london maybe via the high-rise forum or maybe some of the meetings we had facilitated by london councils in the early days after la canal
02:01:55 early days after la canal they clearly felt vulnerable or unsure about aspects of what their responsibilities were and about the regime that was in place and
02:02:05 and um you know yes sorry i'll finish that um page 11. we can go to page 11 in this document in the last substantive
02:02:16 in the last substantive uh
02:02:18 uh paragraph of your report at paragraph 43 you say also appearing on the agenda for the meeting of the committee is a draft public affairs strategy that paper reflects the analysis in this report
02:02:29 reflects the analysis in this report that there are problems with the current regulatory regime which may well need changing it notes that this would not be an easy objective to achieve would likely take some years possibly four and any campaign to achieve it would need to
02:02:41 any campaign to achieve it would need to be based on some detailed legal and policy work to develop a model for a revised rrio etc and you've seen that before
02:02:49 before because the rest of it appears elsewhere now the public affairs strategy report that's referred to in the first line of that paragraph is at lfb3032342
02:03:07 and it's called future public affairs strategy and it's also dated the 12th of november 2013. now this doesn't appear to be a draft is that right indeed right did you send
02:03:18 is that right indeed right did you send this also to commissioner dobson or not
02:03:22 or not we can't tell whether you did or didn't uh
02:03:26 i i i can't recall right can we go to page three please and look at paragraphs eight and nine
02:03:34 um uh an under eight which has the reference to the rro there approved document b and related legislation um you say this the rro has known flaws as a regulatory framework for fire
02:03:46 as a regulatory framework for fire services the recent exchange of correspondence between the commissioner and dclg officials shows that there is vagueness in the existing regulations for example in relation to inspection of quotes common parts close quotes in
02:03:57 quotes common parts close quotes in blocks of flats and that seeking clarification from government is not likely to be successful the brigade also experiences repeated problems in progressing investigations because fire officers do not have powers to compel
02:04:08 officers do not have powers to compel witness statements or seize relevant documents it's possible that progress might be made through formal guidance but it's more likely that a revised rra or replacement secondary legislation would be needed this is not an objective
02:04:20 would be needed this is not an objective an easy objective to achieve and would likely take some years possibly four and any campaign to achieve it would need to be based on some detailed legal and policy work to develop a model for a revised rra
02:04:31 to develop a model for a revised rra that we would consider satisfactory you'd also need to consider the interaction with the rro of the rra with other other relevant legislation including approved document b and other building regulations housing acts 1985
02:04:42 building regulations housing acts 1985 and 2004
02:04:44 and 2004 and then you say an internal elfipa working group on this would seem a useful mechanism to consider what our priority objectives for change would be to put these into a form that could readily be incorporated in legislation or guidance
02:04:56 or guidance now
02:04:58 now again i've read great chunks of this document too because it's important that you see the context but standing back from the detail as you saw it was there a risk to life presented by the defects in the rro as
02:05:09 presented by the defects in the rro as it stood
02:05:13 uh yes yes i'm sorry i don't think i i don't think i thought about that question at the time but if you ask me now the answer is yes
02:05:24 is it right you didn't think about it in those terms at the time indeed right
02:05:30 but if somebody had asked me the question that you just asked me at the time i think the answer would have been yes right simply not put to me in those terms no i understand and um i know it's a counterfactual to some
02:05:41 i know it's a counterfactual to some extent but but if somebody had asked you those questions that question at the time could you tell them what those risks were that adequate inadequate fire risk assessments
02:05:52 assessments were
02:05:55 resulting in inadequate buildings
02:06:01 and in the event of a fire uh
02:06:05 uh the risk to life was realized in instances that were known to london fire brigade can i just ask for help on this i mean that suggests not necessarily
02:06:17 i mean that suggests not necessarily that the provisions of the rro are defective it's just that they're not being properly carried out that's a that's that's a very fair point and that and that would have needed to be explored further
02:06:28 explored further yes that is a very fair point um can i can i ask you this we've seen many of these
02:06:34 of these documents complaining that the uh rro is defective did did you ever get to the stage of listing
02:06:41 listing the defects in the rro as they appeared to the
02:06:46 to the london fire brigade i think so that is in one of the documents well maybe we're going to see it at some point but i mean so so far
02:06:56 so so far the debate's all been conducted at a very high level in these documents with the exception of the correspondence with the uh
02:07:03 the uh uh
02:07:04 uh dclg where certain fairly specific questions were well for uh
02:07:11 for uh i did in fact give you an example earlier although it might not have presented itself as such so the brigade when the change from the fire precautions act to the rro happened
02:07:24 precautions act to the rro happened um
02:07:25 um the
02:07:26 the number of premises for which it was deemed london fire brigade had an interest under the ro uh was estimated to have approximately doubled from 350 000 to over 700 000. um
02:07:40 doubled from 350 000 to over 700 000. um but the seven hundred thousand figure was largely speculative probably well-informed speculation but it was a view the brigade came to um about the number of premises um uh covered by the rro
02:07:54 premises um uh covered by the rro um but as i said earlier there was no no
02:07:58 no usable
02:08:00 usable breakdown or understanding of whether that was
02:08:03 that was uh
02:08:04 uh 500 000 shops and 500 to 500 high-rise blocks to use that as an example so the composition of that um was not available to the brigade
02:08:17 um was not available to the brigade and
02:08:18 and had to be
02:08:19 had to be and probably still is being slowly accumulated based upon uh putting together myriad different data sources is that a defect in the legislation
02:08:30 legislation or defect in its application i don't know that i know the answers to that but you know i feel that um a piece of legislation where is that
02:08:41 a piece of legislation where is that where there is uncertainty about to whom it applies does doesn't well um uncertainty about whom it applies may relate to uh uncertainty in the
02:08:53 may relate to uh uncertainty in the construction of the legislation yes so you don't know what it means yes or or certainty
02:08:59 certainty albeit there's certainty in the construction of the legislation uncertainty as to how many people or in this case how many premises it applies to but
02:09:09 to but i think
02:09:11 i think for me those issues needed to be explored further yeah but one one suggests you need to amend the legislation yes one suggests you need to work out how to apply it properly
02:09:22 work out how to apply it properly i i accept that but
02:09:25 but but
02:09:26 but this was um this was contemplating what the outcomes might be without saying with certainty that is what they would be so this was intended this further work was
02:09:38 this was intended this further work was intended
02:09:39 intended to be informed by a very robust piece of research which would be undertaken outside the brigade all right well perhaps we'd better go on and maybe we'll get to
02:09:50 and maybe we'll get to a document of the sort you've identified later on well i think the document that the witnesses identified we've just looked at in fact we think but to go back to that
02:10:02 we think but to go back to that we've seen two documents the fire safety legislation does it work draft document and the future strategy document that's on the screen both dated the 12th of november
02:10:14 both dated the 12th of november uh 2013.
02:10:16 uh 2013. um the former is a draft was it finalized and sent to the strategy committee yeah yes it was so i don't think for example um the final version had
02:10:27 had the does it work question attached to it so
02:10:31 so i think that's right yeah okay okay um so
02:10:34 so um there were amendments and i'm reasonably sure i made some amendments in response to comments offered by the commissioner but i think the report maybe has a list
02:10:45 but i think the report maybe has a list of
02:10:46 of the kinds of more detailed questions that
02:10:51 that i was
02:10:52 i was that i was referring to in response to the chairman's questions well but let's go back and look at that in a moment then but just before i do can i just ask you why
02:11:00 you why were you giving the strategy committee uh two reports covering essentially the same topic um
02:11:09 um on the same day
02:11:12 why weren't they
02:11:16 uh i think from memory the public affairs report
02:11:22 report uh also dealt with issues which were not associated with fire safety regulation
02:11:32 right um let's let's press on then because we'll come back to the final version of the draft does it work document without the does it work yes in a moment
02:11:43 the does it work yes in a moment um continuing with the emails if i can can we go back to the email chain we were looking at before lfb3086147
02:11:54 and you can see the commissioner's response to your email of the 25th of october 2013 at 7 30 or say in the evening
02:12:05 7 30 or say in the evening and
02:12:06 and if you get back to page one please at the very bottom half of the page we can see even later in the evening he comes back to you
02:12:16 to you and he says this this is quite a significant report and i can't do it justice reading it on my phone however i must admit that i am surprised probably more disappointed really that it could be dispatched to members without any discussion at cnb or
02:12:28 members without any discussion at cnb or at least informally with me it appears though from the comments attributed to them at the end that it had been discussed with david atkinson and sue budden
02:12:35 budden even though sorry even through scanning the report on my phone i can see that the direction it is seeking to influence the members in is in line with the proposal i commented on this afternoon and when i sent that email i didn't have
02:12:46 and when i sent that email i didn't have any inclination that this report existed so i feel rather foolish there are bits of the report that i don't think are accurate and others with which i simply disagree but as it has now gone to members already i don't suppose it's worth commenting now
02:12:58 worth commenting now uh and then and you then respond a few days later three days later and you say at the top of the page as i said i would i've looked at this report again to see where it could be refined in line with
02:13:09 where it could be refined in line with your comments in fact there is in actuality nothing which seeks to influence members towards a national or even local study or review beyond the scope of the work of the committee itself requested you'll recall that this piece of work was requested by
02:13:21 piece of work was requested by councillor hayward stroke julian pinney paragraph 43 is the most outspoken statement i'm just pausing that i i i think i read that to you but this is a straight lift from the public affairs
02:13:32 straight lift from the public affairs report that was approved at cmb nevertheless i've made some changes which are shown here are there specific things that you would like me to remove dispatch is not for a few days yet and i'll tell councillor hayward that it's
02:13:43 i'll tell councillor hayward that it's unfinished and will change further before dispatch now um
02:13:48 now um just to try and get this chronology right
02:13:51 right um
02:13:53 um the document that you'd sent the commissioner was the draft fire safety legislation does it work document i think that's what i gather from here yes but how do you all say is he right that you had sent that out to the
02:14:05 that you had sent that out to the members
02:14:06 members only informally to councillor hayward right so it was a draft stage okay because he got rather cross about that but in fact he wasn't and it was a fair cop it was extremely rare for him to be crossed with me i hope because i didn't give him
02:14:17 with me i hope because i didn't give him many reasons to but this was a rare thing um but it had gone to council heywood as a draft and was absolutely still capable of being amended okay as you say and it ha and
02:14:28 amended okay as you say and it ha and then then there were amendments i think to it as we'll come to see in a moment uh but um what i want to ask you about is um that it appears from um this email run that there was a
02:14:39 um this email run that there was a discussion uh about this report um
02:14:44 um or rather about the fire safety legislation report as it became of offline is that right was there one i i i um
02:14:54 i um i can't remember um is that because you're reflecting on the words where it could be refined in line with your comments well did you have a discussion
02:15:05 well did you have a discussion i don't remember um so you've you've drawn that sentence to my attention and i and i
02:15:11 and i immediately thought to myself does that mean we met or he sent me something but i can't remember right and do you know what his views were on the draft in general
02:15:21 uh no right
02:15:24 no right i mean he says in his email that he thinks parts of it were inaccurate and something you disagreed with can you remember now what they were no no do you know what his own views were on
02:15:35 do you know what his own views were on the adequacy of the fire safety legislative landscape uh
02:15:43 but beyond what we've seen in the email
02:15:47 no no now if you go to your witness statement please page 11 paragraph 36
02:15:54 you can see in the eighth line there you exhibit the final version of the report for the strategy committee and you say that it was entitled fire safety legislation
02:16:05 it was entitled fire safety legislation review of current legislation and you produce it i think is rm uh
02:16:10 uh um six
02:16:13 um six and you say um it was a detailed report that aimed to provide members with an accessible insight into the escape and problems that ongoing fire safety work and the fire at national house had revealed and
02:16:24 fire at national house had revealed and which i felt the relevant legislation did not help the report laid the ground for an independent study which was subsequently undertaken by the building research establishment and completed after my departure from the lfb
02:16:38 what was it about the legislation that you considered that the fire at laguna house had revealed almost i i'd need to see the the report again um
02:16:50 again um let's do that lfb3086148
02:16:54 this is the track change version of the draft we saw earlier
02:17:03 it's still entitled draft because it's got track changes on it we might this might help you um you can see
02:17:12 what's changed and the does it work was deleted and in its place in the title review of current legislation was um inserted
02:17:21 inserted do you know what the reason was behind that change uh
02:17:25 uh i'm i think i'm you know the the effect of the commissioner's comments that we've seen uh seemed to me to
02:17:35 to suggest that he i mean he would have preferred not to have been in a rush that was obvious um
02:17:42 um [Music]
02:17:45 [Music] but i also took from it the possibility that he believed it was overstated um and so
02:17:49 and so it was it was in response to that i see can we go to page nine please and look at paragraph 34
02:18:01 under the heading do the necessary tools and competencies for the task exist we can see that you amended the report to delete the text based on the experience of the brigade there is room for doubt
02:18:13 for doubt you can see what's deleted in the delete balloon there on the right and then you've added some words in blue with the track underneath however although it is difficult to quantify it seems highly
02:18:24 difficult to quantify it seems highly likely to be the case that many london local authorities and other public bodies have since sharpened their focus and increased their investment in respect of their fire safety management responsibilities the newly established
02:18:35 responsibilities the newly established high-rise forum has demonstrated a great deal of enthusiasm for better competence and better action why did you delete the line based on the experience of the brigade there is room
02:18:46 experience of the brigade there is room for doubt when answering the question in the heading of the section
02:18:52 uh for the reason i've just given i you know i i took what i i accepted what i understood to be a cue from the commissioner that i needed to reflect
02:19:04 commissioner that i needed to reflect harder on some of the phraseology was it still in fact the case that the experience of the brigade had given you room for doubt as you had first
02:19:15 as you had first inserted in the draft
02:19:19 [Music]
02:19:30 sorry uh what was the question again mr miller i just well let me try sorry no you can try it the same way if you just repeat it i think yes was it in fact the case that the experience of the brigade had given you room for doubt
02:19:42 the brigade had given you room for doubt based on what i saw through the prosecution reviews i
02:19:46 i think
02:19:48 think i think yes right um
02:19:52 um and
02:19:54 what was the basis for your belief that it was quote highly likely to be the case that many london local authorities and other public bodies have since sharpened their focus and increased their investment in
02:20:05 and increased their investment in respect to fire safety management uh
02:20:09 uh the what what we were hearing through the high-rise forum and i think also before the high-rise forum there'd been a series of meetings with london housing directors um
02:20:21 london housing directors um certainly at the offices at london councils and i attended a couple of those with steve turek but um
02:20:27 um so be a combination of that and the high-rise forum right and sorry and i i can't remember the time the timing but um i also in some of these reports drew on contributions from the borough commander
02:20:39 contributions from the borough commander so the borough commanders were invited to send me um
02:20:46 um to send me uh information about their experience in their boroughs working with them on high-rise housing matters and so
02:20:59 high-rise housing matters and so those things combined
02:21:04 now we've got the minute we have the minutes of the strategy committee's meeting of the 12th of november 2013 at which
02:21:09 which uh this
02:21:11 uh this uh report i think was presented can we go to that it said nfb3042372
02:21:24 and indeed these minutes show that both reports were presented if we go to page three under item eight
02:21:35 future affairs future public affairs strategy
02:21:39 strategy fep2166 report by the deputy commissioner you see that yes uh was that you presenting the second of these two reports that we've looked at do you mean the
02:21:50 that we've looked at do you mean the public affairs strategy yes no it was presented by the then public affairs officer uh
02:21:56 uh uh oh i see sorry but it says report by the deputy commissioner that's your report presented by the public affairs officer yes i follow um and and then if you go to item nine on the next page
02:22:08 you go to item nine on the next page page four
02:22:10 page four fire safety legislation review of current legislation fep2167 report by the deputy commissioner and assistant commissioner fire safety regulation uh who actually presented that report
02:22:24 uh who actually presented that report uh i i don't remember but if it names us both pro we probably did it together well
02:22:29 well again um
02:22:31 again um maybe that the report was was authored by both of you yes but presented by both of you or one of you you don't remember certainly sitting next to each other you know it's like we slightly we both
02:22:42 you know it's like we slightly we both contributed but i don't recall right it goes on the report which was welcomed by the committee was introduced by the deputy commissioner that's you explaining that it was intended to provide the wider a wide overview of the subject and it tied in with the work of
02:22:54 subject and it tied in with the work of the latino house working group it was noted that the department of communities and local government had undertaken a review of the fire safety regulatory reform board of 2005 at a national level and officers suggested it might be
02:23:06 and officers suggested it might be timely to replicate this on a london basis after debate the motion was made by councillor hayward that one officers undertake examination in greater detail of all the areas listed in paragraph
02:23:17 of all the areas listed in paragraph three of the report in the order of priority as listed
02:23:23 now just two things um the review that you studied said that had been undertaken by the dclg
02:23:32 the dclg at a national level was that the 2009 review that we'd seen referred to in the in the report or that you referred to earlier in your evidence or was it something else
02:23:46 was it something else uh
02:23:48 i don't remember the 2009 review but um my recollection is that the rro
02:23:55 rro the dclg rro review uh happened much more quickly after 2005. so i had it i'm i'm i'm not recalling that it was as
02:24:07 i'm i'm not recalling that it was as late as four years after the rro but i'm sorry i've uh
02:24:11 uh i can't i can't recall now right with a 2009 reference uh well we've seen uh seen a reference earlier today in one of your documents to that effect but no matter
02:24:21 no matter um
02:24:22 um which review was it it was the early it was the first one was it yes right now the minutes say as you can see that the report was welcomed by the committee and what was their feedback was it broadly positive
02:24:34 broadly positive brief but positive yes brief and positive
02:24:37 positive uh and it's clear from this update that the strategy committee were considering a study of the effect of the rro in london
02:24:43 london rather than a review of the rra's operation at the national level which is as i think what you had originally proposed to commissioner dobson why was that why was it london yes why was it limited
02:24:55 why was it london yes why was it limited to london
02:24:57 to london
02:24:57 [Music]
02:25:01 because
02:25:04 london had london was by far the biggest fire brigade
02:25:09 brigade in the country one of the biggest in the world and had in and had access to
02:25:16 access to sufficient uh experience and data to make it feasible to do that but it would mean you had no no comparables outside london wouldn't it
02:25:28 comparables outside london wouldn't it well it didn't exclude the possibility of looking outside
02:25:33 would you say that but looking at the words on the page on a london basis what did that mean it was looking at the london experience but but that that didn't preclude the
02:25:44 but but that that didn't preclude the possibility that the researchers would go to
02:25:47 go to uh manchester or west midlands and asked them questions about whether their experience was similar but which is which is a different way of getting
02:25:58 which is a different way of getting contributions without having as it were a joint study right had commissioner dobson told you to narrow the scope of the review down to london only no uh he said almost the opposite didn't he
02:26:09 said almost the opposite didn't he right can we go to um lfb3084814
02:26:26 now if we go to the email at the bottom of this page you can see it's an email of the 15th of january 2014 from you to steve turek and others
02:26:38 and others copy to gary reason and the subject is rro review t-o-r and you say i think but i'm not sure that neil was due to convene a meeting to discuss the terms of reference for the rro review that was agreed at the last
02:26:50 rro review that was agreed at the last meeting of the strategy committee in his absence i've drafted something myself but you and yours please consider them and we'll try to get together next week to discuss any comments before them would be welcome
02:27:02 would be welcome uh
02:27:02 uh did you and you attached a document and you asked for feedback um and then you go on to identify uh
02:27:12 yes you requested feedback uh can we then go to the chain of emails at lfb double one
02:27:23 to the chain of emails at lfb double one zero sorry double zero one double zero seven two six
02:27:35 um this is an email from you to mark andrews the fifth of march 2014. who was mark andrews uh mark was a deputy assistant commissioner in fire safety regulations so the tier below
02:27:47 regulations so the tier below steve turek right i see fine now you you say i uh well i should show you his probably because you'd want to see it but it's quite long if you go to the
02:27:58 but it's quite long if you go to the bottom of page one deputy commissioner you request you requested feedback on the rro review i've consulted with colleagues and commit the following points for consideration for our next meeting in regards to the scope of the review and
02:28:09 regards to the scope of the review and what work we may have already been involved in we've include also included comments on the tor which is attached and then over the page you can see that just to remind you a five
02:28:19 a five point list
02:28:23 there i show you that for context can we go back to page one um you say i'm afraid that there won't be another meeting to discuss scope
02:28:34 be another meeting to discuss scope members commissioned this work in november and i've been consulting colleagues since january on the terms of reference but without much success this is the first substantive reply i've had i really do
02:28:45 substantive reply i've had i really do not have more discussion with officers time as it is i'm at serious risk from a member rebuke about all about how long it has already taken um now just pausing there why was it
02:28:56 um now just pausing there why was it from your perspective that you weren't having much success with the reviews terms of reference
02:29:05 um why
02:29:13 because others didn't attach the same importance to it as i did you then go on to identify two things one many of your comments on the terms of reference and below are things to
02:29:24 of reference and below are things to contribute to the review i don't think they shape the terms of reference etc and then the second one in this version of the toi i've made it an objective not to shine a light on how fsr have discharged our rra
02:29:36 on how fsr have discharged our rra responsibilities my impression shared by other colleagues is that steve was very unhappy with the previous draft because it did more to shine a light on fsr than this version my objective was to respond to his
02:29:47 my objective was to respond to his concerns which i've done some of your comments would take me back why was it your objective not to shine a light on how fsr in other words your own fire safety regulation department had
02:29:59 fire safety regulation department had not discharged the lfb's rro responsibilities
02:30:08 um because it it wasn't intended because that wasn't that wasn't the intention of the study that we were attempting to
02:30:19 attempting to initiate
02:30:21 initiate [Music]
02:30:22 [Music] i can see that i can see those words it might be suggestive that well
02:30:31 well in this context they feel like uh uh
02:30:34 uh misleading words but the focus was on the the rro and there is a list somewhere in the papers
02:30:45 there is a list somewhere in the papers that we've been moving between here of
02:30:49 of the the issues and
02:30:52 and inevitably you know i think they would have um led into some commentary about how the brigade discharged our
02:31:03 how the brigade discharged our responsibilities but it simply wasn't the principal focus of of the study of the intended study
02:31:12 well you
02:31:14 you said i have made it an objective to not shine a light on how fsr discharged our rra responsibilities what are what else could you mean
02:31:25 what are what else could you mean other than what is clear from those words
02:31:31 when you read on you can see that steve's response uh
02:31:35 uh to my to an earlier draft was this is more about the fire safety regulation department than it is about whether the rro is an effective piece of legislation now there's a relationship between those two things for sure but
02:31:46 between those two things for sure but they're not the same thing
02:31:50 and so you know in that context i feel that i can't remember the detail of steve's comments but it feels like they were they were useful and i took them on board
02:32:02 did you consider that the fsr department had failed in discharging its rra responsibilities in any respect no
02:32:11 no so if that was the case there was nothing then to shine a light on that would be true so what was the problem
02:32:23 it wasn't it wasn't the objective to prove or disprove whether we were discharging our responsibilities in practice
02:32:29 practice oh i see
02:32:31 oh i see so does it mean and just trying to take that answer at face place value did it mean that you were reshaping the terms of reference so as to make the focus
02:32:43 so as to make the focus the defect in the legislation but not with the intention of examining whether
02:32:49 whether and if so how the the lfb had failed to comply with its rra responsibilities is that a fair way of reading those words
02:32:59 words uh
02:33:00 uh well
02:33:02 well uh
02:33:03 uh that that wasn't the design intent of those words no um
02:33:08 um so
02:33:09 so um you're present presenting it there is a kind of active decision to avoid scrutinizing ourselves and well that's what that's rather what it suggests
02:33:20 that would be wrong you know i'm not sure i can make a better explanation that it was about the legislative framework not about our discharge of it although um
02:33:31 um the two you know the two would have crossed over in some respects but but the
02:33:36 the the discharge of the fsr functions was not what we were setting out to have a closer look at and
02:33:43 and um
02:33:45 um and
02:33:46 and in one sense there was a good deal of available information within the brigade about the discharge of the fsr function so if you look at for example
02:33:57 look at for example um the quarterly monitoring reports to gpac i couldn't remember c yesterday could i governance performance audit committee um there was extensive information in those reports on a regular basis about
02:34:10 those reports on a regular basis about the activity undertaken by the fire safety regulation department so it wasn't my objective to scrutinize the work of the fire safety regulation department although i'm not i'm not denying that you know
02:34:23 i'm not i'm not denying that you know the two have an important relationship um now you i've mentioned this list of
02:34:30 list of defects
02:34:32 defects in the rra that you perceived both in your answer to the chairman a little while ago and and and now can we just look back then at the track change version of the draft fire safety legislation report at lfp
02:34:46 fire safety legislation report at lfp lfb 3086148
02:34:51 i just want to see if i can track down what you're referring to
02:34:58 now this is the most recent
02:35:01 or most up-to-date draft which i think was
02:35:04 was where the track changes were taken in and
02:35:06 and finalized is that right there's no further i don't know you don't know um if we look at paragraph three on page two of that document
02:35:17 three on page two of that document we can see uh a list of bullet points questions and the penultimate well sorry last line in the main paragraph says questions might provide a good way to approach the task and
02:35:28 good way to approach the task and initially these could include and then there's a long list of bullet points there
02:35:34 what are the fundamental principles of regulatory fire safety etc is that the list of defects that you had in mind
02:35:43 in mind uh
02:35:46 it certainly includes some of them um but it's but that's a longer list so i i don't think it was part of the terms of reference for the study to ask for
02:35:57 of reference for the study to ask for example what are the fundamental principles of regulatory fire safety so that statement questions might provide a good way to approach the task that was the task of
02:36:09 approach the task that was the task of as it were explaining to the committee the strategy committee
02:36:13 committee right and you can see i think maybe the structure of the report then follows those
02:36:18 those is there any document other than this document which sets out the list of defects in the rra which you considered existed
02:36:25 existed uh
02:36:28 uh possibly the terms of reference for the study itself right in in the sense that we were saying to whoever we we ended up appointing these are the things we'd like you to examine further
02:36:40 like you to examine further now let's look on then at lfb triple zero eight seven seven nine two
02:36:55 now this is a tender study tender for the study
02:36:58 the study into the experience and the operation of the rro in london method statement dated the 19th of september 2014 so
02:37:09 so some 10 months after what you had taken to the strategy committee and the
02:37:17 the start of the document in maine is on page three under the heading background and the text reads as follows the london fire and emergency planning authority the authority has invited tenders for a
02:37:28 the authority has invited tenders for a study into the experience and the operation of the regulatory reform safety order 2005 in london just pausing there how was it that the strategy committee's rro review had
02:37:39 strategy committee's rro review had transitioned from
02:37:41 from what looked at the time to be an in-house review to one which was outsourced it was never an in-house review um i think some the last document we looked at has
02:37:53 the last document we looked at has introduced some confusion so right um the questions in those those the bullet points that follow that statement questions to be
02:38:06 asked and answered or whatever it said uh was intended to point to the structure of that report so as you go through that report you'll find that i think i hope that each of those bullet points were
02:38:18 that each of those bullet points were addressed in the report but it was never the intention that they would all be carried into the study some of them were but that was that was never my intention right why was
02:38:29 right why was why was it outsourced why was the study outsourced um because we wanted
02:38:38 we wanted an external view i think in local government it's not unusual for a local authority to outsource a study or a piece of research into the
02:38:49 into the into a function for which the body is responsible
02:38:55 now it was the bre i think you prepared the tender didn't they no they didn't prepare the tender no they responded to the tender so it was september 2014 because from memory this was the second time around so we tended
02:39:07 was the second time around so we tended it earlier that year but didn't get any responses
02:39:12 responses uh i follow i'm so sorry you're you're right this is the response to your tender belief this is the ten this is this is the tendency they're tender effectively well the document itself records that
02:39:24 well the document itself records that dell fifa had invited tenders i'd rather assume that you'd published an invitation to which bre had responded by submitting a tender
02:39:34 a tender yes yes thank you yes and this is the sorry so this is the i'm sorry i thought this was the tender document as in the invitation but it's not you're you're saying it's the bre
02:39:45 not you're you're saying it's the bre response yes but i said they prepended prepared the tender and that's because that's how they describe it tender for a study
02:39:52 study so they are doing the they are doing the tendering uh in response to your invitations yes now if we um go uh to um well
02:40:02 well yes
02:40:04 yes if you go to the last page on last paragraph on this page page three it says it is understood that whilst not focusing solely on london the review should necessarily call extensively on the london experience the findings and
02:40:16 the london experience the findings and recommendations from the authorities lack on the house working group lhwg will provide input to the project was your report on the operation and efficacy of the fire safety legislative
02:40:27 efficacy of the fire safety legislative landscape
02:40:29 landscape the first of the two reports given to the strategy committee on the 12th of november 2013 provided to the bre for the purposes of their tender
02:40:43 um
02:40:46 probably but i'm not i'm not certain who put the invitation to tender together do you know the procurement department with contributions from uh fire safety public affairs and myself right
02:40:59 is it right that the bre's report
02:41:04 report well sorry who won the tender bre i'm not sure there were any other tenders well i was my next question you don't think there were any others i don't think they were the odd the bre right did anybody
02:41:18 right did anybody ever conduct an investigation into how independent the bre was from government for this purpose uh no
02:41:28 uh no why is that
02:41:31 i think i understood that they were independent from government
02:41:37 but no one explored that question
02:41:43 i didn't explore it because i thought i believed that they were yes uh
02:41:51 uh i mean
02:41:52 i mean i'm not making a point one way or the other i'm not making any point i'm just asking you whether anybody ever asked the question or thought to examine the question well bre is an organisation
02:42:04 bre is an organisation weren't aliens to the london fire brigade and we understood that you know there were different divisions so it's quite it's a big organization with different divisions and you know has
02:42:17 different divisions and you know has some trading functions and you know it has research functions it has uh testing functions it has a wide range of functions and you know i think they have different governance arrangements for different aspects of
02:42:28 arrangements for different aspects of their activities
02:42:32 i think it's right isn't it that the bre's report wasn't finalized before you were made redundant in march 2015 yes i'm sorry yes that's cool yes and the date we have for it to think is the
02:42:43 the date we have for it to think is the 9th of september 2015. and i'll just just provide the reference i don't think there's any need to show you it it's at lfb3046812
02:42:51 um now uh
02:42:54 now uh i take it that you never saw any early version of that before you left no no now i'm going to move on to some different questions which we picked up very briefly earlier about the audit
02:43:06 up very briefly earlier about the audit tool from january 2015 but i've got an eye on the clock mr chairman and i certainly won't finish the topic before 4 30. um might that be a convenient moment
02:43:17 um might that be a convenient moment well i think if you're going to a new topic yes it would um
02:43:23 um how are you getting on with the witness in terms of timing yes very well i i would think that looking at what i have left
02:43:34 that looking at what i have left um we will finish before i hesitate to say comfortably before lunch on monday right
02:43:43 right even allowing for the break for follow-up questions which i hope i should just say i'm hoping that those listening who who have follow-up questions will take the advantage of tomorrow to provide them to us well that
02:43:55 tomorrow to provide them to us well that would be very helpful which would be helpful but it wouldn't be my experience but
02:43:59 but you live in hope so um that would be helpful uh i would think that we will finish comfortably possibly comfortably but certainly by lunchtime on monday right thank you very much well now the uh the
02:44:11 thank you very much well now the uh the bad news so to speak this is extra is that i'm afraid we are going to have to ask you to come back on on monday i think actually you probably had monday in your diary anyway didn't you on tuesday so
02:44:22 you on tuesday so well then the good news is that we shouldn't need you on tuesday indeed but anyway um you've heard what mr millett had to say there's a real possibility that you'll be able to be free by
02:44:34 that you'll be able to be free by lunchtime on monday but as it is we'll stop at this point we'll resume at 10 o'clock on monday morning
02:44:41 morning and as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it over the weekend it's there's quite a temptation i think when there are several days break
02:44:51 break um only it's not a temptation at least an opportunity and if the opportunity arises please resist it all right good well thank you very much mr chamber before we rise i just want to ask the
02:45:02 before we rise i just want to ask the witness a process question if i may i've been reminded helpfully from behind and it's been the subject of discussion with those representing the lfb during the course of the afternoon and it relates to the report
02:45:13 relates to the report which the witness said a number of times in her evidence today existed which reported to the board or aboard about the information flow between the 72d group as it were yes and the rro
02:45:25 72d group as it were yes and the rro group
02:45:28 group and when i asked the witness this afternoon
02:45:31 afternoon um
02:45:32 um she said she told us that it was part of her evidence bundle uh both we and the lfb's rlrs would like very much to identify that document
02:45:43 that document the best way of doing that rather than provoking discussions between the witness and the lfb's lawyers which i'm very keen to avoid is to ask the witness publicly now through you mr chairman if
02:45:55 publicly now through you mr chairman if she wouldn't mind because she has access to the documents finding the document and telling the inquiry
02:46:03 inquiry the
02:46:04 the urn the reference number and copying in the nfb solicitors at the same time if that's difficult for the witness then let's just take it by stages first question i think mr dexter
02:46:15 stages first question i think mr dexter is do you have access to the bundle of documents which you referred to which i think was probably given to you for
02:46:22 you for preparatory purposes do you still have access to that uh i believe i do i have many different categories of bundles um but i i think i've got a pretty fair recollection of where i where i find it
02:46:34 recollection of where i where i find it right my next question was going to be do you have the means to search and find that document i i i think i clearly remember where it is right well i hope i'm not i'm sorry to ask you to
02:46:45 i hope i'm not i'm sorry to ask you to do this but i think it would be a great help to us if you could um i'd identify that document in your bundle
02:46:52 bundle at the bottom right hand corner there should be a unique reference number which will tie into our relativity database and
02:47:03 and it would help us i think if you could send an email um to these lister for the inquiry do you have the address well we'll make sure
02:47:14 address well we'll make sure we can provide that i think that by with exception we can provide that to the witness and um send us an email identifying that document by its urn
02:47:26 document by its urn and copy the um the solicitors representing the lfb into that email so they've also got the same information and also can see
02:47:37 information and also can see what's in what's in the message could you would you mind doing that no of course not but may i ask you a question yes of course um i i can't remember whether there's a urn number in the bottom right hand corner
02:47:48 number in the bottom right hand corner or not so if there isn't a you are it so i'm i'm certain it's been provided through my legal theme um but um can i suggest that if if you i'd be extremely surprised if you
02:48:00 i'd be extremely surprised if you couldn't find a urine because all the documents would have been pulled off our database and everything on it's got a url but if there's a difficulty send us an email saying sorry i can't find the url or whatever
02:48:12 find the url or whatever and then we will respond and give you whatever help we can to identify the the document i hope it won't take up too much your time to do that but i'd be very grateful thank you very much thank you mr
02:48:23 thank you very much thank you mr chairman and and thank you ms dexter for that thank you very much we look forward to seeing you on monday at 10 o'clock thank you thank you
02:48:42 right thank you very much 10 o'clock in london thank you