London Fire Brigade Evidence - Tuesday 2nd November 2021 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:32 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr peter carp formerly of the london fire brigade so would you ask mr carp to come in please

00:00:44 would you ask mr carp to come in please thank you

00:00:52 good morning mr calf yes please sit down make yourself comfortable i i understand there's something you'd like to

00:00:59 like to mention before we resume your questioning is that right there is sir yeah thank you for allowing this

00:01:06 this i was asked a lot of questions yesterday about the extent to which gra 3.2 covers

00:01:14 covers compartmentation and

00:01:17 and the the effect that a breach of compartmentation can have on the fire's development yes i went away and reflected on that overnight and checked the document and i just

00:01:28 and checked the document and i just wanted to share with the inquiry because i think it may assist that that's covered on i believe pages 9 16

00:01:36 16 29 and 30. right and i believe that if you bring the combined content of those pages together it answers mr caneer's questions or at

00:01:49 it answers mr caneer's questions or at least most of them all right well that's very helpful because we'll have that note on the transcript now so we can go and check that thank you very much thank you very much indeed yes well when you're ready mr kanine thank you sir morning mr cap and thank you um for

00:02:02 morning mr cap and thank you um for that uh clarification before we move on to uh questioning could i turn to a matter which you also referred to in evidence yesterday when you referred to a matrix

00:02:13 a matrix that you had compiled in response to or setting out the points of amplification to the draft gra that you formulated following the coroner's letter the matrix summarizes

00:02:25 coroner's letter the matrix summarizes that

00:02:26 that could we go to lfb double zero one zero two four six two

00:02:39 now is that the matrix which you were referring that is indeed yes thank you and if we go to page 3 and point 12

00:02:48 you'll see at the top of the page this sets out or deals rather with the section entitled evacuation and fire survival calls

00:02:57 calls and the

00:02:58 and the bottom of the final paragraph has the final four lines illuminated in yellow was that the addition you made to the evacuation section uh in light of the coroner's

00:03:11 section uh in light of the coroner's letter

00:03:12 letter i believe so and i believe that the top sentence confirms that yes that's why i was asking you to confirm yes i believe so and that the um section um

00:03:23 so and that the um section um highlighted in yellow uh reflected the suggestion that mike curran made to you in his email do you remember you were discussing yesterday it certainly does reflect that yes and

00:03:36 it certainly does reflect that yes and could we go to lfb trouble zero eight nine two six four forward slash twenty five

00:03:47 and if we could amplify the bottom paragraph

00:03:56 that was mr curran's suggestion which appears to be reflected in the changes you later made to the matrix indeed thank you

00:04:03 thank you now um could we now return to where we were when we broke off yesterday afternoon and that's internal correspondence at dclg regarding the in speech marks final close speech marks

00:04:15 in speech marks final close speech marks draft of gra okay 3.2 and really what i want to do is look at email correspondence that um pass between officials between june and july 2013.

00:04:25 2013. now shortly after the meeting you had with um peter holland on the 19th of june 2013

00:04:33 june 2013 there was an exchange of emails within the department about draft gra 3.2 can i assure you you were not copied into these emails but i'd like to take you to them because i'd like to see whether and if

00:04:45 because i'd like to see whether and if so to what extent officials made you aware of the points that they were discussing and the concerns that had arisen

00:04:52 arisen understood right can i apologize in advance i'm going to take you through quite a few documents before i actually get to a question and so apologies for that but we'll take it through steadily so

00:05:02 so you can see the documents we're going to now the first email i'd like to take you to is dated the 24th of june which can be found at clg quadruple zero

00:05:15 quadruple zero zero six one six and if we go to page two on the very bottom of that page we see here the first email that's sent by melanie gillet

00:05:27 by melanie gillet circulating the draft grade to officials in dclg including peter holland les britsman louise upton and brian martin and saying that she'd be sending the draft to spads that's to say ministerial

00:05:40 draft to spads that's to say ministerial special advisers and would be grateful for any comments first of all can you help us what position to the best of your recollection did mr britsman hold at dclg at the time mr britsman was

00:05:53 dclg at the time mr britsman was part of peter holland's staff so he was a seconded officer i believe from

00:05:59 from norfolk

00:06:00 norfolk fire service and he was part of peter holland's advisory staff so he would have reported to

00:06:08 to probably chris bolton thank you and louise upton i'm less sure i don't believe she's

00:06:17 she's related to the fire service i think she's clg staff i believe she's a senior civil servant did you have much by way of dealings with her i had no i don't believe i had any direct dealings with her if it helps the

00:06:30 dealings with her if it helps the inquiry i can explain which of those people i did have well that'll be clear as we come on to later on brian martin did you have much to do with him directly never met him thank you

00:06:42 never met him thank you now um louise upton who is the head of the fire safety policy team at clg at the time

00:06:48 the time replied the same day in the next email in this thread and if we go up the page she says thanks not read but think spads that special advisors will need a short submission confirming that the revised

00:07:00 submission confirming that the revised gra reflects the recommendations given in the recommendations given by the coroner and the latino house inquest as set out in the dc lg published response copy attached for ease

00:07:12 copy attached for ease then les britsman in response to that email again on the same day and if we turn to the first page uh set out his view that the draft uh was indeed uh properly

00:07:25 that the draft uh was indeed uh properly reflective of the coroner's recommendations and he said this hi all

00:07:30 hi all i have read through the gra and highlighted in blue the key areas that related to the operational matters listed in the rule 43 letter from the coroner

00:07:39 coroner i am confident that the items listed in the letter related to the gra have been covered although i would say that the items that should be considered in a 72d visit should perhaps be listed in an aid

00:07:51 visit should perhaps be listed in an aid memoir appendix for easy reference this may be covered in a general manner in the provision of ops risk information manual porus but it would do no harm to have a risk

00:08:04 but it would do no harm to have a risk specific aid memoir in this document make it easy and people will do it firefighters like lists remember the gra also covers other things that were mentioned such as cable entanglement

00:08:16 mentioned such as cable entanglement there was that was experiences at lh lagnal house and shelley towers we should perhaps recommend an aid memoir i'm happy raise this to the ops guidance

00:08:27 i'm happy raise this to the ops guidance group sorry frs if needed hope that helps les

00:08:32 helps les now louise upton replied and she did not agree with mr britsman and her reply was sent on the 1st of july 2013 and that email can be found at clg

00:08:44 email can be found at clg quadruple 0-0624

00:08:50 and now it's on the screen and she said this and i create thanks for the opportunity to have a look at this i have a lot of fairly detailed comments particularly in the first section where hazards are identified and i'm happy to talk through

00:09:03 identified and i'm happy to talk through these or comment later on a revised draft whatever's easiest but my four main concerns are one

00:09:11 one the extent to which this delivers the commitment in the secretary of state's response to the coroner's rule 43 report that the revised gra will include advice to incident commanders to inform decisions on

00:09:23 commanders to inform decisions on evacuation should it become clear during an incident that the stay put principle is no longer tenable there's no discussion in this draft of what firefighters can expect residents

00:09:34 what firefighters can expect residents of flats to do in the event of a fire and how they should understand when it's necessary

00:09:41 necessary to redirect firefighting resources to mount an evacuation the guide seems to start from the premise that there will be an evacuation strategy and everyone will know what to

00:09:52 strategy and everyone will know what to do

00:09:53 do that might be the case in office buildings but in residential premises such an organized approach is unlikely to occur

00:10:00 to occur individuals will do whatever they feel safest doing irrespective of whatever the building evacuation strategy or safety advice is two the lack of consistency around the

00:10:12 two the lack of consistency around the use of should and must in the text three the reference on page 17 to issuing an alteration notice under the fsa so that's a fire safety order as a

00:10:24 fsa so that's a fire safety order as a means to secure changes to the layout or use of building i'm not sure what this is driving at but it doesn't seem appropriate in an operational guidance document

00:10:34 document and four

00:10:35 and four a lack of emphasis on the value and what to look for in 72d inspections and their limitations as not all high-rise buildings may have had one louise

00:10:47 buildings may have had one louise now the first question is this did you did any of the emails recipients pass on these points to you at the time absolutely not

00:10:58 absolutely not now louise upton's comments appear to have prompted a further round of email correspondence to you

00:11:06 to you from les britsman and on the 24th of july 2013 and we can find that at lfbs 00102590

00:11:18 if we go to the bottom of page 2

00:11:23 we can see the originating email thank you

00:11:28 thank you mr britsman said this hi peter apologies for the delay we have recently had seen the draft gra 3.2 in-house and there are some matters

00:11:39 3.2 in-house and there are some matters that we would like to discuss before the document is finalized the chief fire and rescue advisor and dclg have obligations to the government coroner following the lack of house rule

00:11:50 coroner following the lack of house rule 43 and we need to ensure these matters are adequately addressed would you be available next week to meet up please your work and time are appreciated regards layers

00:12:02 appreciated regards layers now

00:12:03 now there is a meeting between yourself and dclg on the 30th of july 2013 and first of all do you remember that i do indeed and you sent an email to les britsman on

00:12:14 and you sent an email to les britsman on the 31st of july so the day after um which set out the following and we can find that at lfb trouble zero eight double four double six

00:12:26 double four double six [Music]

00:12:30 and you said here in the first paragraph following our meeting yesterday i would confirm that we will make the amendments discussed and agreed to the evacuation and fire survival calls section of the

00:12:42 and fire survival calls section of the high rise gra on receipt of the information which you are going to provide

00:12:48 provide the first question that arises out of that first paragraph is this who attended that meeting on the 30th of july 2013. i believe

00:12:58 i believe uh was myself philip moulton lee brinton les

00:13:04 les britsman and i believe anthony mold from clg

00:13:12 from clg that's my recollection we can see at the very top of this page that you'd copied mr patrick utten into the email

00:13:24 the email this penultimate name on the list is that because by this time mr utting was working with you on the revision of sorry working on the revision of policy 633 that's correct

00:13:37 633 that's correct and the prime aim of that was to ensure that 633 was consistent with gra 3.2 in its final published form absolutely i wanted him to be aware

00:13:47 aware because obviously this was somewhat unexpected given the timing of it so i wanted him to be aware that there were possibly going to be further changes i think we'd already shared what we thought at that time was the

00:13:58 what we thought at that time was the final draft and i didn't want him to not understand that it might not be the final draft had mr utting been involved in any of the previous discussions regarding the substance of gra 3.2

00:14:11 substance of gra 3.2 i think it's fair to say he'd possibly contributed in a group context because there was often discussions within the department generally but not specifically in it on

00:14:22 generally but not specifically in it on an individual basis no can you remember when his involvement in those group discussions started i

00:14:30 i it's a difficult question it's a difficult question because they were ongoing for the period of the development of the gra and i i really can't recollect exactly when pat would have come into

00:14:43 exactly when pat would have come into those discussions what issues um first of all did mr britsman raise with you

00:14:51 i think as i've i think there's another email i believe in the chain that sets out the issues and and i can't rather than mislead the inquiry or omit something it

00:15:03 mislead the inquiry or omit something it might be easier to refer to that we'll come we'll come on to those emails and due course but i want to ask you first of all what your recollection is of the points which mr britsman raised in the meeting please

00:15:15 meeting please well as i've said there it it was mainly around he wanted explicit reference to stay put

00:15:22 stay put and i immediately understood that and we were very agreeable to that uh

00:15:30 there were some other fairly sort of specific points that i think he wanted that he felt to use that word amplify or

00:15:41 to use that word amplify or clarify points that were already in the gra but which he felt needed to be explained further or provided additional detail

00:15:52 detail did mr maude raise any specific points with you

00:15:55 with you i don't recall mr mold les britsman was very much leading

00:16:01 leading the discussion from from clg's perspective to the best of your recollection had the points raised by mr britsman in this meeting on the third of july being raised by clg beforehand whether by mr

00:16:13 raised by clg beforehand whether by mr clough or anyone else absolutely not and

00:16:18 and i'll be honest with the inquiry i wasn't especially happy with

00:16:23 with what was happening because we'd put an awful amount of effort into this document made every effort to consult clg were involved from the very outset

00:16:35 clg were involved from the very outset they knew about the document they knew

00:16:39 they knew of its importance and i was very surprised and disappointed that they'd left it so late to make substantive changes i was

00:16:50 to make substantive changes i was particularly concerned because we'd had

00:16:54 such a challenging time with the national consultation particularly with the fire brigade union and i really didn't want to jeopardize

00:17:05 and i really didn't want to jeopardize the publication of the document at this late stage and they had seen it repeatedly throughout the development of the document

00:17:16 document albeit through derek clough but my as i said yesterday my understanding was he was there as the clg representative and i

00:17:25 and i naturally assumed that he was feeding it back

00:17:28 back to those in clg that would need to see and approve it did following on from that had mr britsman said you were the effect of we have raised these by derek clough in the past or did he

00:17:41 by derek clough in the past or did he recognize that these were new fresh points being raised by the department i absolutely don't recall him making any reference to derrick clough or that that the issues have been raised

00:17:53 or that that the issues have been raised previously so i'm very confident this was the first time any of these issues were raised with me or indeed lee brinton or philip morton and so

00:18:04 and so he didn't utter worth the effect of disappointed to see that the points we raised previously have not been incorporated in this final draft absolutely not and further to that i'm very clear from having reviewed all the

00:18:16 very clear from having reviewed all the documentation that no such comments were ever received um

00:18:21 um to the extent you can remember and i appreciate this is a conversation that was had of eight or so years ago do you remember whether mr britsman said to you directly that the

00:18:32 britsman said to you directly that the department or was this effect were not satisfied that the draft fully reflected the recommendations made by the coroner following latino

00:18:45 i'm not quite sure that he phrased it in quite those terms and he certainly i've seen some of these emails so i know what they're going to say

00:18:56 what they're going to say and he certainly didn't say we're thinking of scrapping it and we're really unhappy with the content

00:19:02 content he he gave me the impression that certain points needed clarification he wanted stay put to be introduced into the document explicitly

00:19:13 introduced into the document explicitly and i as i said i immediately understood and accepted that and it was very much tweaks rather than fundamental changes that he indicated

00:19:25 fundamental changes that he indicated that he would like to see but you're as certain as you can be given the passing of time that he didn't put the point to you starkly that this doesn't do what we promised the coroner

00:19:37 doesn't do what we promised the coroner we would do i am very certain about that thank you

00:19:40 thank you [Music]

00:19:46 the points raised by mr britsman you've set out

00:19:51 candidly your sense of frustration i suspect i put that politely when you heard these points being raised mr cowab

00:19:58 mr cowab did you accept the substance of the points that were made by mr britsman to you that the effectively the guidance would

00:20:05 would benefit from the further amplification that he was recommending to you

00:20:10 to you i think i'd like to clarify that my frustration was wholly around the timing of this intervention it was not around the substance of it at all

00:20:23 the substance of it at all well it was in a couple of points because they hadn't understood what we'd done and why we'd done it so one of their complaints was around the length of the document

00:20:34 length of the document we'll come on to that sorry i'm jumping ahead don't don't i i sense i sense you you do want to get your points across you will get you'll be have the opportunity to give your response to the email correspondence as we go through it but

00:20:45 correspondence as we go through it but in answer to the question i asked did you accept the substance of the points that mr britton was making to you absolutely and i think that's reflected in in the

00:20:56 and i think that's reflected in in the correspondence that followed between us

00:21:00 what did you agree with mr britsman as to the way ahead i think as it says in this email he he was going to provide

00:21:11 was going to provide in in more detail and i think possibly we discussed here the the specific points and changes that they wish to make

00:21:19 make and and i believe when i received that we we had some further conversation and email

00:21:25 email correspondence to to work those issues forward thank you if we can go now to an email that you sent to patrick arting and philip morton which summarize your understanding of dclg's points which

00:21:36 understanding of dclg's points which they've raised you sent the email on the 3rd of august 2013 and it can be found at lfb 008 double

00:21:46 now you set out in that email this dear phil and pat with regard to our recent meeting with clg and agreed changes to the high-rise gra my record of the meeting

00:21:58 high-rise gra my record of the meeting is that they are confined to the section below and include one making more explicit the point that the advice given to occupants and residential high-rise buildings is to

00:22:09 residential high-rise buildings is to stay put and keep doors and windows closed provided that dwelling is not affected by the fire heat or smoke may need to change if fire heat or smoke is spreading the

00:22:20 if fire heat or smoke is spreading the ic the incident commander needs to ensure any worsening situation is accurately reflected in messages to brigade control so that appropriate advice can be given to occupants and affected flats and so

00:22:32 to occupants and affected flats and so they can be advised to evacuate if necessary

00:22:35 necessary two the occupants of high-rise buildings may not always act as firefighters expect or in accordance with the building evacuation plan the occupants of commercial buildings

00:22:46 the occupants of commercial buildings can be expected to have practiced fire evacuation but the same may not be true for those in residential or mixed-use buildings

00:22:55 buildings some occupants may be unfamiliar with the building and its layout and may be visiting for the first time the instant commander needs to factor these considerations into the operational plan

00:23:06 considerations into the operational plan and into assessing the resources needed to deal with the incident please check the wording of one with brigade control for accuracy and to ensure it accords with their understanding of this aspect of fire

00:23:18 understanding of this aspect of fire survival called procedure i think the remainder of the points made during the meeting already covered in the extant text but when you make these changes and respond to whatever les b so

00:23:30 changes and respond to whatever les b so that's les britsman sends you you may need to change the order of the existing text and or amend it slightly to ensure it remains intelligible many thanks kind regards peter

00:23:42 regards peter now

00:23:43 now from the lay perspective at least the suggestion is the suggestions proposed by mr britsman appear to be very significant would you accept that lay view

00:23:56 i think as i've said yesterday

00:24:00 i i totally understood where les britsman was coming from and and the issue of stay put was much more prominent in the rule 43 letter to clg in fact i

00:24:13 in the rule 43 letter to clg in fact i don't think it featured at all in the rule 43 letter to london fire brigade but i nonetheless understood where he was coming from and accepted that his

00:24:24 was coming from and accepted that his comments were an enhancement and a worthy addition to the document so there was

00:24:30 was there was no opposition from from me to to make those changes um can you help us how do you um staffed out of a better phrase the drafting to mr morton and mr

00:24:41 phrase the drafting to mr morton and mr utting

00:24:44 at this point i i i think and the email makes that clear doesn't it that i had but if you talk about the process as a whole i think i often played a more direct

00:24:57 i think i often played a more direct role in in the writing that's what i yesterday you said that to use the pompous phrase you held the pen generally speaking um

00:25:07 um generally my question is why didn't you given that you'd been the prime representative at the meeting with mr brits and why hadn't you drafted the changes yourself because as i've just said i felt they

00:25:19 because as i've just said i felt they were

00:25:21 were tweaks and amplifications of points that were already in the document and i wholly trusted phil and pat to make those changes

00:25:31 changes they were both very competent officers you referred in your email to the prospect of residents being told that they may need to evacuate did that prompt consideration of the

00:25:42 did that prompt consideration of the need to provide guidance about how an incident commander should implement an evacuation in the draft gra itself no it didn't but with hindsight

00:25:53 but with hindsight i can see that it should and you would have felt with hindsight that was appropriate guidance to provide in a document such as gra 3.2 i think on reflection i i would i would

00:26:06 i think on reflection i i would i would have seen

00:26:07 have seen evacuation guidance as being a gre or a stand-alone piece of national guidance in its own right and my reasons for saying that is that it would apply to any incident

00:26:20 is that it would apply to any incident and not just a high-rise fire and would that be the the metric that you applied in deciding whether um a piece of advice or guidance or requirement should be in gra 3.2 as

00:26:32 requirement should be in gra 3.2 as opposed to local policy for example

00:26:36 yes i mean with any policy with any document there have to be constraints and boundaries and i think it is ultimately a matter of judgment as to where those boundaries fall

00:26:49 to where those boundaries fall in terms of evacuation because evacuation can occur in so many different contexts i would

00:26:57 i would personally feel that it's best covered in a separate document recognizing that can be applied in to many different incident types

00:27:08 many different incident types now were you aware when you were considering these matters and going through the drafting process that the secretary of state had committed to the coroner um to

00:27:19 to the coroner um to consider the need to provide guidance about how an instant commander should implement an evacuation in gra 3.2 at this particular time i don't believe

00:27:30 at this particular time i don't believe because we're referring back to that letter that you shared with me yesterday yes and i don't believe i was aware of that letter at this time

00:27:42 that's my recollection

00:27:45 did you ever ask mr britsman for a copy of any correspondence the secretary of state had written to the coroner in relation to her recommendations i did not did mr britsman proffer such

00:27:57 i did not did mr britsman proffer such correspondence at any stage no

00:28:01 he assumed you knew what the secretary of state had committed to i i i can't speculate on what he knew

00:28:11 now did the proposed changes that you anticipate in your email of the third of august did they prompt consideration of the reference and the planning section of

00:28:22 reference and the planning section of the draft gra 3.2 that directed fire and rescue service to make provision for the development of contingency plans for fire spread beyond the compartment of origin

00:28:32 origin i believe that most of the content of that subsection already existed in the draft and and i further believe or recollect

00:28:45 and and i further believe or recollect that

00:28:46 that the discussion with les britsman resulted in one or two points being added

00:28:53 added as a result of discussions in this period of time i can't remember precisely when those discussions took place did you think as a result of these conversations with mr britsman the point

00:29:05 conversations with mr britsman the point he was raising did you go back and take the step back and think actually do we need to be providing more on how contingency plans should be developed or what they should contain the reason i

00:29:17 what they should contain the reason i ask the question is flows from your answer that you're trying to provide guidance that would cover all incidents and it's that type of advice which seemed to be apt for gra 3.2 so how you should develop

00:29:29 for gra 3.2 so how you should develop contingency plans and what should go in them

00:29:33 them i think with the pro with the changes that les britsman was proposing but it seemed to me that that they covered

00:29:43 covered bearing mindless guidance for fire rescue services rather than guidance for firefighters that we were

00:29:52 we were clarifying what those contingency plans and

00:29:55 and and just to reiterate we're talking about plans for buildings that are of a particular risk uh high profile buildings and buildings that we you would consider at high risk

00:30:07 that we you would consider at high risk so i felt that with the addition the additional comments that clg were making that that section was suitably comprehensive and were you

00:30:18 was suitably comprehensive and were you getting any pushback or response or commentary from mr britsman's the effect of listen peter i don't think you've done enough here to give advice on how contingency plans should be prepared

00:30:30 how contingency plans should be prepared and what should go in them absolutely not beyond the the discussion that you see reflected in the email correspondence i believe the email correspondence

00:30:41 correspondence particularly around the points and my responses was it was a fairly comprehensive and fair reflection of the discussions that we held any he never pushed back to say i'd missed the

00:30:53 never pushed back to say i'd missed the point or i hadn't covered it adequately thank you can we go to the next round of relevant correspondence between you mr britsman which uh took place on the 21st of august 2013.

00:31:04 of august 2013. it can be found at lfb-00102486

00:31:15 we can see mr britsman's initial email to you at the bottom of page one sent at 1502 hours

00:31:26 and the black text that appears immediately next to mr britsman's comments is in fact your responses to him i think is that right that's correct thank you now if we could

00:31:37 that's correct thank you now if we could go through their their the exchange and then the couple of points i'd like to discuss with you arising the email says this hi peter phil

00:31:47 phil my apologies for the delay i've had to focus my attention on the industrial action issues thank you for the meeting where we discussed ura 3.2 on highrise i agreed to summarize

00:31:59 to summarize dclg's comments for your information and the first bullet point says this we had concerns that the document had become very long and looked a lot like operational

00:32:11 and looked a lot like operational procedure rather than the risk assessment you did mention the need to capture a lot of issues surrounding high-rise and referred to a matter of alterations notice in hampshire perhaps you could clarify this further please

00:32:24 you could clarify this further please then your comment is this and in black as explained when we met the length and content of this document has resulted from the complexity of the subject matter and from the fact that we do not

00:32:35 matter and from the fact that we do not wish to lose the experience research that has gone into researching and updating this document as part of the national operational guidance project which will result in review of this and all other gras it is

00:32:47 review of this and all other gras it is anticipated some of the information in this gra will be moved to other forms of national guidance but for now this gra is the only available repository for this information and it

00:33:00 repository for this information and it is clearly important that all frses of fire rescue services are provided with the opportunity to learn from incidents such as shirley towers and lachnal recognizing the issues you refer to i've

00:33:12 recognizing the issues you refer to i've drafted and provided to you a letter to accompany the publication of this gra this explains the rationale for the length and complexity of this gra to all recipients of this document i would also

00:33:23 recipients of this document i would also add that this approach was agreed with the former gra program manager derek clough and with the former gra working group

00:33:33 group now first question is did you agree with the concerns that the gra had become unduly long

00:33:41 no i understood the concerns but for the reasons i set out in my response i was very equally concerned to ensure that the

00:33:52 equally concerned to ensure that the learning and the lessons identified were not lost

00:33:55 not lost by this stage we were clear or clearer about how national operational guidance was going to take shape

00:34:04 shape and as i've referred to in my response clearly some of the information from the gra

00:34:11 gra would migrate to a different document in due course my concern in the interim was firstly to get the information out to the uk fire service because it had been a long time

00:34:23 service because it had been a long time since those two incidents and i was increasingly concerned that we were tardy

00:34:30 tardy in terms of our time scales and secondly uh i couldn't see anywhere else to put that information in in a manner in which it would find its way

00:34:42 its way into that

00:34:43 into that body of guidance because i spoken to people like nick collins and i understood how they were going to work through what they were terming legacy guidance and use that as a

00:34:54 legacy guidance and use that as a platform and basis for ongoing national guidance now

00:35:00 now just dealing with a couple of points arising from that answer you were concerned about the time scale of publication you dealt with that yesterday

00:35:10 yesterday had you been receiving any concerns called complaints or hearing noise in the sector about the delay and publication of gra 3.2

00:35:22 certainly nothing explicit i was aware it wasn't just me that felt the gra should be published i discussed it with my line manager gary reason

00:35:35 my line manager gary reason and i believe i'd mentioned it to the commissioner on dobson

00:35:40 dobson and said that from our perspective the the document was a mature draft it reflected all the feedback and consultation responses appropriately and then we should move to publication and

00:35:53 then we should move to publication and what was commissioner dobson's response to the points you were making to him i believe he shared my concern and at an appropriate point i believe he spoke to peter holland that i think is a

00:36:05 spoke to peter holland that i think is a little bit downstream of that's what i was about to ask you the timing of that i think it was slightly later than where we are now but you will appreciate i think he probably wanted to see these

00:36:16 i think he probably wanted to see these issues work through before he had that conversation thank you you referred to nick collins in your answer as well first of all who was nick collins and what role was he performing so nick collins was a former

00:36:28 collins was a former assistant commissioner with london fire brigade who had

00:36:33 been appointed to manage the national operational guidance program

00:36:38 program which sat under susan ellison bunts within lfb thank you now just going back to the draft and its length at this stage i think it amounted to something like 73

00:36:50 think it amounted to something like 73 pages yes does that sound about right to you it does indeed um whereas previously the 2008 edition had been 26 pages long that's correct was the main cause of the

00:37:01 that's correct was the main cause of the elongation of the text uh the inclusion of the risk matrix table in section two is that a fair it seems like no that's absolutely the case and and what i found

00:37:12 and and what i found very frustrating was that that was a clg program decision

00:37:19 decision to add that matrix for the reasons i explained yesterday which was to assist local fire rescue services to carry out their obligation under the health and safety work act to carry out an activity

00:37:31 safety work act to carry out an activity risk assessment and it was somewhat frustrating for clg not to understand that point and to criticize the document for doing

00:37:42 for doing what we'd all agreed it needed to do it wasn't just 3.2 that had a matrix added it was all the other gras as well although i think it's fair

00:37:54 gras as well although i think it's fair to say

00:37:55 to say some other services were less diligent and may not have completed that work but i'm very clear about the fact the committee

00:38:03 committee agreed the matrix should be added generically across the series not just to 3.2

00:38:11 to 3.2 when you were listening to mr britsmans and reading his

00:38:16 his concerns

00:38:18 concerns did you take the step back and think actually

00:38:21 actually are some of the key points here being obscured by length did you go back and look at it and see whether it was actually merit uh in the substance of what mr britsman was saying i didn't get the sense that he was

00:38:33 i didn't get the sense that he was saying that it wasn't clear it was just too long it was just too long and and my response to him as as is summarized here was that that

00:38:44 summarized here was that that simply reflects the complexity of fighting fires in high-rise buildings and i wasn't of the view that there were any parts of the document or that there was any of the learning

00:38:56 or that there was any of the learning from either lacking or shirley towers that it would be appropriate to remove in order to reduce the length following on from this point mr britsman said it read more like an operating

00:39:07 said it read more like an operating procedure for want of a better phrase and that echoed to an extent some of the feedback that you'd received as part of the consultation process again given that you'd heard it in the

00:39:19 again given that you'd heard it in the consultation process and mr britsman was echoing that did you take the step back and think actually this does start to look more like an operating procedure than a risk assessment

00:39:31 from my perspective that was a deliberate choice because that was the way i felt the control measures were best articulated for fire services because

00:39:42 because fire services were expected to respond to these 40 documents and to convert them into local policy now for a brigade like london fire brigade where we had

00:39:54 brigade where we had 30 or 40 staff in a policy department that was still a challenge but it was eminently doable if you're a small county fire service that's a much bigger challenge because

00:40:06 that's a much bigger challenge because there will probably be only one or two staff in the policy department so my view

00:40:11 view and it was shared by a number of the people on the committee was that anything we can do to ease that process and to support people

00:40:21 people would be beneficial and therefore there was a division of professional opinion about whether it should be procedural or not for me if you're going to set out control measures

00:40:33 control measures you need to do it in the order in which you think they will be either implemented or should be considered and i remain of that view and again coming back to your metric that those control measures may well be

00:40:45 that those control measures may well be applicable to any incident in certain respects yes

00:40:51 can we now look at the issue that was raised in les britsman's uh third bullet point on the second page which starts um with the text we would prefer he said this

00:41:03 he said this we would prefer greater clarification that delivers the commitment in our secretary of state's response the coroner's rule 43 report that the revised gra will include advice to incident commanders to inform decisions

00:41:15 incident commanders to inform decisions on evacuation should it become clear during an incident that the stay put principle is no longer tenable and that last bit was emphasize the original again there was reference to this in the

00:41:26 again there was reference to this in the revised gra but perhaps greater emphasis would make it clearer and you responded thus

00:41:33 thus as agreed at the meeting we will amend the section that deals with evacuation and fire survival guidance calls to make it clear that the initial state put advice at residential high-rise fires

00:41:44 advice at residential high-rise fires should be re-evaluated if the incident escalates i'm confident that we can thereby deliver the emphasis on this point you have requested now that is the same point that you'd be

00:41:55 now that is the same point that you'd be making to

00:41:56 making to patrick gutting and philip morton in your email in your earlier email of the third of august i think isn't it indeed

00:42:03 indeed were you still intending for mr morton and mr utting to implement those changes to the draft or were you now taking control of the drafting process itself i

00:42:14 i i don't recall whether i even made a decision on on that we worked very much as a team uh we would have obviously decided who was

00:42:25 we would have obviously decided who was going to do it but i don't think i consciously pondered that as a as a key decision i just

00:42:32 just i promised we were going to do it and we would do it the inquiry has also seen an email exchange between louise upton and les britsman you weren't copied into it i want to go through it now to see

00:42:43 i want to go through it now to see whether the points that were raised in that email were then communicated to you okay now if we can go uh to the email it's of the 29th of july so the day before your 30th of july

00:42:55 so the day before your 30th of july meeting with mr brissman and if we could look at it it can be found at clg one treble zero five eight zero seven

00:43:24 thank you and we can see um louise upton's email uh timed at 11 50 hours and she says this it's addressed to mr uh britsman and copying in two other officials from clg

00:43:36 officials from clg hi les

00:43:37 hi les we discussed and both brian brian martin and i offered high-level comments i can dig out the emails if you need them i can let you have a copy of my scribbled notes on the first draft but

00:43:48 scribbled notes on the first draft but suspect a more fundamental review going back to first principles is what's needed in the first instance you may just get bogged down with relatively minor drafting changes if you rely on these for your meeting with the

00:44:00 rely on these for your meeting with the authors of the current draft guidance now did anyone ever suggest to you either the meeting on the 30th of july or afterwards at any time but a more fundamental review of the draft gra 3.2

00:44:12 fundamental review of the draft gra 3.2 was required absolutely not did anyone from the department ever suggest that in effect you need to go back to the drawing board absolutely not

00:44:26 can we now go on to the redrafted gra and in particular the section which dealt with fire survival guidance calls after this email correspondence in the

00:44:37 after this email correspondence in the summer of 2013 you embarked upon a process of incorporating dclg's comments and on the 12th of september 2013 you were copied into an email from spencer sutcliffe who's from the lfb's fire

00:44:49 sutcliffe who's from the lfb's fire safety policy team um

00:44:52 um now that email can be found at lfb trouble zero five zero five nine one

00:45:00 and mr sutcliff's email starts in the bottom of the page we can see there it's timed zero nine eleven hours and he says this

00:45:07 this uh phil

00:45:08 uh phil so he must be writing to phil morton following your request for a definition of stay put to include within the gra please see a tag the letter was written by assistant

00:45:19 the letter was written by assistant commissioner churek and sent from the commissioner to all local authorities immediately following the latino incident it was based on clg guidance at the time and is still current i have

00:45:30 the time and is still current i have highlighted the relevant paragraph if you could turn over the page very happy to look at any wording you wish to use we are keen not to stray from existing clg guidance please let me

00:45:41 from existing clg guidance please let me know if you require further assistance regards spencer

00:45:48 why had this information been sought from the lfb's fire safety policy team and not for example brigade control

00:45:57 because i i recognize well i i identified it as primarily a regulatory fire safety issue rather than the control issue the reason i ask is of

00:46:09 the reason i ask is of viewing matters practically would be operators in the control room who would be giving the advice directly was their view was their contribution not something that was relevant to the matters you were considering

00:46:20 matters you were considering absolutely but but most of all i wanted to make sure that the way we articulated this point was consistent as it says there with clg guidance

00:46:31 there with clg guidance and with our approach to this issue from a regulatory fire safety perspective so i suggested to feel that we speak to fire safety regulation

00:46:42 fire safety regulation spencer in this case and just get their assurance that the way we were going to phrase it was was the right way can you remember now and it's understandable if you can't

00:46:54 and it's understandable if you can't whether mr sutcliffe had been one of the consultees on the previous rounds of consultation or indeed internal circulation of the draft gra 3.2

00:47:05 draft gra 3.2 i don't believe he was a named consultee but as a member of the fire safety policy team he may well have seen the document

00:47:13 document because it was sent to steve jurek and i believe wayne brown who was his deputy so yes it's possible he saw it but i don't think he was named as a consultant

00:47:25 don't think he was named as a consultant thank you now can we look at the document that mr sutcliffe attached to his email and that can be found at lfb travel zero eight three six double four

00:47:35 now this is a letter sent by the then commissioner dobson

00:47:41 dobson on the 9th of july 2009 so very shortly after the latin house fire on the 3rd of july it was addressed to all london borough housing departments housing associations and

00:47:53 departments housing associations and other social housing providers in the capital

00:47:56 capital now the highlighted passage at which mr sutcliffe directed you is the final paragraph on the first page and it reads as follows in terms of guidance for your

00:48:07 as follows in terms of guidance for your tenants i would emphasize that it should remain safe for them to remain in their flats in the event of fire elsewhere in the building provided that premises comply both with the building's regulations and the order and suitable

00:48:20 regulations and the order and suitable management and maintenance provisions are in place if the tenants are unsure what the appropriate actions take will be in the event of a fire then your organization should be able to provide them with the

00:48:31 should be able to provide them with the appropriate advice about the evacuation strategy

00:48:37 now do you agree with the qualification in that paragraph that residents should remain safe to remain in their flats in the event of a fire elsewhere in the building

00:48:46 building provided that premises comply both with the building regulations and the fire safety order yes i do i mean the whole basis of our approach

00:48:56 approach to firefighting high-rise buildings

00:49:00 is and it's it's a kind of fundamental planning assumption which obviously the grenfell fire has highlighted as being deficient but at the time it was understood that the

00:49:12 it was understood that the compartmentation of a building would generally

00:49:15 generally restrict the spread of fire to the

00:49:19 to the well either the room of origin or at least

00:49:22 least the area of origin maybe a residential flat or a part of an office building that was compartmented bear in mind what you said it would seem that the caveat the proviso that the

00:49:34 that the caveat the proviso that the commissioner put in this letter is very significant indeed yes of course it it does rely on the building being compliant with the relevant regulations and and like all

00:49:45 relevant regulations and and like all buildings

00:49:46 buildings if you've got deficient management then the building becomes progressively less safe

00:49:53 less safe and that clearly following lac nor the lfb was aware that there were instances of regulatory non-compliance elsewhere beyond lachnal in the capital absolutely and i think the gra

00:50:04 absolutely and i think the gra reflected that possibility that

00:50:08 that you may encounter buildings that may not provide the

00:50:13 the compartmentation and compliance regulations that should be available now if we can look at a letter that ron dobson sent to sir ken knight six months after the lachnal house fire and it

00:50:26 after the lachnal house fire and it communicated the results of the lfb's internal investigations into that incident

00:50:32 incident and in particular into the exterior wall panels at wall panels which were subsequently found not to be of the standard required by building regulations now that letter can be found at h o m

00:50:44 now that letter can be found at h o m 0

00:50:45 0 double 0 6 2 8.

00:50:49 that's in this letter dated the 14th of december 2009 but commissioner stated in the first paragraph third line that the results of the test carried out on the wall panels quotes have given

00:51:01 on the wall panels quotes have given rise to concerns which may well be relevant to other high-rise premises if we could turn over to the second page and the third paragraph the commissioner said this

00:51:13 said this based on the tests conducted by the building research establishment it appears that there are external wall panels at lachnal house that do not have the necessary reaction to fire properties required for the location in

00:51:25 properties required for the location in which they have been used we have also become aware that this type of panel has been supplied by more than one company in the circumstances we believe it may be appropriate for a warning to be given

00:51:36 be appropriate for a warning to be given to housing providers that it would be advisable to check the specification for external wall panels in their high-rise housing stock and check that what has been installed meets the correct

00:51:47 been installed meets the correct specification fire safety requirements of the building regulations were taken into account

00:51:56 that flows from that that's possible uh question directed to the obvious that the lfb were plainly aware at the very highest level that the issue of non-compliance with building regulations resulting in rapid fire

00:52:08 regulations resulting in rapid fire spread has happened at lachnal was not a one-off or isolated incident confined to lachnal that's correct now we've heard evidence from assistant commissioner dan daly

00:52:21 assistant commissioner dan daly in relation to discussions that were taking place within the fire safety department at the lfb both before and after he became head of that department in march 2016 about inadequate compartmentation in flats

00:52:34 compartmentation in flats you retired in march 2016. that's correct

00:52:37 correct but you're aware in broad terms is it right

00:52:40 right that of concerns about the existence of compartmentation defects in the built environment posing risk to members of the public during your tenure in broad terms yes i i was not privy or

00:52:52 in broad terms yes i i was not privy or part of

00:52:53 part of the discussions that you refer to that was the next question mr daley never sort of came round to discuss these matters with you specifically no were there ever the subject of papers

00:53:05 were there ever the subject of papers that crossed your desk that you can remember

00:53:08 remember no

00:53:10 no now mr daley and his evidence referred to a report prepared by adrina parkin coates in november 2015. now the conclusion of that report and we don't need to go to

00:53:22 that report and we don't need to go to it but the conclusion in summary was that compartmentation issues within the built environment were quotes widespread close quotes and that the brigade needed to develop a strategy to quote reverse

00:53:34 to develop a strategy to quote reverse the trend of complementation failures and fire stopping issues as part of lsp 6 which was the the sixth london safety plan

00:53:44 plan now

00:53:45 now first of all had you ever seen to the best of your recollection that report i haven't

00:53:52 do you ever remember it being the subject of any discussion to the best of your recollection no

00:54:01 not explicitly not not in the context of reference to the report the the issues that adrina is referring to i did have an understanding of them

00:54:12 an understanding of them if it helps the inquiry i actually delivered a presentation to regulatory fire safety on gra 3.2 because i was very keen to uh maximize the communication between

00:54:25 to uh maximize the communication between ourselves and regulatory fire safety so they saw

00:54:29 they saw the content of gia 3.2 via that presentation

00:54:35 i think there was some discussion there

00:54:40 there about the failure of compartmentation was that presentation before the draft was published after the the gra was published i can't remember the timing of it i believe it's been disclosed to the

00:54:53 it i believe it's been disclosed to the inquiry so you've got a copy of it i think what i was trying to get to given your reference to it was what were the comments raised by the fire safety department following your presentation

00:55:05 following your presentation my recollection of their comments feedback was that they appreciated having a better understanding of the operational response

00:55:16 operational response aspect of high-rise fires i don't recall anyone raising any specific concerns about the content

00:55:27 specific concerns about the content but i do remember

00:55:30 there being discussion about experiences and lessons identified from lachenal in terms of things like compartmentation breaking down and being breached and refurbishment works

00:55:43 breached and refurbishment works leaving buildings less safe just following on from that um could i ask you about um another report

00:55:54 report or a comment rather by wilf butcher who is the chief executive officer for the association of specialist fire protection and

00:56:03 and he was reported saying that the issue of substandard fire stopping is endemic and that word was capitalized in the relevant text within the construction industry within the uk and has been

00:56:14 industry within the uk and has been known about for the past 10 years first of all were you aware of if not mr butcher's comments and comments of a similar nature from organizations with a specialist interest

00:56:25 organizations with a specialist interest in fire protection not in those specific terms no i was aware of the the issue

00:56:34 the issue as we've already discussed but i certainly wasn't aware of those particular comments

00:56:43 now the parking coach report also included

00:56:46 included notes of a meeting between robin ron dobson and representatives from the construction and building control sectors back in april 2010 which had been convened to discuss concerns regarding construction of new

00:56:58 concerns regarding construction of new build and refurbished premises and what was recorded we don't need to go to it but i'll rehearse it to you what was recorded was and i quote significant number of recent fires over

00:57:11 significant number of recent fires over the last two years or so have exhibited unusual fire spread and or smoke spread investigations have often found this to be due

00:57:19 be due to failures to comply with the building regulations either during construction or during refurbishment

00:57:28 were you aware as apologies it's always a difficult question were you aware in broad terms of uh the concerns or similar concerns that have been articulated the commissioner in that way regarding building standards

00:57:40 in that way regarding building standards generally

00:57:42 generally i was certainly aware of the issue from my own operational experience i'd attended fires where clearly a lack of

00:57:51 a lack of building standards or a lack of application of building standards had resulted in a more severe fire i think one of the areas we were seeing that in particular was

00:58:02 that in particular was regarding timber frame buildings particularly when they were under construction or being refurbished and and i'd attended one in in dagenham where the the entire building was lost thankfully

00:58:14 building was lost thankfully it was unoccupied so i was very much aware of of the issue but i i wasn't aware of that letter that you've just referred to or that meeting

00:58:25 you've just referred to or that meeting that it

00:58:26 that it was based on one of the things that um adriana parker coates or parking coats had referred to was that there had been quotes a significant number of incidents involving unusual fire

00:58:39 incidents involving unusual fire and smoke spread would you have agreed on the basis of what you knew that there were a significant number of such incidents by this stage i would agree and and the fire that i referred to

00:58:51 fire that i referred to yesterday at the marriott hotel in poplar which resulted in smoke uh being encountered on 32nd 33rd and 34th floors i was very

00:59:03 32nd 33rd and 34th floors i was very concerned about that the fire itself was confined to a kitchen on the ground floor and somehow the smoke had found its way

00:59:12 its way to the upper floors and i was very concerned i couldn't couldn't understand at the time the mechanism

00:59:19 mechanism by which that had occurred and i did attend a subsequent meeting at the premises with a regulatory fire safety officer to discuss that further

00:59:30 to discuss that further and at the point i left that issue they were

00:59:34 they were going to carry out further investigations as part of the fire investigation of the incident to try and establish how that smoke had reached those upper floors

00:59:44 floors i i don't recall the outcome of it but that highlighted the very concerns that you're referring to thank you

00:59:54 we've diverted some way from the email you received from spencer sutcliffe can we go back to your consideration of the contents of that email and if we go to lfb travel 0-50591

01:00:15 at the top of the page we have your um response

01:00:21 uh to what mr sutcliffe said it's timed at 0 9 49 so half an hour or so after mr suckliff sent his email and you said this although addressed to

01:00:33 and you said this although addressed to mr morton and mr utting i think you copied in all the original addresses and you said this i don't think this says anything different or more than we have already stated in the gra but please consider in

01:00:44 stated in the gra but please consider in detail and confirm that this impression is correct in particular you will recall clg's concern was with regard to fire survival guidance advice during a fire and recognizing that the

01:00:56 during a fire and recognizing that the conventional stay put message if your flat is not directly involved in fire or smoke may need to change if a fire escalates and spreads please ensure that our amended gra is

01:01:07 please ensure that our amended gra is wholly consistent with the attached and then send the revised draft to spencer and chris

01:01:12 and chris chris

01:01:13 chris being who chris keller yeah and who what role did he have at the lfb

01:01:18 the lfb he was part of the regulatory fire safety department i think he had a policy i think he's part of the fire safety policy team thank you returning to the text

01:01:29 returning to the text so that they can satisfy themselves that what we as rfs lfb rfs standing for what they're regulatory fire safety our stating in the gra arena is consistent

01:01:41 stating in the gra arena is consistent with what we lfb ops have said elsewhere once we have that assurance please pass the final drafty array back to me so i can send to lee b said lee brinton at clg

01:01:54 said lee brinton at clg now looking back at your email to philip morton and patrick gutting now do you think that you were correct to say that mr dobson's letter was not saying anything different or more than

01:02:06 saying anything different or more than what was already set out in the draft gra

01:02:10 gra i don't believe i was referring to mr dobson's letter i think i was referring to the advice we'd received from spencer sutcliffe even though he'd attached mr dobson's letter to that email that's what he was

01:02:22 letter to that email that's what he was specifically directing you to i i can't remember at that level of detail i'm afraid as as i've said at the very start it appeared to me that we were broadly

01:02:34 it appeared to me that we were broadly consistent but i did ask patton phil to check that through in detail because

01:02:40 because obviously i had very many responsibilities and at this point with the document the gra being close to completion i was my attention was elsewhere

01:02:53 my attention was elsewhere in terms of that level of granularity now in your third witness statement and it's the paragraph 169.8 from the fourth sentence onwards which can be found at lfb00119849

01:03:09 forward slash 73

01:03:15 you say this

01:03:18 this spencer sutcliffe

01:03:21 subsequently agreed to draft something himself as explained in an email sent by phil morton my recollection is that the drafting was done in the course of a meeting as indicated in my subsequent email to

01:03:33 indicated in my subsequent email to spencer sutcliffe and phil morton dated the 16th september 2013. the draft was subsequently amended and approved by regulatory fire safety as is apparent in the email

01:03:44 as is apparent in the email correspondence with the agreed text attached

01:03:48 attached do you remember now who attended the meeting at which spencer sutcliffe made amendments the draft text i don't and i i'm pretty sure i didn't attend i think

01:03:59 i'm pretty sure i didn't attend i think it was between him and phil milton possibly

01:04:03 possibly pat hutton would have attended and possibly someone else from regulatory fire safety i have i really don't know can you remember at this stage whether anyone communicated to you or to your knowledge anyone in the in

01:04:14 or to your knowledge anyone in the in the team um anyone from fire safety department any opinion on the evacuation and fsg section of the draft ura at this stage no

01:04:25 no i'm

01:04:26 i'm fairly confident nobody come back with any feedback or criticism or comments now we can look at the changes that mr sutcliffe made to the draft grade text which are contained in the version that

01:04:37 which are contained in the version that you sent to lee brinton as you indicated you were going to on the 17th of september

01:04:43 september 2013. now we we can first look at the covering email which is at lfb trouble zero five two four seven one

01:04:57 [Music] thank you

01:05:01 thank you and

01:05:02 and what you said was this dearly please find attached the final version of jra 3.2 firefighting and high-rise buildings following recent discussions with les britsman at clg this document has been

01:05:14 britsman at clg this document has been amended to incorporate agreed changes to the section on evacuation and fire survival calls pages and 29

01:05:22 and 29 appropriate amendments have also been made to section 2 page 62 to maintain the gra's internal consistency between sections

01:05:30 sections these changes reflect amendments agreed with layers and also reflect detailed consultation with lfb's regulatory fire safety department as a result i am pleased to confirm that

01:05:42 as a result i am pleased to confirm that the change wording highlighted in yellow is entirely consistent with other actions lfb has taken in order to discharge the latino rule 43 letter for example through communication with

01:05:54 example through communication with london councils regarding evacuation in residential high-rise buildings kind regards peter now the new draft was attached to that email and we can find that at lfb

01:06:06 email and we can find that at lfb 0034198

01:06:12 and as your covering email indicated the section on evacuation and fsg calls can be found at page 28 and 29

01:06:22 and starting on page 28 we can see that a new section has been incorporated which refers to the difference between residential and commercial properties insofar as the likely existence of an

01:06:33 insofar as the likely existence of an evacuation plan is concerned again apologies i'll read this through

01:06:40 through evacuation and fire survival guidance calls

01:06:44 calls residential buildings are built to the building standards applicable at the time of construction this may include older design guidance or earlier versions of approved document b the guidance that supports the building

01:06:55 the guidance that supports the building regulations the responsible person for these premises types also need to comply with the provisions of the regulatory reform fire safety order 2005 and have a

01:07:06 fire safety order 2005 and have a suitable emergency evacuation plan a management strategy and maintenance procedures in place identified through their fire risk assessment process the incident commander should follow the

01:07:17 the incident commander should follow the evacuation plan devised as part of the premises fire risk assessment when known unless the fire situation dictates otherwise

01:07:25 otherwise where a state put evacuation strategy is in place it should be safe for occupants to remain within their own property in the event of a fire elsewhere in the building

01:07:35 building occupants should self-evacuate when the fire heat or smoke is adversely affecting them in their property this can be either as the fire has started in their premises or fire and or

01:07:46 started in their premises or fire and or the products of combustion from other parts is having an effect on them it should be noted that not all high-rise residential buildings are able to have a stay put evacuation strategy

01:07:59 to have a stay put evacuation strategy now pausing there would you agree that this new drafting that provides no greater clarity on the circumstances in which an incident commander may need to depart from the evacuation plan for a

01:08:10 from the evacuation plan for a residential building

01:08:16 if i unders if i've understood your question correctly you're saying it doesn't provide greater clarity yes greater clarity than the previous draft

01:08:27 greater clarity than the previous draft yes

01:08:29 yes without doing a comparison i couldn't say for sure i mean well you scrutinized well what

01:08:39 indeed

01:08:43 what i felt we'd achieved at this point was

01:08:46 was we had

01:08:48 we had met the

01:08:50 met the concerns of clg to to clarify that the situation really in particular relating to stay put put more directly would you accept that

01:09:02 put more directly would you accept that there is no express reference and i'm underlining an emboldened word express to the possibility of fire spread beyond the compartment of origin would you agree with that proposition

01:09:14 agree with that proposition i would agree with that proposition but

01:09:18 but i would also suggest that that is covered elsewhere in the document

01:09:24 document but i think what you're saying is the linkage

01:09:27 linkage between the breakdown in command compartmentation and the requirement for a broader evacuation is not made as clear here as it should be and and i would accept that and the point is

01:09:40 and i would accept that and the point is that because there is no express emboldened underlined reference to the possibility of fire spread beyond the compartment of origin there's no direct link with the possible need depending upon circumstances to

01:09:53 need depending upon circumstances to depart from the stay put strategy and that's not expressly dealt with here in the section dealing with evacuation is it

01:10:01 it it's not as expressly articulated as as i think it could be however

01:10:07 however it does make it clear here that that the need to change the advice whether that be for staple or some other evacuation strategy is based on an

01:10:18 evacuation strategy is based on an escalating and worsening fire situation so i think in in that sense it does address your issue but in the more particular sense and the

01:10:29 but in the more particular sense and the more specific way in which you're suggesting it could have been worded i accept that that would have been clearer and i think the point that council is inviting you to consider mr carf is this

01:10:41 inviting you to consider mr carf is this is all new texts has been added to the draft is that right that's right sir well if we just concentrate on the first half

01:10:49 half relating to residential buildings what does it add to what was there already

01:10:56 beyond what i've said already i i'm not sure that it does add any anything i do i do accept that and i i accept that it could have been clearer well it might have done something

01:11:07 well it might have done something different and thereby added to what was already in the document but the the suggestion that mr kinnear's inviting you to respond to is that it didn't actually

01:11:19 respond to is that it didn't actually add anything to what was already in the document

01:11:22 document is that possible it's certainly possible sir yeah all right thank you and can we go on with this additional point in respect to

01:11:33 with this additional point in respect to compliance with building regulations mr kerb

01:11:36 kerb would you accept that there is no express reference here to the fact that instant commanders cannot rely upon buildings behaving as intended in the event of a fire

01:11:48 intended in the event of a fire there's not express reference here but as i said just now i do believe there is reference in the gra if you look at it more generally to the fact

01:11:59 look at it more generally to the fact that the building may

01:12:01 may [Music]

01:12:03 [Music] not meet your expectations and that compartmentation may be breached and i think we were very clear about that generally i completely accept that within this section

01:12:15 within this section we didn't draw that analogy and i can see that we should have and that's the point is that this section's dealing with evacuation

01:12:26 section's dealing with evacuation and here i'd suggest to you is the place where

01:12:29 where it would have benefited from express reference to the fact that incident commanders cannot assume that compartmentation will subsist this is where it should have been shouldn't it

01:12:40 where it should have been shouldn't it i accept it should have been repeated here yes but i think the point that compartmentation may may foul was made elsewhere in the document

01:12:53 and my suggestion the proposition i'd invite you to consider is that the most appropriate place for it given the consequences of compartmentation not subsisting is in

01:13:04 compartmentation not subsisting is in the evacuation section

01:13:09 i would accept that thank you so that's a convenient time for the morning break if it's appropriate if it's convenient for you thank you

01:13:21 well at that point i think mr carr we ought to have a break so we'll stop there

01:13:26 there we'll resume please a tough past eleven and again please to ask you not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it while you're out of the room all right okay good thank you very much would you give the usher

01:13:37 you very much would you give the usher please

01:13:46 yes thank you mr claire how fast eleven

01:30:19 would you ask mr carp to come back in

01:30:32 please right mr carter we're ready to carry on i hope indeed good thank you very much yes mr kane thanks sir mr cap can we go now to page 29 of the document that we're

01:30:43 page 29 of the document that we're looking at before the break which is ella thank you and we see here the section on fsg calls

01:30:52 now the overall point i put to you and invite your response to is that again this text set out here is very similar to the original draft that had been sent to dclg and about which they had raised

01:31:03 to dclg and about which they had raised concerns would you accept that

01:31:07 uh i don't recall them raising concerns about fire survival guidance after they'd received this or even before i i don't recall that

01:31:20 or even before i i don't recall that being one of their points i think my point was after dclg had made their concerns to you this is a revised text and it's substantially the same as the previous text yes simple factual

01:31:31 previous text yes simple factual question mr cap do you accept that yes thank you

01:31:35 thank you now if we can look at what the text says

01:31:39 fire survival guidance calls can be numerous during a high-rise incident and the incident commander will need to prioritize these by taking any action necessary to either rescue or reassure

01:31:50 necessary to either rescue or reassure building occupants the instant commander should continue all consider all available

01:31:58 systems communicate with building occupants that is new text the next paragraph the advice offered to callers to remain in their property during fast final guidance calls must be

01:32:10 during fast final guidance calls must be reevaluated throughout an incident where circumstances make it necessary an incident commander may need to consider changing the advice given to callers for example example callers may need to

01:32:21 example example callers may need to leave their property or be guided from it by fire crews the incident commander must inform all personnel providing fire survival guidance when the advice to callers

01:32:32 guidance when the advice to callers needs to be amended a clear record should be made of fire survival guidance calls and relevant information on the location and circumstances of the callers this is

01:32:43 circumstances of the callers this is both at the fire service control room and at the instant ground this will assist in the incident commander's confirmation of priorities and any subsequent reassessment of those priorities should information change as

01:32:56 priorities should information change as the incident develops now

01:32:59 now the text now does refer to the potential need to change stay put advice to residents do you agree with that yes but again would you accept that there is no express or detailed guidance on the

01:33:10 no express or detailed guidance on the circumstances that may make it necessary to withdraw stay put i accept as as just before the break that the connection with a breakdown in

01:33:21 that the connection with a breakdown in compartmentation is not explicitly stated but i think it's implicit in the text that the changing circumstances

01:33:32 the changing circumstances in this instance would be an escalating fire

01:33:37 if that helps what is the problem

01:33:41 problem is there any principled objection to an express reference to the fact that the withdrawal of stay put may be necessary when facing rapid fire spread

01:33:52 necessary when facing rapid fire spread as a result of failure of compartmentation no objection from me or whatsoever did you at this stage consider putting something in as

01:34:05 consider putting something in as explicit and as express as that form of words

01:34:09 words i didn't know and it was because presumably you considered that the text spoke for itself elsewhere is that right that's correct and also that the very many people that had seen the

01:34:20 the very many people that had seen the document had not found

01:34:23 found reason to say so and then to suggest that as a change so i i felt

01:34:28 i i felt based on my experience of dealing with this kind of incident that that advice was sufficient now the draft was returned to clg on the

01:34:40 now the draft was returned to clg on the 23rd of september 2013 and we can see that in an email sent by lee brinton to les britsman which is at clg quadruple zero two seven eight zero forward slash

01:34:52 zero two seven eight zero forward slash two

01:34:59 and we see that in the final email on the thread at the bottom of page two timed at

01:35:05 timed at 6 47

01:35:06 6 47 p.m

01:35:07 p.m now at that stage did you feel comfortable that the draft properly reflected the lessons learned following lachnal and the issues and concerns that have been raised by clg

01:35:18 concerns that have been raised by clg i did

01:35:22 now can we turn to a separate topic which is a further review of the draft gra 3.2 by dclg

01:35:30 dclg which took place between october and november 2013. now after lee brinton circulated the draft further comments were made and discussed within the department you were not copied into this chain

01:35:42 you were not copied into this chain again

01:35:43 again but as before i want to take you through them to see whether and if so to what extent any of the points were communicated to you at any stage by officials okay now if we could

01:35:54 now if we could stay in this particular email chain that that's on the page but go up to the next email on page two

01:36:04 we see that les britsman forwarded the draft to louise upton and brian martin on the 24th of september 2013 at 9 32 in the morning and then if we go up to page

01:36:15 the morning and then if we go up to page one

01:36:18 the top email on that page

01:36:23 we find

01:36:26 which is the first email in the thread is sent by louise upton on the 15th of october 2013 11 31 a.m and we can see that she says this in her email hi les

01:36:38 email hi les thanks for sight of this just read through again and it seems the concerns i had before appear not to have been particularly well addressed in this version

01:36:48 version i therefore added some presumably track changes and comments for you to consider i suspect in the context of the new text on page 28 which seemed confused and

01:36:59 on page 28 which seemed confused and confusing

01:37:01 confusing you may find it helpful to review the evidence ph that'd be peter holland presumably i would imagine so yes provided to the latino house coroner clear explanation of stay put in residential buildings

01:37:13 of stay put in residential buildings louise

01:37:15 louise now can we turn now to the substantive comments that louise upton made on the attached draft version of gra 3.2 that can be found at clg quadruple 0-2781

01:37:34 and if we can turn to page nine

01:37:39 and in particular the subsection entitled evacuation of buildings which is in the bottom part of that page and we can see that louise upton that has left a comment in the right hand

01:37:51 has left a comment in the right hand margin

01:37:53 margin it's l six on this version which reads this

01:37:57 this assumes there will always be an evacuation strategy and emits reference to stay put which is the principle on which residential buildings are constructed

01:38:08 buildings are constructed and if we look at the text of the draft gra 3.2 itself it reads thus and apologies again for reading it out but i think it's helpful firefighting operations can be affected

01:38:19 firefighting operations can be affected by the type of evacuation being undertaken the progress of the evacuation and the number and type of people being evacuated instant commanders must consider both the effect of firefighting tactics on

01:38:31 the effect of firefighting tactics on the evacuation of occupants and conversely the effect of evacuation on tactics if for example a building's evacuation plan includes the use of lifts by occupants there may be an

01:38:42 lifts by occupants there may be an impact on the availability of fire lifts for use by fire and rescue personnel the need to assist with the evacuation of people can divert crews away from the task they were briefed to undertake this

01:38:53 task they were briefed to undertake this can have an adverse effect on the incident commander's plan and resourcing for the incident first of all did you ever discuss her comment with louise upton directly

01:39:07 her comment with louise upton directly before

01:39:09 before when i was sent this bundle about a week ago i'd never seen this document and the substance of that comment was not communicated to you is that right absolutely not now

01:39:20 now looking at her comment looking at the relevant subsection from the draft

01:39:26 the draft it seems fair to say that the text did indeed proceed on the assumption that any evacuation would follow an explicit existing evacuation plan would

01:39:37 explicit existing evacuation plan would you agree with that not entirely let's take it on stage what bits do you agree with

01:39:47 i can see where she's coming from but i think she's failed to perhaps recognize that this document was generic across all high-rise

01:39:59 was generic across all high-rise buildings

01:40:00 buildings so

01:40:02 so the evacuation could just be self-initiated by people in a small block

01:40:07 block or it could be following a very detailed fire evacuation plan in a building like the shard

01:40:13 the shard and and this document rightly or wrongly tried to

01:40:19 tried to be relevant to both those examples at both extremes of of the situation so if i'd have had a chance to discuss this uh

01:40:28 this uh with with louise i would have i would have made those kind of points that's not to say we wouldn't have made any changes because i was just not aware of this

01:40:40 because i was just not aware of this comment the other thing i would say is she's raised what is in effect a control measure in the context of a statement of hazards

01:40:51 in the context of a statement of hazards so

01:40:52 so where we put that information is is probably something i would have discussed with her it's not to say we wouldn't have put it in but that's a drafting problem though isn't it rather

01:41:03 drafting problem though isn't it rather preeminently i think i think it's relevant because i think you need to understand that this part of the document is just telling you the things that might create harm and create risk it's the

01:41:15 create harm and create risk it's the next part of the document that describes the actions and the considerations that an incident commander should take in order to resolve an incident

01:41:26 resolve an incident because looking at that text it doesn't provide guidance or doesn't address a situation where an instant commander may need to carry out the evacuation of a building that doesn't have a

01:41:37 a building that doesn't have a pre-existing evacuation plan and equally it doesn't deal with uh evacuation of a building that normally has a staple strategy either does it i accept that

01:41:50 taking the step back at this stage were you still working on the basis that an evacuation of a high-rise building would only ever need to be carried out where there was a pre-existing evacuation plan

01:42:01 pre-existing evacuation plan was that the reality of the assumptions that you were applying at this time my understanding was that the the responsible person within the context of the

01:42:14 context of the fire safety regulation would be responsible for setting the evacuation strategy for the building that was my understanding and i accept that stay put

01:42:26 and i accept that stay put by definition isn't a strategy as such it's a principle but my understanding was that there would there would always be

01:42:37 guidance to people that either lived or worked or

01:42:41 worked or entered buildings on what they should do in the event of fire

01:42:46 fire and that that guidance would be repeated in notices within the building would form part of tenancy agreements or would be in the case of an office building would be practiced through fire

01:42:58 building would be practiced through fire drills thank you now there's another amendment by louise upton that's relevant to this issue which if we can turn over the page to page 16.

01:43:06 page 16. sorry further on to page 16.

01:43:10 and this is uh the text we looked at uh several times yesterday and it's a reference to the need for contingency plans in the planning section of the draft

01:43:20 draft and we can see on page 16 louise upton has made a tract change in red text the first bullet point and the existing text read as follows

01:43:31 and the existing text read as follows contingency plan should include a range of events which are foreseeable for the particular premises including first fire spread beyond the compartment of origin and the potential for multiple rescues and she's

01:43:43 for multiple rescues and she's added the words implementation of a appropriate evacuation

01:43:51 was that particular amendment ever discussed with you no

01:44:01 evacuation would form part of a contingency plan for an incident involving fire spread beyond the compartment of origin i've got no problem with that comment if i'd received that comment i would have i

01:44:12 i'd received that comment i would have i would have not opposed its inclusion at all

01:44:18 now that issue let's say the potential need to implement an evacuation a building with a state put strategy was ultimately dealt with in the final published version of gra 3.2

01:44:31 version of gra 3.2 by the addition of a separate bullet point in this section of the text and so for this purpose could we look at the final

01:44:38 final published version which we can find at lsb quadruple zero one two double five and in particular page 19.

01:44:54 and if we look at the first substantive paragraph at the top of that page what it says is this contingency plans for particular premises should cover first bullet point fast spread beyond

01:45:06 first bullet point fast spread beyond the compartment of origin and the potential for multiple rescues second bullet point an operational evacuation plan being required in the event the state put policy becomes untenable

01:45:18 untenable was the incorporation of that second bullet point a result of the substance of louise upton's comments i did it come from clg or is it something you included unprompted

01:45:31 unprompted i can be

01:45:32 i can be certain about the latter not the former so yes it was at clg's behest whether that reflected louise upton's comment that you just showed me or whether it reflected someone else's

01:45:43 or whether it reflected someone else's view as well i don't know who

01:45:47 who in particular at clg exhorted you to include the second bullet point i believe it was included there was a a point very near the end

01:45:59 point very near the end where

01:46:00 where editorial control passed to clg because we were very well i hoped we were very close to completing the document and i think

01:46:12 to completing the document and i think some of the changes this may have been one of them were made directly by les britsman on a very

01:46:22 on a very close to finished version of the document

01:46:25 document were you consulted about the merits of i'm thinking about this particular change

01:46:31 change [Music]

01:46:33 [Music] i don't remember any discussion of this as an issue were you

01:46:38 were you notified only about

01:46:41 about additions made by clg i was kept in the loop for the period that i'm referring to which i

01:46:51 which i don't want to mislead the inquiry in terms of dates but i think it was towards november time

01:46:58 time so november 2013 that's when i believe editorial

01:47:05 editorial control holding the pen as you put it passed from myself to

01:47:11 to well i say les britsman clg i believe that at that stage i was then copied into

01:47:22 i was then copied into whatever drafts were produced afterwards and i think that would have included the draft where this point was added but were you copied in for information

01:47:34 but were you copied in for information only

01:47:35 only were you copied in to notify you of a proposed change in inviting your views or were you copied in uh

01:47:43 uh to invite your substantive comments almost as a a more confined round of consultation which of those three options or indeed something else was it i

01:47:52 i i don't i definitely don't recall being consulted or been

01:47:59 asked as to whether or not i agreed i mean i was always very clear this was clg's document i had done my best to deliver what i thought was a fit for purpose gra if

01:48:12 thought was a fit for purpose gra if they chose at the end to make final editorial changes that is their right it was their document i was always clear about that and therefore i wouldn't at this point my one concern

01:48:24 wouldn't at this point my one concern and i did

01:48:26 and i did raise this with les britsman was the issue i raised earlier we've consulted on this document nationally with all uk fire services fibreglade

01:48:37 with all uk fire services fibreglade union in particular because they had threatened either directly or indirectly to

01:48:43 to ask their members not to comply with this and that to me would have been a complete travesty i'm sorry

01:48:50 i'm sorry could you please turn that telephone off

01:49:01 is it off now thank you very much sorry yes mr carp you sorry i've lost a lot sorry mr what you were saying you were um you're dealing with the concerns you'd

01:49:12 you're dealing with the concerns you'd raise with mr britsman and one of the concerns you'd raise of the extent of the consultation process which had included the fbu and they'd intimated to you that they were threatening to advise their members not to comply with it yes

01:49:25 their members not to comply with it yes and

01:49:27 and my reflection on this is i cannot understand why clg

01:49:34 why clg did not bring these comments forward a year sooner than they were made as part of the national consultation because that would have completely obviated that issue

01:49:46 obviated that issue and removed the risk and that would be the right and decent thing to do did you raise that point with mr brittmar indeed any other official at clg i didn't because i wasn't aware of the

01:49:57 i didn't because i wasn't aware of the breadth and nature of their concerns all i was aware is what liz les britsman told me and the discussions that he and i had which are

01:50:09 discussions that he and i had which are reflected in the email correspondence you've already referred to so i wasn't cited on a lot of this detail i wasn't engaged in any discussion i would have been

01:50:19 been more than happy to have it i probably would have questioned the timing because as i've said already we were well overdue to publish this document so frustration with timing

01:50:32 frustration with timing tolerably content with substance of the changes is that a fair summary i don't i don't think i've got any issue with any of the changes uh my concern was with the timing of when

01:50:45 my concern was with the timing of when they were being delivered and the adverse impact that might have on the on the document and the document achieving what it needed to achieve which is a revision in fire service

01:50:57 a revision in fire service procedure and practice a point you made earlier is an important one and at the end of the day gra 3.2 is a clg document is that right

01:51:08 that right absolutely to what extent did they make that fact

01:51:14 fact or defining reality clear to you that essentially at the end of the day it was their document so thank you for your comments thank you for your work but it's ours at the end of the day i was very clear about that

01:51:26 i was very clear about that from the outset and it didn't need saying out loud by clg or indeed anyone else no i think we i think myself and all the other committee members were very clear we were there

01:51:37 we were there to assist and contribute our knowledge and experience to a document that clg were going to produce quality assure and publish

01:51:47 publish thank you

01:51:48 thank you um

01:51:51 now finally louise upton raised the issue of evacuation of buildings where the state put strategy in her comments on the competence and training section of the draft gra and again that's also can be found at clg

01:52:03 can be found at clg quadruple zero two seven eight one forward slash one nine

01:52:26 uh

01:52:39 so i can get page 21.

01:52:50 thank you now if we see just above the middle of the page where the list of bullet points starts we find the text training

01:53:03 training for highrise instance must include

01:53:12 sorry i was right first of all so it's page 19

01:53:15 page 19 apologies to the document manager

01:53:20 training for high-rise instance must include

01:53:25 include [Music]

01:53:27 [Music] and if we turn over the page to page 20 the third bullet point set out from the top

01:53:34 top is evacuation and casualty removal tactics and looking on the right hand side we see a further comment l23 from louise upton and she says this

01:53:45 l23 from louise upton and she says this add in

01:53:46 add in understanding when a full or partial evacuation strategy becomes necessary in residential buildings built and maintained on the principle that staying put and that's directly affected by

01:53:57 put and that's directly affected by smoke heat or fire is appropriate now do you remember anyone raising that particular point with you at all at this late stage in the process

01:54:08 at all at this late stage in the process none of the specific points that you've shown me on this document were shared with me

01:54:22 was the point that louise upton summarizes albeit briefly in that comment something that had previously been canvassed either in your internal in discussions or as a result of

01:54:34 in discussions or as a result of consultation responses

01:54:38 not not in the explicit terms that are stated there but as i've said previously i do feel that if you look at the overall

01:54:47 overall content of the gra that point is made clear she's she's obviously raising it here in the context of a training specification in effect

01:55:00 training specification in effect so i accept it it was not included by us as a training specification but the training for high-rise firefighting like everything else should be based on

01:55:11 like everything else should be based on the policy and procedure as described so i would suggest that if we've got that right

01:55:17 right that would form part of the training requirement and was that particular element of the later training requirements something which you gave active consideration to when looking at the lfb zone training

01:55:28 looking at the lfb zone training provision on high-rise firefighting i was not directly involved in the specification of that training nonetheless you may not have been involved in the direct specification of

01:55:39 involved in the direct specification of it but was it something you thought actually this is something we will need to cover in due course

01:55:46 i would have expected i would have expected the policy in its entirety

01:55:51 entirety to form the basis of the specification so to the extent this is covered in the and fulham partial evacuation is clearly one of the issues so so yes i would

01:56:02 one of the issues so so yes i would expect the training to reflect that thank you now we know that i hesitate to use the word agreement um because it doesn't seem as if your views were sought on there on the question that louise upton's words are reflected

01:56:14 that louise upton's words are reflected in the final published version of gra 3.2 and for the sake of completeness can i take you to that final lfb quadruple zero one two double five forward slash two one

01:56:36 and we can see where the section on training begins

01:56:41 begins and it's the same text as before the bullet point list begins which reads training which will cover high-rise instance must include then if we go over at the page to page

01:56:53 then if we go over at the page to page 22

01:56:55 22 it's the eighth bullet point from the top

01:56:57 top or more conveniently the fourth from the bottom

01:57:01 bottom which says this evacuation and casualty removal tactics instant commanders should understand when a partial or full evacuation strategy might become necessary

01:57:10 necessary in a residential building where a staple policy is normally in place now at the point at which it was decided that this text would remain in the final version of 3.2

01:57:21 version of 3.2 did that prompt a discussion or consideration within lfb about whether it had consequences for the training that lfb provided to its instant commander so

01:57:33 instant commander so post publication uh i understand post publication

01:57:43 we primarily use the gra post publication to

01:57:48 to update and refr and refresh pn633 uh

01:57:54 uh i can't remember this section wouldn't have formed part of

01:58:00 of pn633 and

01:58:02 pn633 and so i think the answer to your question in short is no and so does it also follow from what you've said that lfb's internal consideration of consequential training needs would be defined by

01:58:15 training needs would be defined by the substance of the revised 633 rather than gra 3.2 primarily yes and to the extent to which you can answer this question because of your role in operations uh are you

01:58:28 of your role in operations uh are you aware of the extent to which gra 3.2 was referred back to when the lfb was considering what it needed to do about incident commander training following the publication 3.2

01:58:40 following the publication 3.2 what i can say with certainty is that the people who were involved in that training specification process were had been involved in and were very familiar with gra 3.2

01:58:53 familiar with gra 3.2 so to the extent that anything wasn't included in 633 but was relevant from 3.2 i think it's not unreasonable to say um i would have expected them to reflect

01:59:05 i would have expected them to reflect that in the specification if that helps it does and so essentially they ought to have been aware of what was in it and then reacted accordingly in terms of the substance the provision of revised training

01:59:16 training i would have expected them to have regard to 3.2 whose role would it have been to have alerted the training department or indeed any relevant committee or board

01:59:27 indeed any relevant committee or board within the lfb that the high-rise gra contained the requirement to prepare instant commanders for the need to evacuate a building with a state put strategy

01:59:39 a state put strategy i think when gris were published we circulated them within the brigade so at that point they would have been made aware that a new

01:59:51 would have been made aware that a new generic risk assessment was published but to answer your question more specifically i'd expect that requirement that detailed requirement

02:00:02 requirement that detailed requirement to form part of the training commissioning process is triggered in broad terms by requests from the commissioning department

02:00:14 from the commissioning department correct

02:00:15 correct what would have been the relevant commissioning department for these purposes

02:00:18 purposes operational policy procedures

02:00:23 is that you or was it you yes it was um would it have been your specific role to have initiated that process would have been someone lowered down the

02:00:34 have been someone lowered down the organization in your directorate it would be the officer leading on the policy which was for the relevant for the purposes of pn

02:00:45 for the relevant for the purposes of pn 633 was was either jim a court or pat hutton

02:00:52 thank you

02:00:57 the training commissioning process

02:01:03 only started once the documents were fully agreed through bjc hsw and can i stop you that the documents you're referring to here are what just for the

02:01:14 referring to here are what just for the sake of clarity so the risk assessment the policy and all the various impact assessments that go with it but the key document would be the revised policy itself or the new policy depending on circumstances correct

02:01:28 did i cut you off i couldn't use if i did thank you now we know that no training clfb's training were in fact implemented was that something about which first of all do you agree with that

02:01:40 all do you agree with that or are you not aware of what was done

02:01:46 the revised pn 633 was published i believe in june 2015. they're about i i retired in march 2016

02:01:59 they're about i i retired in march 2016 for the last year of my service a very large percentage of my time was taken up with planning and delivering

02:02:10 taken up with planning and delivering a major training event called exercise unified response and that took up all of my time and more

02:02:21 all of my time and more so

02:02:23 so i at that point i didn't really play any direct part in in either the finalization of the policy or

02:02:34 the finalization of the policy or the training specification that would have followed from it and i don't know when the training specification would have been initiated it would have been sometime following june 15 so probably

02:02:46 sometime following june 15 so probably in the autumn because my understanding i mean my knowledge was that babcock would not

02:02:55 would not start to discuss the training specification until it had been agreed with staff side and we were able to say this is the final version of the policy

02:03:07 this is the final version of the policy was your working assumption therefore that the officer leading on the policy whether it's mr acort or mr utting would be doing what they were required to do and identifying and progressing the policy and the consequence and triggering the tcap

02:03:19 consequence and triggering the tcap process

02:03:20 process absolutely they were both in my experience they were both competent experienced and trusted officers i would have just expected them to

02:03:31 to as a result of the publication of 633 i would have expected them to trigger the tcap process and i believe that they did that

02:03:42 that they did that looked at from a different perspective did you receive any uh concerns or complaints that they hadn't or hadn't timelessly triggered that tcap process or in some other way not doing what they

02:03:54 or in some other way not doing what they were meant to do in terms of rollout of 633 and consequential training no thank you

02:04:02 now the present commissioner andy rowe in the statement he's provided to the inquiry for the purposes of phase two has confirmed that at the time of the fire

02:04:13 fire the lfb did not provide any guidance or direction in either its policies or training as to when and how a state port strategy should be reversed now from your position

02:04:26 reversed now from your position in charge of the operations directorate can you explain how that came to be the case despite the work that your department had invested over many years in relation to gra 3.2

02:04:38 in relation to gra 3.2 i can't

02:04:41 but i would suggest that the answer if and i'm not denying what andy rowe says the answer would lie in that training commissioning process and

02:04:54 commissioning process and and or the delivery of the training that that resulted in being developed

02:05:01 i would i was not directly involved in in the specification of the training and i

02:05:09 and i would have played no part in the delivery of the training so for the inquiries benefit there was always a question of timing for when training would be delivered so

02:05:21 for when training would be delivered so as the commissioning department our role was primarily to specify the content

02:05:28 content the delivery was always for service delivery dave brown's directorate to decide because of course he would know where the priorities for

02:05:40 he would know where the priorities for his directorate lay and the other commitments that had already been made so

02:05:46 so my department played a very much a minor role in in the delivery we would play a role in quality assuring

02:05:57 play a role in quality assuring the training that was delivered so so we would satisfy ourselves that it met the specification but that in terms of delivery that was about the

02:06:08 terms of delivery that was about the extent

02:06:09 extent of my department's role in training delivery can i put something bluntly and directly to you the reason why no guidance or direction was available in either policies or training was that

02:06:21 either policies or training was that neither you nor your department had properly considered the impact of clg's amendments to gra 3.2 at all

02:06:32 i can't really answer that because i think the people who could answer that best more

02:06:39 best more in an informed way would be the people who drew up the training specification

02:06:45 i i certainly didn't play i did not

02:06:51 i did not do what you suggested but for the reasons that i've explained my

02:06:57 my focus was very much elsewhere at this time

02:07:00 time thank you

02:07:01 thank you now apologies um mr cap i've taken you to the final version of the published gra 3.2 can we now go back in time slightly and it's really still yet

02:07:13 slightly and it's really still yet further email correspondence from les britsman that was sent to you in or originated in the latter half of october 2013.

02:07:21 2013. now

02:07:22 now les britson sent so others within dclg further email correspondence on the 22nd of october 2013

02:07:31 2013 in response to a consequential 2 louise upton's comments on the draft gra now that can be found at clg quadruple 0-2787

02:07:53 now mr can i show you again you're not copied into this chain and so the reason why i want to take you through it is to see whether and if so to what extent uh you were notified of or informed of the

02:08:05 you were notified of or informed of the points that were considered in internal correspondence at clg is that okay of course

02:08:10 course now

02:08:11 now can we look at the email on page three which was sent on the 22nd of october at 4 52 pm

02:08:20 now this is an email from les britsman to peter holland and dawn eastmead preeminently first of all can you help us as to who dawn east meet was because we haven't identified her thus far in

02:08:32 we haven't identified her thus far in the correspondence i i can't uh as i said earlier i i received the first time i saw these documents was when i saw the clg

02:08:43 documents was when i saw the clg evidence bundle that i was passed by my legal team uh i i remember her name

02:08:50 name i suspect she is a senior civil servant in clg probably in the fire policy side of the department did you

02:09:02 policy side of the department did you have any direct dealings with her no thank you

02:09:05 thank you um apologies again i'm going to read out the email because it's the most helpful way to proceed hi peter dawn the revision of gra 3.2 has been an ongoing and long-winded process

02:09:17 ongoing and long-winded process the main purpose of the revision was to address the issues that were raised by the coroner in her rule 43 letter to the department dclg's response is attached but the section that deals with gra 3.2 is

02:09:30 section that deals with gra 3.2 is copied below and he quotes on your other recommendations i can confirm that my department's generic risk assessment guidance on high-rise firefighting is under review

02:09:42 under review at present and will be informed by all of the recommendations you have made in your rule 43 recommendations it will also include advice to instant commanders to inform decisions on

02:09:53 commanders to inform decisions on evacuation should it become clear during an instant that the state put principle is no longer terrible the new gra has gone from a 26-page document to approximately 84 pages and

02:10:06 document to approximately 84 pages and has lost its purpose as a document there has been a lot of discussion and revisions of the document and the latest version is attached with the highlighted yellow section being the most significant revision but does not add a

02:10:19 significant revision but does not add a great deal of clarity lfb acknowledged that the document has now become very long and that it was an attempt to capture operational issues and as well as provide clarity on the

02:10:31 and as well as provide clarity on the gra

02:10:32 gra i understand that the intention was to send out the revised gra along with a letter from dclg cfra chief fire and rescue advisor with the suggested text included see above

02:10:44 the suggested text included see above now just pausing there um mr cab

02:10:48 what would be your response to the criticism that the draft had quotes lost its purpose close quotes my polite response well the start there at least

02:11:01 i can only repeat what i've said already i'm

02:11:05 flabbergasted that they chose to wait so long

02:11:12 they don't understand their own document process otherwise they'd know why it was 84 pages long i think it's fair to say the actual growth

02:11:23 growth in real terms was about four or five pages

02:11:27 pages as a result of the lessons identified from lack of and shirley towers in terms of it's lost its purpose i would fundamentally disagree i think we

02:11:38 fundamentally disagree i think we enhanced the purpose of the document i think the addition of the matrix was welcomed by fire services i know that for a fact because we had a lot of positive feedback because it was making

02:11:51 positive feedback because it was making services life easier they they've got a legal obligation to create

02:11:56 create a risk assessment previously version two didn't

02:12:02 didn't provide

02:12:03 provide a template for that didn't provide any guidance on it so i know that was welcome

02:12:09 welcome uh

02:12:11 uh les britsman's comments about the growth uh

02:12:15 uh are misleading to say the least i haven't got a lot more to say about it i won't ask you about the impolite response no i probably wouldn't share it but

02:12:27 probably wouldn't share it but after

02:12:29 after trying to take the step back after it was published did anyone directly say to you a criticism along the lines of the document had lost its purpose it was

02:12:40 document had lost its purpose it was not serving the purpose which it was prepared for example quite the opposite the

02:12:46 the with a few exceptions the feedback we received through the consultation process bear in mind we didn't really get any formal feedback after publication

02:12:57 formal feedback after publication clg might have done but but again i wasn't made aware of that but certainly the feedback we had towards the latter stages

02:13:05 stages and and i'm primarily referring to the national consultation was with one or two exceptions people were fundamentally happy with it they were

02:13:16 they were happy with the way it was presented and the level of detail i think everyone recognized that because of those two very tragic and prominent incidents ie

02:13:28 tragic and prominent incidents ie lacking

02:13:29 lacking shirley towers there was a need to make sure the lessons identified were captured and and and i think people welcomed that that was my

02:13:39 was my experience post publication did you receive any informal feedback i think you did a lot of work in terms of excise unified response communicating that out

02:13:50 unified response communicating that out to the far sector generally when you're doing that type of work for example did anyone say to peter this has lost its way it's not really terribly useful it's not serving its purpose anything along those lines never

02:14:06 now in relation to the letter sorry going back to the email sorry mr kevin um in relation to the letter from dclg and the chief fire and rescue advisor had there been a discussion

02:14:18 had there been a discussion at about this time so the latter half of october about sending an expansionary letter

02:14:23 letter when to cover the final version of gra 3.2 no that that discussion had taken place

02:14:32 place quite a few months earlier when we when we believed that we were close to publication and

02:14:40 and my recollection is that it certainly involved derek clough

02:14:46 clough it may have involved peter holland i i took an action to draft the letter and that's what we were considering i think when your third of all yes so i i took the

02:14:57 your third of all yes so i i took the action to draft the letter which i did and which by the way was ultimately was sent out

02:15:04 sent out because it was clearly beneficial to explain to chief fire officers the reason why this document looks slightly different to the other gras in the series in terms

02:15:16 to the other gras in the series in terms of its length and complexity and was that in a nutshell of the intended purpose to be served by the letter absolutely

02:15:26 and had that approach effectively been agreed as between you and derek clough and

02:15:31 and and i believe by peter hollanders were as well but i i don't want to say he agreed it

02:15:37 agreed it at the time that i discussed and agreed with derrick clough because again i'm not sighted on the discussions between derek clough and

02:15:46 and peter holland or anyone else in clg for that matter but is it right to say that in your later discussions with peter holland he never doubted that the purpose served by the covering letter i

02:15:57 letter i i had

02:15:58 i had i remember having discussions with both him and

02:16:02 him and neil

02:16:02 neil o'connor and neil o'connor's emails is in amongst this bundle somewhere and and i remember both of them were fundamentally happy with the gra and and i think

02:16:14 i think with regards to peter holland in particular i think he welcomed the letter as a mechanism to make sure that there was no misunderstanding as to what the scope and purpose of the

02:16:25 as to what the scope and purpose of the document was thank you can we go back to the email from mr britsman and really look at the fifth paragraph which starts with the words it is important

02:16:36 with the words it is important and what he says there is this it is important to acknowledge that the lfb have put a lot of work into this document and have been very inclusive of the wide range of views that have come from the fbu and various parts of the

02:16:47 from the fbu and various parts of the fire sector the work will by no means be wasted and it is vital that we acknowledge the hard work undertaken by lfb the view is that the document is neither

02:16:58 the view is that the document is neither a gra nor ops guidance in its present form and the concern from myself and dclg colleagues is that it does not clearly meet our commitments to the coroner in our response to the rule 43

02:17:09 coroner in our response to the rule 43 letter

02:17:10 letter now in relation to the observations that the gra

02:17:13 the gra was neither effectively fish nor foul there's not a gra norops guidance again was that something that either les britsman or anyone else

02:17:24 that either les britsman or anyone else raised with you either in those terms or in the substance of those terms beyond what i've said already no so so yes

02:17:33 so so yes les britsman has articulated in the emails between us had told me that clg had some concerns and and and i was

02:17:44 clg had some concerns and and and i was cited on the ones that are in the emails that i'm

02:17:47 that i'm copied into that specific point about whether this was a gra or or ops guidance as he refers to which was a separate series of documents by the way that were produced

02:17:59 documents by the way that were produced by clg

02:18:01 by clg he never

02:18:02 he never said that to me

02:18:06 there is the concluding concern there set out by mr britsman that the guide does not satisfy the commitments made to the coroner by the secretary of state

02:18:17 the coroner by the secretary of state now

02:18:18 now we know that was something louise upped and raised in her july email correspondence internal correspondence at this stage did mr britsman or any other official from clg including peter

02:18:30 other official from clg including peter holland

02:18:31 holland raise with you their concern that it didn't meet those commitments no

02:18:40 at this stage were you aware of any such concerns being raised with the commissioner or anyone above you in the hierarchy of the lfb no but should they have

02:18:53 no but should they have been done so i i think my relationship with the commissioner was such that he would have told me and would he called you in i'm sure he would yeah

02:19:04 i'm sure he would yeah more likely staff officer would have called me in but yes

02:19:19 can we take it from what you've said that the first time that you were aware of dclg's concerns that gra 3.2 did not satisfy the commitments made by the secretary of state of the coroner was

02:19:31 secretary of state of the coroner was when you were provided with briefing materials for giving evidence correct thank you

02:19:39 thank you can we now turn to a conversation you had with mr britsman on the 22nd of october 2013. so it appears at least on the same day

02:19:51 at least on the same day that this email was sent

02:19:56 can we first of all turn to lfb double zero one zero two five double zero forward slash two

02:20:21 and we see um in the bottom part of that page an email you sent on the 22nd of october at 7 37 pm so nearly three hours after les britsman's

02:20:32 britsman's internal email to officials at clg and you said this in the opening paragraph

02:20:40 paragraph further to our earlier conversation i would confirm that i believe the best way forward regarding the issues you have raised regarding the high rise gra will be a further meeting in person of

02:20:51 will be a further meeting in person of all interested parties first question is this do you remember first of all the fact of that conversation during the course of the 22nd of october 2013

02:21:03 22nd of october 2013 no

02:21:05 no simply because i was having a large number of conversations with mr britsman i believe at this point and that particular conversation i can't single it out to remember the content of

02:21:17 single it out to remember the content of it

02:21:20 it would have been in the context of how are we going to bring this document to publication from my perspective anyway

02:21:29 you've substantively already dealt with this but given the first line of this email i want to give you the opportunity to respond during the conversation you had with mr britsman on that day which is referred to in your email

02:21:41 to in your email is it your evidence that he raised he did not raise the fundamental concern that gra 3.2 did not satisfy the commitments made to the secretary of state no

02:21:52 state no thank you

02:21:56 did he raise any concerns along the lines of or that carried the gist of

02:22:03 gist of the document had lost its purpose no

02:22:10 he got beyond what he'd said in terms of it being too long and

02:22:16 and shouldn't must and the things that are reflected in the email nothing beyond nothing beyond what's in the email was discussed to my fairly certain recollection and let's look at

02:22:29 certain recollection and let's look at further in your email because obviously you wrote it on the day you'd spoken to him yes now there are two specific points that are raised in this email that i'd like to ask you about now the first is in relation to the

02:22:40 now the first is in relation to the coroner's rule 43 letters and you you deal with this at point seven on page three

02:22:48 and what you say there is this i'm confident this gra addresses all of the issues identified both the shirley towers and latino inquests and their resulting rule 43 letters

02:23:01 and their resulting rule 43 letters as such it is reasonable to say that publication of this gra in its current format would allow fine rescue services to review and revise their standard operating procedures in

02:23:13 their standard operating procedures in line with the lessons learned from these incidents

02:23:16 incidents that this would have the welcome effect of lowering risk to both firefighters and the public [Music]

02:23:24 [Music] now

02:23:25 now looking at that opening line i'm confident this gra addresses all of the issues identified are the shelley towers and latino inquests that might suggest on one reading

02:23:37 that might suggest on one reading that you were responding to a concern that mr britsman had raised as to whether the gra met

02:23:44 met and responded to those lessons what would be your response to that observation

02:23:53 because of the distance we are now from this meeting i i don't think i can sit here and say with 100 certainty that he didn't it's just my recollection

02:24:04 recollection is that the issues that he was concerned about or the issues that he shared with me

02:24:09 me were the ones that we've seen in the email correspondence between myself and him so

02:24:16 so it's possible that he might have mentioned it in the conversation but if he did he didn't place any

02:24:22 place any particular emphasis on it but i wouldn't rule out the possibility that he he may have said it

02:24:32 because looking at it it appears you're responding to a point he has made and you're responding in

02:24:40 clear terms i think i was trying to bring this matter

02:24:46 matter to us to a sensible and satisfactory conclusion i i'm not sure these this particular email and these particular points are necessarily a summary of our discussion this is probably more a

02:24:59 discussion this is probably more a summary of my perspective on this matter now if we can look at points five and six so just above on this page you say this first of all

02:25:10 on this page you say this first of all at point five any substantive change of the document would presumably require further consultation with all stakeholders i.e those who have agreed the current draft

02:25:21 those who have agreed the current draft the duration and complexity of this further consultation would be proportionate to the extent of change proposed i got the impression from your comments a fairly fundamental set of changes have been suggested

02:25:34 changes have been suggested now just stopping there had you seen the nature and extent of the the changes at that stage or had they simply been communicated verbally by mr britsman to you i i never at any

02:25:45 by mr britsman to you i i never at any time saw any written comments so the only comments well other than the written comments that

02:25:53 that mr britsman provided so

02:25:56 so i think almost all of my discussion on this matter was with him and not with anyone else in those conversations and bearing mind the impression you gathered from your

02:26:08 the impression you gathered from your document from your from your discussion with him

02:26:12 with him can you remember what mr britsman had actually conveyed to you as to the extent and depth of the changes they were minded to make

02:26:23 changes they were minded to make if you can't remember after this passage of time then don't try and i can't i can't in the detail that i think you're seeking i can't provide that

02:26:34 can i press my luck with just one further question on this score had he used the words rewrite or fundamental or going back to the drawing board phrases along of that

02:26:46 drawing board phrases along of that nature in his discussion with you does that resonate in any way in your memory it it doesn't but as with my previous comment

02:26:55 comment i wouldn't i'm not certain enough to say for sure he absolutely didn't say it he may have mentioned it but in terms of a rewrite or a complete

02:27:06 but in terms of a rewrite or a complete kind of review which is what in in essence he was you know the correspondence suggests that that view was never shared with me thank you

02:27:17 shared with me thank you going back to point six in your email you said this our experience to date in relation to this topic suggests that such consultation and the debate it within gender would take a considerable time

02:27:28 gender would take a considerable time and effort to achieve i'm not cited on your proposals for resourcing this work now

02:27:37 now on one level that speaks for itself you're advising mr britsman of the practical burden of resources that would be

02:27:48 burden of resources that would be required to consult properly on if fundamental changes were to be executed is that a fair reading of what the point the warning you're giving there absolutely uh

02:28:00 there absolutely uh i knew how much time and effort would be required to to kind of unpick what we've done and to go back almost to the start i

02:28:10 i i mean i i hadn't discussed this with my line manager or the commissioner but i was minded to think london fire brigade probably wouldn't want to resource that work

02:28:21 to resource that work because it's all at clg's behest and i go back to my previous point if they'd have made these comments in the appropriate time they would have been

02:28:33 been properly dealt with so i i just didn't know if he understood because i knew he hadn't been involved in the gra process and in particular he had no

02:28:43 had no prior involvement in 3.2 so i just wanted to be clear that he understood the extent and gravity of what he was proposing and for all the reasons you've

02:28:56 proposing and for all the reasons you've you've set out in detail before by this stage if not for some considerable time by this stage your priority was publication to meet to ensure that the lessons from shirley towers and lachnal were

02:29:07 shirley towers and lachnal were communicated to the sector yes i felt that was the priority at this stage

02:29:20 now if we can stay in this email chain but go to page one

02:29:29 and you'll see at the top of the page

02:29:34 the fact that you forwarded the email chain to gary reason who was your line manager at that stage i think correct

02:29:42 correct and you fought it on the 23rd of october and you said this gary further to our brief earlier conversation please see below a response i've received from the chief fire and

02:29:53 i've received from the chief fire and rescue advisor in response to my earlier email

02:29:56 email i'm grateful for your support regarding the position which i have taken to doing further work on this gra i.e that lfb have committed significant resource to the high-rise gra but would

02:30:07 resource to the high-rise gra but would not be willing to spend any additional significant effort on a document that is destined only to only have a relatively short life span and note that you'll confirm this position with the

02:30:18 confirm this position with the commissioner

02:30:21 a number of points arise from that but it would appear if any further emphasis were needed that you are concerned to get published as soon as possible for the reasons we've discussed earlier yes

02:30:35 and that this was not the time for further amendments simply because the anticipated short shelf life of gra 3.2 pending national operational guidance on

02:30:46 pending national operational guidance on high-rise firefighting that's correct and

02:30:49 and if it helps the inquiry i think at this point for around this time i i'd had a discussion with nick collins about the likely time

02:31:00 with nick collins about the likely time scales

02:31:02 scales for national operational guidance picking up high rise and i think i'd been told it was 12 to 18 months so if you put it in that context

02:31:15 so if you put it in that context i think that even further reinforces where where we were on this issue

02:31:27 and i think

02:31:31 to give some uh contemporaneous uh confirmation of your understanding of the time estimate for the publication of the national operational guidance can we go back to page three in this chain

02:31:43 go back to page three in this chain [Music]

02:31:45 [Music] and it's point eight

02:31:50 i understand from the from the national operational guidance team the production of the new style of national guidance for high-rise fires is likely to take about 12 months from now so october 2014

02:32:02 about 12 months from now so october 2014 and as such this gra could be published in the interim period making it clear that the information it contains will be reformatted and reviewed as current and due course as part of the national guidance program so that's the

02:32:13 guidance program so that's the information that you're referring to in your previous answer yes thank you

02:32:26 were you anticipating and it draws out a point which i think is possibly pregnant in your previous answers that the new national operational guidance would wholly supersede gra 3.2 in due course

02:32:38 wholly supersede gra 3.2 in due course that that was clearly my understanding was that the gra series would be withdrawn as a result of the implementation of national operational guidance

02:32:48 guidance given the duration of the gra 3.2 drafting process including consultation the rest of it um

02:32:57 um did you press mr collins on the [Music]

02:33:01 [Music] sense

02:33:02 sense of only expecting the national operational guidance to take a year it's given your experience that a year seemed to be somewhat optimistic i didn't

02:33:15 but recognising the criticism of gra 3.2 was that it was too comprehensive it was too detailed

02:33:23 detailed i'll be honest i didn't envisage mr collins or anyone else was going to have a great deal of work to do the work had been done it would be a question of formatting and alignment with

02:33:35 alignment with their document style but content i would

02:33:39 i would respectfully suggest was largely written was there any uh proposal from anyone whether it's clg or mr collins or anyone else that

02:33:49 else that the work on gra 3.2 should effectively be binned for whatever better phrase pending production of the national operational guidance

02:34:00 the only place i've seen

02:34:03 seen that term

02:34:05 that term was in this correspondence package uh no one else ever said anything like that to me

02:34:11 me so no one said well given the amount of time gra 3.2 is taken we might as well just wait for the national operational guidance to be published absolutely not thank you

02:34:22 now there was a further meeting between you and mr britsman on the 6th of november 2013. so three or so weeks after this email exchange

02:34:32 exchange if we can go to lfb00102504

02:34:48 again this is another email you send in which you seek to capture the essential points that had been discussed during the meeting you say in the opening paragraph following our earlier meeting i thought

02:35:00 following our earlier meeting i thought it would be helpful if i confirmed the main points of discussion and or issue with regard to the publication of the high-rise gra first of all mr calip do you remember

02:35:12 first of all mr calip do you remember the fact of that meeting first of all yes

02:35:15 yes to what extent do you have a separate recollection of its substance over and above what set out in the email my

02:35:25 my custom and practice when i attended meetings like this was i kept a record in my day book and then i would generally reflect back

02:35:36 and then i would generally reflect back the key points in an email which in this case you can treat as a as a meeting note and so if anyone disagreed with your summary it gave it flushed out any

02:35:47 summary it gave it flushed out any objections absolutely if les britsman had disagreed with any of these points i'm sure he'd have felt able to challenge them thank you can you remember who attended the meeting apart

02:35:58 remember who attended the meeting apart from you and mr britsman

02:36:01 i can't be certain i'm pretty sure anthony mold was there from clg from clg and possibly

02:36:12 and possibly neil o'connor as well but i i can't say for sure it appears that mr maude would always be at these meetings so where either mr holland or mr britsman were engaged with

02:36:23 holland or mr britsman were engaged with you he'd also be there is that right my recollection he was at many of them if but not necessarily all of them did he contribute substantively to any

02:36:34 did he contribute substantively to any of the discussions you are having with mr britsman in

02:36:39 in in a

02:36:40 in a general sense but he i don't recall him engaging with the substance of the points because he he didn't have a fire service

02:36:51 because he he didn't have a fire service background he was i'm not sure what his background was but i think he was very much involved in the publication process and i think he was a fairly senior civil

02:37:03 and i think he was a fairly senior civil servant i think he just wanted to see this follow clg sort of protocols and that effectively let mr britsman do the talking for whatever better phrase the vast majority of

02:37:15 the vast majority of discussion at this stage between myself and clg was with les britsman if not all of it there was meetings or discussions with peter

02:37:27 meetings or discussions with peter holland because i knew pete holland fairly well from working with him on the industrial action so i had the kind of relationship where i could speak to him quite freely and i think at some point i started to voice

02:37:40 think at some point i started to voice my

02:37:41 my frustration to him well come on to that before we come on to those matters can you remember whether i think this is your evidence that you had not been provided with a copy of

02:37:53 you had not been provided with a copy of louise upton's annotated version the draft gra in advance of this meeting i was never provided with any of those clg annotated copies of the

02:38:05 any of those clg annotated copies of the document and so you were proceeding upon the basis that the draft gra was sent to lee brinton back in september 2013. yes now can we look at point three uh in

02:38:18 now can we look at point three uh in your email to mr brissman and again we can see that you repeat the same point about the document reflecting lachnal and the rule 43 letters and you

02:38:30 lachnal and the rule 43 letters and you say this

02:38:31 say this production of this gra was slightly delayed by lfb pending the outcome of the latin link quest the current draft document fully covers all issues raised in the rule 43 letters

02:38:42 all issues raised in the rule 43 letters and also to the best of our knowledge and belief addresses matches matters such as flat numbering and location which were raised as key issues during the inquest hearing albeit they did not

02:38:54 the inquest hearing albeit they did not become formal rule 43 recommendations can you remember did you discuss the substance of the rule 43 letters with mr britsman at the meeting

02:39:07 britsman at the meeting i can't remember

02:39:11 was there any specific discussion of the secretary of state's commitment in the in his response to the rule 43 letters that the gra 3.2 would give advice to

02:39:22 that the gra 3.2 would give advice to instant commanders to inform decisions on evacuation when stapled became untenable

02:39:28 untenable i can't remember

02:39:31 does your note at point three record your own position that the latino coroners rule 43 letters and the points raised in them had been properly addressed in the draft gra 3.2

02:39:43 properly addressed in the draft gra 3.2 yes

02:39:44 yes at 0.6 you go on to say this if we can scroll down you variously describe the current draft gra as a quote research paper close

02:39:55 gra as a quote research paper close quotes

02:39:56 quotes and open quotes feeling wrong close quotes

02:39:59 quotes but i note that we were able to fully answer and or explain all the substantive issues which you raise regard to current content first of all in relation to

02:40:12 first of all in relation to the observation that the draft was a research paper did mr britsman put flesh on that particular criticism not to my recollection though

02:40:24 not to my recollection though in relation to the point that it felt wrong

02:40:28 wrong did he amplify what he meant by that point

02:40:33 with hindsight i think he was probably reflecting all of the emails that i wasn't privy to but he certainly never shared any of that detail with me [Music]

02:40:44 [Music] you felt

02:40:45 you felt that you'd dealt with the substance of those criticisms hence your the point you make at 0.6 can you remember whether mr britsman

02:40:56 can you remember whether mr britsman took you through serially the substance of the concerns that we've canvassed in internal email correspondence that he'd written and louise upton's points canvas as well

02:41:07 louise upton's points canvas as well no

02:41:14 you can't remember that you're not saying he didn't it's just you can't remember

02:41:19 remember [Music]

02:41:20 [Music] i think i think my response to all of these questions and i completely understand why you need to ask them individually is the same and so i feel like i'm repeating myself which is to say

02:41:31 say i can't

02:41:32 i can't say for complete certainty that he never did

02:41:36 did but i certainly never saw any documents i don't remember getting into the detail of the comments that are contained in those documents beyond the issues that are set out in the emails that we've already spoken to

02:41:48 the emails that we've already spoken to i

02:41:50 i i appreciate that and i appreciate your patience with this all no no i'm just

02:41:55 i'm just i don't want to waste anyone's time by just continually saying the same thing over and over again don't worry you're not but it's just clearly in point six um

02:42:06 you refer to answering the substantive issues to quote

02:42:10 quote which

02:42:11 which mr britsman had raised so i'm assuming that he had raised points of detail with you as opposed to making general criticisms of the draft absolutely so there was the issue of

02:42:23 so there was the issue of length and complexity there was the issue of must and should there was the stapa issue which of which we accepted straight away the mustang

02:42:34 we accepted straight away the mustang should was a really key one for me because

02:42:39 because at an earlier stage the special advisor had

02:42:44 had rather unhelpfully and this is the spad had rather unhelpfully taken the document and removed all of the shoulds and musts and put it all back to should

02:42:58 and that cost me and phil morton three days work sitting there line by line resurrecting the text that we'd agreed with the fbu because i knew if we published the

02:43:10 because i knew if we published the version as it was written the fbu quite rightly would have said you know we've been duped so i was very concerned not to do that

02:43:21 so i was very concerned not to do that relationships with the fbu at this time were

02:43:24 were difficult and fragile i'd built up a degree of trust with the two officials that i was dealing with and i felt i had a good working relationship with them and we'd found a

02:43:36 relationship with them and we'd found a sensible point of compromise we hadn't agreed to all the musts but on the other hand we'd accepted that some of what they were asking for was fairly risk critical to their members

02:43:48 fairly risk critical to their members and and they they had legitimate concerns and we accepted their

02:43:54 their their view i think it's really important that i point out to the inquiry that derek clough as the clg representative was part of that discussion and agreed

02:44:06 was part of that discussion and agreed to each and every one of the individual shouldn't must changes that were made so as far as i was concerned at that stage clg had agreed to that differentiation of should and

02:44:19 to that differentiation of should and must and

02:44:20 must and and i think again it's helpful for the inquiry to understand this was probably the only gra in my

02:44:27 in my experience and recollection where

02:44:30 where we had anything like this level of detailed discussion with the fbu so most of the others in fact all the others my recollection is they were broadly accepted with with the normal level of

02:44:42 accepted with with the normal level of comments that you would get this was the only one where we had this incredibly prolonged and detailed discussion i i understood why because shirley towers two of their members had lost

02:44:54 towers two of their members had lost their lives lacking all was a tragedy for the public it was absolutely the case that we had to get it right and i shared their ambition to do that looking at point eight

02:45:06 looking at point eight you set out here just slightly further down the page

02:45:12 you say this i confirmed that i would be happy to undertake further discussion regarding any substantive concerns regarding the content of this gra at the same time i confirmed that lfb would be

02:45:23 same time i confirmed that lfb would be unable to undertake any significant further written revisions to this document

02:45:30 now that may be read as suggesting that mr britsman had communicated to you that the amendments that clg wanted executed were significant is that a fair

02:45:43 executed were significant is that a fair reading

02:45:44 reading of what you are seeking to respond to there

02:45:48 there it's certainly an interpretation and i can understand why you might make it i think the fundamental point is i wasn't cited on what the concerns were i

02:45:58 i i kind of got the sense that they might be significant but if they were even if they you know even if there was only a few of them

02:46:07 them i go back to my point above which is that that would have the workload wouldn't just be making the changes it would be in agreeing the document through another consultation round and and the

02:46:19 another consultation round and and the changes that would have come from that because of course whenever you send something out for consultation you'll get a different set of views so so my experience by this point was you were

02:46:31 my experience by this point was you were looking at six or nine months duration for that to take place you had sense from your previous as recorded in your previous email correspondence i have the impression to use the word

02:46:42 i have the impression to use the word you used that they were looking at more fundamental changes and you're firing the shot across the bow here that if that's what they're envisaging someone else is going to have to do the work i was fairly convinced that this stage

02:46:53 i was fairly convinced that this stage that les britsman didn't properly understand the the challenge that he was taking on at the same time i wasn't cited on the

02:47:05 at the same time i wasn't cited on the deficiencies that clg felt the document suffered from so i was just trying to point out to him that you're taking on a very very significant

02:47:16 you're taking on a very very significant piece of work and i think by this point gary reason had come back to me to say you're absolutely right lfb won't be continuing to support this and just making it clear to him that if

02:47:28 and just making it clear to him that if clg were to do that it would be their work to carry out and for the avoidance of doubt at this meeting you weren't given a text upon which the extent of the

02:47:42 a text upon which the extent of the changes were suggested were set at no at no point was i given anything other than what's in the email correspondence

02:47:52 can you help us what was the upshot of your meeting on the 6th of november with les britsman

02:48:01 uh

02:48:04 i think what happened and i can only speak from my perspective so

02:48:09 so the upshot from les britsman i'm not sure

02:48:12 sure i i i think i went back into lfb spoke with gary and i think ultimately with the commissioner to express my concerns again my understanding

02:48:23 my understanding is that

02:48:24 is that the commissioner then had a conversation with peter holland i'd had a conversation myself at a kind of lower level and i can stop you there you referred earlier to your

02:48:35 you referred earlier to your conversation with peter holland uh you indicated that it was fulham frank is that a fair characterization yes what points did you convey to mr holland

02:48:47 what points did you convey to mr holland my point was all the things that we've been discussing this morning that this document had been subject to extensive consultation i wasn't cited on the

02:48:59 i wasn't cited on the on on the difficulties i felt it was fit for purpose it had important lessons identified that the uk fire service needed to share

02:49:11 share and i couldn't see any good reason to delay i i was i was perplexed as to why les les britsman felt to me like he was on a crusade whether that was for personal

02:49:22 crusade whether that was for personal reasons a crusade to what end it was almost a look at me element to his comments because uh you know he did often when he sent

02:49:33 you know he did often when he sent emails back to me copied in some of his more senior colleagues so i i don't know whether he was trying to show that he was fighting the good fight i i wasn't cited on it but i couldn't quite understand

02:49:45 quite understand his rationale for for what was happening and and that's clearly because i didn't understand the correspondence that was going on behind it in your discussions with mr holland did he convey to you

02:49:59 with mr holland did he convey to you the substance of the extent of the reservations that clg officials had about the current draft dr jra 3.2 no

02:50:10 what was did he give you any response or was he in

02:50:13 was he in bluntly nodding providing reassurance mode

02:50:18 my sense was that he i think his overwhelming view was that we should move towards publication that that was my my recollection

02:50:31 that that was my my recollection of his

02:50:33 of his opinion but i i'm you know that is my sense of his opinion you have to accept it as my perception that may not be reality he may if he was seen here he may take a different view

02:50:45 seen here he may take a different view it's fair of you to point that out did mr holland the best of your recollection now say anything that he'd have a discussion with the officials internally to

02:50:56 with the officials internally to for example expedite publication or to find out what the precise nature of their concerns were no

02:51:05 no did you ask him given at this stage your contemporaneous email correspondence indicates you simply had an impression that a fundamental rewrite was required did you ask him to find out what was it

02:51:17 did you ask him to find out what was it clg wanted i didn't but my rationale for that was because

02:51:25 i was reacting to the issues that had been presented by les britsman and as far as i was aware that was the sum total

02:51:33 total of clg's concerns as expressed in the emails that we've spoken about at length so i i had no reason to think there was anything lying beyond that

02:51:45 beyond that now i cut you off rudely for which i apologize you're about to go on to the substance the conversation that mr holland had had with commissioner dobson now first of all were you present at

02:51:56 now first of all were you present at that conversation no is the sole knowledge that you have of the substance of that conversation what the commissioner reported to you

02:52:07 my recollection is that the commissioner told me he'd spoken to peter holland and that the gra would be published and that the accompanying letter

02:52:19 and that the accompanying letter would would go with it so that everyone was clear

02:52:22 was clear about why the gra was in the form and length and complexity that it was and your recollection is that was the limit of the briefing the commissioner

02:52:33 limit of the briefing the commissioner gave you about the substance of discussion with mr harland correct can you remember now i appreciate it's difficult whether the meeting between mr holland and

02:52:45 the meeting between mr holland and commissioner dobson was held at about this time so autumn they're about 2013. i'm not even sure there was a meeting it may well have been a phone conversation

02:52:57 may well have been a phone conversation uh some form of communication i'm absolutely some form of communication because

02:53:02 because the document was published shortly after this

02:53:05 this but what form that took and the nature of it i i wasn't privy to that

02:53:15 now if i can turn to a new but linked question that's the move to publication of the draft gra an email correspondence that took place on the 22nd of november 2013.

02:53:30 publication appears to be what was suggested in les britsman's email to louise upton and others in the department on the 22nd november 2013 and we can find this email chain at hom

02:53:42 we can find this email chain at hom trouble zero four three double nine one and if we go to page three of this chain we find

02:53:50 we find mr britsman's initiating email which was sent

02:53:55 sent at 3 47 pm and it states this

02:54:01 right folks following discussions between peter and ron dobson it was decided to send the gra out largely in its current form the draft we had was not in a format to

02:54:13 the draft we had was not in a format to be able to do that and some concerns of the team have not had not been addressed i've liaised with lfb and incorporated colleagues views as best i can

02:54:24 colleagues views as best i can by some reformatting and tweaking i've managed to make it look a lot more compact 85 pages down to 65 without any significant loss of material with some needed additions and factual corrections

02:54:37 needed additions and factual corrections now first of all i'm assuming the peter referred to here is peter holland yes and it would appear that the conversation between mr holland and commissioner dobson had taken place

02:54:48 commissioner dobson had taken place sometime

02:54:49 sometime before november the 22nd presumably absolutely

02:54:55 and we can take it that you're aware of the thrust of those discussions and the conclusion yes and that you knew that publication had been agreed by the two gentlemen

02:55:07 had been agreed by the two gentlemen that was my understanding yes now can we go to page two in this thread which is an email from louise upton to dawn mead and brian martin also on the 22nd of november but at 3 55

02:55:19 also on the 22nd of november but at 3 55 pm

02:55:20 pm and louise upton said this oh dear wasted opportunity

02:55:29 were you aware that clg's view or at least that of louise upton was that gra 3.2 represented a wasted opportunity no

02:55:39 no was that sentiment or a similar sentiment communicated to you at any time by clg officials no thank you

02:55:49 sir it is i think four minutes to one yeah uh the next topic will take more than four minutes to complete right would that be a good time to stop it would do and we're we're making good

02:56:00 would do and we're we're making good progress and so there's i wouldn't be asking you to return from no no before two o'clock very well thank you very much well

02:56:06 much well i think we'll stop at that point mr carp we'll have an rsa for lunch and come back at two o'clock please and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room thank you right

02:56:17 you're out of the room thank you right thank you very much would you give the usher please

02:56:36 good thank you mr skinner two o'clock