London Resilience Evidence - Thursday 12th May 2022 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:26 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear evidence about the operation and organization of london resilience yes yes yes mr chairman good morning

00:00:37 yes yes yes mr chairman good morning good morning members of the panel i now call mr john hetherington please

00:00:48 good morning mr hetherington i gather you're going to take the earth that's right there should be a testament there would you take it in your right hand please and read the words on the screen i swear by almighty god that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth

00:01:00 evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much now please sit down make yourself comfortable

00:01:10 yes thank you mr chairman mr heatherington good morning good morning can i start by thanking you very much for coming here to the inquiry and assisting us with our investigations we're extremely grateful to you

00:01:21 to you during the course of your evidence i shall be asking you many questions if at any point you don't understand the question or you wish me to repeat it i can repeat it or i can rephrase it as the case may be can i ask you please also to keep your

00:01:33 can i ask you please also to keep your voice up so that the person who sits to your right over there can get down everything you're saying clearly don't nod or shake your head you have to say yes or no as the case may be right

00:01:44 right and during the course of the day of the day today we will be taking breaks mid-morning and mid-afternoon but of course if you need a break at any other time we can take a break thank you now um you have given us three statements uh

00:01:57 um you have given us three statements uh and they will appear as will everything else that i'm going to ask you to look at on the screen in front of you on your desk

00:02:03 desk your first inquiry statement is lfb triple

00:02:08 triple 61158 can we please have that up that's the is that the first page dated the 18th of october 2019 yes it is page 36 please

00:02:19 yes it is is that your signature yes if we can go please to the second statement lfb double zero double one nine one three zero it's dated the third of december

00:02:30 december is that the first page of that statement yes thank you and if you go please to page 48 you'll see a signature

00:02:37 signature is that your signature yes it is above the date thank you and then the third statement that's at lfb double zero one two three seven six four it's dated the fourth of march 2022 as

00:02:48 it's dated the fourth of march 2022 as you can see and if we please go to page seven in it you can see a signature above that date is that your signature yes it is and have you read each of these statements recently yes and can you confirm that

00:02:59 recently yes and can you confirm that each of them contains the truth yes it is true in its entirety yes thank you now i'm going to be asking you um a number of things um about about um

00:03:11 about about um london brazilians starting with your career history we're then going to look at the structure of london resilience the assessment of risk the emergency plans training the response of the london resilience system and reviews

00:03:22 london resilience system and reviews after the fire let's say there are seven topics to cover and i'm going to begin with the first of those your background and career history now it's right to think isn't it that um at least according to your first witness

00:03:33 at least according to your first witness statement paragraph four since 2007 you've worked in emergency planning that's right and before 2007. did you have any experience of working in emergency planning

00:03:44 in emergency planning no no um between 2007 and 2010 i think it's right isn't it that you held the positions of interim head of emergency planning and deputy head of a joint emergency planning service for local

00:03:56 emergency planning service for local authorities that's right yes and then in 2010 is this right that you joined that you joined the london fire brigade as deputy head of emergency planning that's correct

00:04:05 correct and then in 2016 you were appointed the deputy head of london resilience london resilience group yes and a resilience group now so is it right that at the time of

00:04:16 now so is it right that at the time of the fire at grenfell tower on the 14th of june 2017 you had about 10 years of experience of emergency planning in london that's right yes yes and can we take it that you were experienced

00:04:28 take it that you were experienced in planning for emergencies at the time of the fire yes but what actual experience did you have of responding to actual emergencies as at june 2017

00:04:40 as at june 2017 uh so since uh whilst in a local authority i responded to local uh incidents as the emergency planning manager there um supporting

00:04:51 planning manager there um supporting coordinating the local authorities response and advising the chief executive on response for a number of small-scale uh incidents since 2010 when i joined london fire brigade emergency

00:05:03 i joined london fire brigade emergency planning i was a duty lack manager so the london local authorities coordination centre duty manager uh and responded to a number of incidents uh where we supported the local authority gold

00:05:14 supported the local authority gold arrangements uh as per our rule uh and you say local incidents can you give us an idea of the size or complexity of the incidents in which you had on the ground experience

00:05:28 so localized flooding so maybe up to 40 50 properties perhaps opening a rest center out of hours or coordinating the opening of a rest

00:05:39 or coordinating the opening of a rest center out of hours and working with local authority services in response to uh localized flooding as i said uh or small-scale explosions uh was another

00:05:50 small-scale explosions uh was another incident that springs tomorrow right and roughly how many uh actual

00:05:56 uh actual incidents which called for your expertise in this respect do you think roughly you attended in the seven years before between 2010 and 2017

00:06:08 uh in in a local authority itself probably somewhere in the a dozen perhaps in those three years whilst at london fire brigade um

00:06:20 whilst at london fire brigade um probably slightly slightly more uh and also experienced during the olympics uh running i was one of the duty managers in the london operations centre as well now the time of the grenfell tower fire

00:06:32 now the time of the grenfell tower fire is it right that you were one of three deputy heads of london resilience that's correct and you took that role on as i think you said in june 2016 a year before the grenfell tower fire that's correct yes and is it right the two

00:06:44 correct yes and is it right the two other

00:06:45 other deputy heads of london resilience were toby gould and hamish cameron that's correct and the head of programme at the time of the fire was steve han that's correct yes is that is the head of program the same

00:06:56 is that is the head of program the same as head of london resilience or is it different no it took it is the the same it's the same yeah and that's the same role as you hold now yes so steve hammer was your successor

00:07:07 yes so steve hammer was your successor yes yes they're your predecessor yes and as head of resilience do you have overall responsibility and oversight for the london resilience group yes so lrg yes yes

00:07:20 and as deputy head of london resilience group at the time of the fire were you employed by the london fire brigade at that point that's correct you were uh can you explain why it is why it was

00:07:32 can you explain why it is why it was that london resilience group staff such as you at the time were employed by the london fire brigade lfb

00:07:39 lfb uh so

00:07:41 uh so dating when i joined london fire brigade i was part of a team entitled london fire brigade emergency planning we supported local authorities and that was because london or elfira as

00:07:52 and that was because london or elfira as was so the london foreign emergency planning authority had a role to support local authorities directly and that spanned back to the civil defense era when it had a role to support through

00:08:05 when it had a role to support through the

00:08:05 the london local authority coordination centre

00:08:09 centre that's written into chapter nine of the guidance to the cca the london arrangements at el fipa's specific task in parallel in 2010

00:08:21 in parallel in 2010 when the government offices for london were

00:08:24 were dismantled the london resilience team as was then which was a civil servant team moved into the gla and was taken on so there were two teams in parallel the the london resilience

00:08:35 in parallel the the london resilience team in the gla which looked after all of the multi-agency work and the support to the forum and the london fire brigade emergency planning team in

00:08:45 in 2014-15

00:08:48 2014-15 and eventually what took place in in april 2016 the merger of the two teams the london resilience team and london fire brigade domenici planting took place to form the london resilience group

00:08:59 group and as such we were hosted by london fire brigade partly to to provide us operational support in that 24 7 backup

00:09:07 backup as opposed to the the kind of more policy and administration services in the greater london authority right and i think we'll look at elements uh of what you've just told us

00:09:19 uh of what you've just told us as we go through your evidence if i can turn them to your responsibilities um is it right that as head of

00:09:26 head of deputy head of london resilience at the time of the fire you were responsible for supporting local authorities risk assessment and assurance that's correct and that included i think the local

00:09:37 and that included i think the local authorities panel the lap yes yes and the l-a-p-i-g the local authorities panel and implementation group that's correct right

00:09:47 right uh and i think also as you tell us in your statement paragraph five of your first statement preparedness and standards

00:09:53 standards london local authority goal arrangements partnership risk assessment exercising and assurance that's correct that's a list i think it's in your statement now can i then turn to the structure of london resilience

00:10:06 to the structure of london resilience uh at now we'll look at these in more detail as we go but can i first examine with you the the structure as it stood on the 14th of june 2017 and particularly examining the london

00:10:18 and particularly examining the london resilience group lrg the london resilience partnership lrp and the london resilience forum or lrf now is it right that first standing back

00:10:29 now is it right that first standing back from even those constituent elements that london resilience is an umbrella term or overarching term which encompasses all three elements that's right it's almost a kind of brand

00:10:40 that's right it's almost a kind of brand if you like for the ethos that we're trying to achieve a brand for the ethos right and now before we dive deeply into the various structures would you accept at the outset that the

00:10:52 would you accept at the outset that the london resilient structure which we've seen already looks something like that is complicated yes it is um [Music]

00:11:00 [Music] dealing first with the london resilience group then lrg is it right that that has dedicated members of staff where the partnership um whereas the partnership and the forum

00:11:11 um whereas the partnership and the forum don't

00:11:17 uh sorry i don't understand well is it right the lrg has got um a dedicated team of staff a full-time staff whereas the lrp and the lrf don't

00:11:29 the lrf don't yes so

00:11:30 yes so the london resilience group is the staff that support the london resilience forum again the london resilience partnership isn't a legal partnership by any stretch it is it is those organizations that are

00:11:42 it is it is those organizations that are constituted through the cca the civil contingencies act to make up their membership of the fort yes

00:11:50 yes so the lrp and the lrf are groups of entities or other groups yes yes uh now

00:11:58 uh now i think you said that the london resilience group is was at the time hosted by the lfb yes yes that's correct would it be fair to summarize the lrg as the muscle as it were in the london

00:12:09 as the muscle as it were in the london resilient structure by virtue of the fact that it has a full-time staff

00:12:16 yeah that's not how we described ourselves but i understand what you mean yes i mean it's the muscle by by muscle i mean it's it's the it's the thing which moves the other

00:12:28 it's the thing which moves the other parts of the structure it's the

00:12:31 it's the coordinating body yes right the support the business support and administration structure right now how would you describe it then i mean it's i'm i'm currently getting a picture

00:12:42 picture of

00:12:43 of a group of staff maybe sitting in the same room maybe not

00:12:49 all employed by lfb to do a particular job in relation to london resilience so so we're employed by london fire brigade where we're hosted in effect by

00:13:00 brigade where we're hosted in effect by london fire brigade our funding was yeah hosting means what i mean it provides you with it provides physical accommodation physical accommodation the support uh the the kind of legal

00:13:11 support uh the the kind of legal framework and administrative support so pay rations hr administration we work on behalf of the london resilience forum and also the local authorities so our our funding was three

00:13:23 authorities so our our funding was three streams primarily uh the local authorities for the duties uh outlined within chapter nine of the civil contingencies act which they paid

00:13:33 they paid funding for the gla pay funding through an sla with the london fire brigade for

00:13:40 for uh carrying out the responsibilities as the secretariat to the london resilience forum

00:13:45 forum and then the london fire brigade picked up the remainder

00:13:50 remainder for that hosting right thank you

00:13:55 now if we go to uh your first witness statement please paragraph 11 on page four

00:14:01 four you've got some bullet points there set out and you you've sat there set out there a list of tasks which the lrg carries out i just want to ask you about uh two of them um looking at the first one promote

00:14:13 um looking at the first one promote preparedness and awareness of risks how did the lrg do that uh

00:14:19 uh so

00:14:21 so within the structure there are underneath the lrf or or rather underneath the program board which directs the work of the forum there are three standing groups the

00:14:32 three standing groups the london risk advisory group training and exercising group and a learning and implementation group so under with the london risk advisory group we took on the secretariat and the role to convene

00:14:44 the secretariat and the role to convene and compile the london risk register which we then agree through the london resilience forum

00:14:50 forum share with all partners and publicize on the

00:14:54 the london.gov dot uk website and this if you look at the second bullet point down it says coordinate development of multi-agency capabilities ensuring consistency in the development and maintenance of london's plans how

00:15:07 and maintenance of london's plans how did the lrg do that so we have a a work program a systematic work program for the capabilities derived from the risk register whether they be generic or specific to risk

00:15:18 they be generic or specific to risk that that we attempted we didn't always achieve but we attempted to have a three-year rolling cycle for the update of uh the 20 or so 20 plus capabilities

00:15:29 20 or so 20 plus capabilities that london held at a pan london multi-agency level so they're the duties that we hold underneath the workings of the lrf which is to provide a community risk register and a systematic approach

00:15:41 risk register and a systematic approach for category one responders to discharge their duties in respect of multi-agency planning

00:15:52 and in this three-year railing cycle for the update this was an update of the of the london risk register was it uh no the the london risk register is is published annually um and had a periodical update

00:16:05 annually um and had a periodical update we had a program of work within its policy that all risks would be reviewed uh on a two-year cycle so we chunk the risk down and the london risk advisory group met four times a year and would

00:16:17 group met four times a year and would take a number of those risks at the three-year rolling program uh was

00:16:24 uh was for each of the capabilities that were then derived um out of either the risk assessment or direction from central government in terms of uh generic expected capabilities for an hour

00:16:36 expected capabilities for an hour and

00:16:38 and when doing the uh review the three year under the 3-0 rolling cycle of the 20 plus capabilities did you

00:16:46 you try and match the risk register as reviewed with the capabilities uh that london was offering at a pan-london multi-agency level uh yes so it's probably also important

00:16:58 uh yes so it's probably also important to say well we provide the the secretariat and the support and if you like that the kind of the muscle behind it

00:17:06 in terms of actually putting pen to paper but the principle was that for each of the risks a lead agency would be assigned and that would be that agency a category 1 responders responsibility to lead the

00:17:19 responders responsibility to lead the risk assessment and provide the interpretation and advised scoring utilizing the local risk assessment guidance provided by the cabinet office

00:17:30 guidance provided by the cabinet office then the wider group which was uh category one two responders from across the forum would agree those scores to compile the overall risk register in terms of each of the capabilities again there was a lead agency assigned with an

00:17:42 there was a lead agency assigned with an sro as a senior responsible officer who was a member of the forum from that particular agency and it was that agency's responsibility to update and maintain the plan our role was to

00:17:54 maintain the plan our role was to one provide the consistency as we say so that they look and felt the same way but also to bring together the the contextualization of of london through a piece of work that we we had

00:18:05 through a piece of work that we we had to try and um enable people to understand the fabric and makeup of london on a wide basis the risk assessment detail the planning assumptions any lessons that were in

00:18:16 assumptions any lessons that were in conjunction with that particular framework that had been identified either through exercising or incident beforehand and to support the

00:18:25 the lead agency in bringing other partners in as as necessary um and if if required um putting pen to paper and supporting that kind of formatting process

00:18:37 that kind of formatting process so in general i think it's right standing back perhaps a bit further than i've been inviting you to do that the lrg essentially performed a support function supporting the lrf in the exercise of its own functions

00:18:49 the exercise of its own functions absolutely then turning to the nrp that brings together 170 organizations yes

00:18:57 yes at least

00:18:58 at least at least 170 you say so essentially an umbrella organization absolutely i wouldn't describe it as an organization an umbrella term for all of those

00:19:09 those agencies so rather than us constantly saying all category one and two responders under the civil continent sect we just gave it a blanket terminology of the london resilience partnership i see

00:19:20 london resilience partnership i see and those 170 organizations were a fairly disparate group of faith organizations voluntary groups but also the dclg

00:19:31 but also the dclg most importantly the category one and two responders and then through the sector panels we brought in the faith responders the voluntary sector business sector military dclg as you say

00:19:43 sector military dclg as you say right

00:19:47 so lrp

00:19:49 lrp comprised the statutory responders who category one and two yes but also non-statutory yes

00:19:58 and in effect all of those under the cca who were by virtue members of the forum that couldn't all attend the forum and needed some form of representation at

00:20:09 needed some form of representation at the forum because we can't simply have 170 people around a table at a forum style meeting and is it right that most of the organizations within the lrp

00:20:19 the lrp including those with with specific responsibilities for preparing and responding to emergencies

00:20:27 included the emergency services local councils the nhs and utilities as well yes absolutely i think utilities were category two yes yes yes and just to be clear so that others listening can be clear about it category

00:20:40 listening can be clear about it category one responders is this right or those who are core to an emergency response such as the blue light services and the nhs absolutely and just to go back in terms of the the

00:20:51 and just to go back in terms of the the lead agency principle which is why i kind of

00:20:53 kind of questioned that the muscle aspect actually the bulk of resource came from all of those agencies who had their own emergency planning team and would were the ones responsible for discharging their duties we were that support

00:21:05 their duties we were that support uh element through administration and business management behind them right and that included the local authority as well yes yes and then category two responders are those who are cooperating bodies such as the health and safety

00:21:17 bodies such as the health and safety executive transport um utility companies yes that's right um

00:21:23 um and i think it's right that category one and two responders are defined by law in the civil contingency itself yes and the is it right that would you say the backbone of london resilience and civil resilience generally is the civil

00:21:35 civil resilience generally is the civil contingencies act and its associated framework yes yes and to summarize therefore the category one and two responders plus additional organizations in such as the voluntary

00:21:46 organizations in such as the voluntary and faith sectors make up uh the london resilience partnership that's correct right uh

00:21:53 uh did the lrp the london resilience partnership have any specific functions as a

00:21:58 as a as a group no

00:22:01 no it's not a legal entity or anything else that the specific functions come from the role of the london resilience forum so it's it's a it's another term for the membership of the london resilience

00:22:12 membership of the london resilience forum

00:22:13 forum because

00:22:14 because um

00:22:15 um 170 organizations of us as i said we can't put all of those around a table so the london resilience forum had uh probably 30 approximately 30 attendees through the

00:22:27 approximately 30 attendees through the structure

00:22:29 structure of the partnership so for example i see nhs organizations there's probably 80 plus nhs acute trusts

00:22:39 trusts clinical commissioning groups all category one but they're represented by nhs england and improvement at a regional level at a london level and that's their representation at the forum but they they all make up that

00:22:52 but they they all make up that membership of the partnership their direct uh

00:22:58 representation at the forum is through a single place so that's the london health and resilience panel uh likewise the local authorities panel the 33 local authorities or 32 plus the

00:23:11 the 33 local authorities or 32 plus the common council are represented by the local authorities panel yes i see and then let's turn to the lrf the london resilience forum itself if we look at your first statement please a paragraph eight

00:23:22 eight on page three back a page we we can see there that you say at the top of the screen

00:23:27 screen um

00:23:28 um lrfs were formed within each police force area as a result of the civil contingencies act 2004 cca the cca and its associated regulations provide that responders through a local resilience forum have a collective responsibility

00:23:41 forum have a collective responsibility to plan prepare and communicate in a multi-agency environment lrfs are not legal entities and do not have powers to direct the actions of their members rather they provide a means for responders with duties under the act and

00:23:53 responders with duties under the act and its associated regulations to discharge their responsibilities collaboratively further details on the role of an lrf can be found in the government's reference document the role of an rrf which i attach as jh2

00:24:06 which i attach as jh2 um and assuming that that captures what a local resilience forum is yes yes and just just looking at it a little further is it right that the london resilience forum is a local resilience forum under

00:24:18 forum is a local resilience forum under the act the cca that's correct right so in london is this right the the london resilience forum is the local resilience forum what is the relationship between the this between

00:24:29 relationship between the this between the london resilience forum and the london resilience partnership

00:24:35 so the london resilience forum is the statutory body and the meeting of those

00:24:42 of those organizations that the partnership is just

00:24:45 just those organizations that are members by virtue of their status within the the act either as a category 1 2 responder or as a voluntary organization

00:24:59 responder or as a voluntary organization faith sector business sector or the military or dclg so

00:25:06 so does it come to this that the lrp is really uh just a description yes of those

00:25:15 of those groups

00:25:16 groups who are entitled to or perhaps required to

00:25:20 to attend that or be members of the lrf yes right and it's a it's a means by which they can be represented representative sorry rep presented by their representatives at a meeting or in any

00:25:31 representatives at a meeting or in any functionality of the lrf yes through the through the sector panels that's their representation of sector panels and we'll come to that shortly

00:25:41 so just to be clear

00:25:44 this isn't a case where there are two separate bodies doing different doing overlapping things no right let's then turn to the civil contingencies act itself

00:25:57 contingencies act itself and

00:25:57 and keeping it at its simplest i think you would agree in london category one responders discharged their obligations under the civil contingencies act collectively through the lrf yes yes so category one responders in

00:26:10 yes yes so category one responders in london work together is this right within the forum assessing the risk of a given emergency occurring in london yes

00:26:19 yes they they discharge their collective responsibilities their individual responsibilities still remain that of their own organization yes and they're required to maintain plans

00:26:31 and they're required to maintain plans for emergencies collectively and individually and individually yes

00:26:40 and they're required to maintain arrangements to warn the public and provide information and advice to the public if an emergency is likely to occur or has occurred yes that's what the statute says yes yes and to publish plans or any part of

00:26:51 and to publish plans or any part of plans where it's appropriate to do so yes it's also i think what the act requires yes and then let's turn then to meetings of the london resilience forum yeah the lrf um i think it's right that it's required

00:27:02 um i think it's right that it's required to meet once every six months yes correct yes so uh let's just look at that in 2016 i think you say in your statement page 12 paragraph

00:27:13 12 paragraph that's your second statement paragraph 34 d through to f there were some three london resilience forum meetings uh 8th of february 13th of june and 10th of october that's correct it meets three

00:27:24 of october that's correct it meets three times a year right

00:27:26 right um

00:27:27 um that one well yes but it's supposed to be every six at least every six at least every six months so you had three and in 2017 meetings on the 6th of february 28th of

00:27:39 meetings on the 6th of february 28th of june and the 19th of october 2017. um

00:27:43 um why

00:27:44 why was it why were meetings held more than more frequently than every six months in london

00:27:50 london in those years we've always had that that cycle we found that to me twice a year there was too much business for the forum to discuss

00:28:01 business for the forum to discuss if we met quarterly uh

00:28:04 uh then we didn't have enough space in between so so if you as you can appreciate from the description and and kind of the the number of organizations representing uh

00:28:15 number of organizations representing uh that there's a kind of build up to the uh

00:28:19 uh the lrf uh through the programme board also the meeting of of of what we had in place uh shortly before in terms of their sub-regional resilience forums um and the the work of each individual

00:28:31 and the the work of each individual organization and its own sector panel we had to have some breathing space but we wanted to keep the meetings as frequent as possible to get through the the amount of business that we needed to and make sure it was regular touch points

00:28:43 make sure it was regular touch points for all of those agencies to come together um and discuss the matters at hand yes i see now it's right that the lrf has a chairperson and at the time of the grenfell tower fire that was dr fiona twycross that's correct

00:28:54 fiona twycross that's correct and she was ch she was chair of of uh elfipa that's the london fire and emergency planning authority at the time yeah so uh under the regulations or under chapter 9

00:29:06 under chapter 9 there is a specific arrangement in london that the mayor is the de facto chair of the london resilience forum um and and he discharges that through his deputy mayor

00:29:17 discharges that through his deputy mayor um or at the time the chair of the health fever and that's been a long-standing arrangement since 2010. was that that was the case at the time of the fire was correct i see uh and

00:29:28 i see uh and is it right that at the time of the fire the deputy chair of the lrf was john baradel that's correct and he was uh chief executive of the city of london that's correct which was in l.a

00:29:39 that's correct which was in l.a yes yes

00:29:41 yes yes legal authority um now we're going to hear from john baradel in in due course but could you just clarify for us was it a requirement in the

00:29:49 in the uh

00:29:50 uh in the arrangements for london in 2016 to 17 for all category one responders to attend london resilience forum meetings uh attend or have representation act

00:30:03 uh attend or have representation act well attend through representatives yes yes

00:30:06 yes it was yeah right

00:30:13 and let's just make that perhaps a little clearer for the panel if we can go to your second statement where we can see a bit more detail on this page two we'll find paragraph five your second statement at um lfb double zero double

00:30:25 statement at um lfb double zero double one nine one three zero page two paragraph five uh where the question is about a chief officer group and you say uh there the reference to a chief officer group cog in paragraph 9.4 of the chapter 9

00:30:37 in paragraph 9.4 of the chapter 9 guidance provided by the cabinet office and exhibited to my original statement as jh11 is in practice a reference to the london resilience forum lrf this is clear from the regulations produced

00:30:48 clear from the regulations produced under the civil contingencies act 2004 which describes two annual local resilience forum meetings as meetings of the cog

00:30:56 the cog this is because practically speaking it's only the senior officers of the category 1 and relevant category 2 responders who are required to attend meetings along with

00:31:07 meetings along with chairs of various sector panels who are themselves senior representatives or their chief officers will sometimes delegate to other offices to attend their lrf on their behalf so um

00:31:19 so um more terminology is it right that the meetings are described as cog meetings the at the the four monthly meetings of the lrf are described as cog meetings

00:31:30 described as cog meetings not within london i think the chief officer group is something that that is referenced within uh government guidance but we we've always just used the terminology of the uh london resiliency i follow so elsewhere in the country they're cog meetings but in london

00:31:42 they're cog meetings but in london they're lrf meetings uh yes i i can't speak for for how they are described in other parts of the country

00:31:50 country no fair enough let me put the questions slightly differently in the guidance these meetings that the forum meetings uh are

00:31:59 uh are described as cog meetings but in london you call them lrf meetings that's correct right now in the brackets four lines up from the bottom of the paragraph you say category one and relevant category two responders who are required to attend

00:32:11 responders who are required to attend meetings who are the relevant ones as opposed to the irrelevant ones uh so so category two responders have the right to attend or or we have the right to invite to each of the meetings

00:32:22 right to invite to each of the meetings in london we have them as standing members from the utilities sector panel voluntary sector panel business sector panel uh sorry they're not category two uh the transport sector panel so you select

00:32:34 so you select category two attendees

00:32:37 attendees yes

00:32:38 yes for attendance

00:32:41 no there is there is a right to invite all right to attend various uh category two responders but in london we hold them as standing members of the forum so so the utilities sector

00:32:53 forum so so the utilities sector have a a representation through their utility sector panel and they are represented at the meeting rather than having every utility company that serves london around the table they

00:33:04 that serves london around the table they are represented through the chair of that panel likewise the transport operators who all category 2 responders have a transport sector panel

00:33:13 panel who would meet outside of the forum discuss the business relevant to their sector and be represented through a single represent representative at the forum meeting yes um

00:33:25 at the forum meeting yes um i'm not quite sure my questions i'm getting home you say the relevant category two responders um were there some category two responders uh who

00:33:36 two responders uh who either routinely did not attend meetings because they weren't required to uh

00:33:41 uh and if so who were they uh no they were they were represented by their sector panel i think what you're telling us is that in in the case of london yeah there were no irrelevant

00:33:53 of london yeah there were no irrelevant in that sense category two responded because you kept them all astounding members

00:33:59 members and if i've understood it correctly and this is it's me personally the members of the lrp are grouped into sectors by reference to their particular functions that's

00:34:11 their particular functions that's correct yes they discuss their own aspects of the business internally and they then send one person to the nr f meeting that's correct yes right thank

00:34:23 f meeting that's correct yes right thank you

00:34:24 you thank you

00:34:26 thank you and how are category one responders represented at the lrf is it through the lap for for local authority that's correct yeah and what about the other category one response so each of

00:34:38 other category one response so each of the emergency services has uh attends in their their own right uh right although there is a blue light panel as well um but they each attend in their own right um and uh nhs is represented by nhs

00:34:52 um and uh nhs is represented by nhs england and improvement and public health represents itself right i see let's then turn to the lap but within the london resilience forum i think there are eight sector panels yes

00:35:04 think there are eight sector panels yes yes uh and uh um one of those panels is the local authorities panel that's correct um in fact let's have up the document which um i showed the panel in opening this module lfb triple zero six one one six

00:35:17 module lfb triple zero six one one six two

00:35:18 two page seven it's probably easier just to work from what i'm showing you on the screen

00:35:25 um if we can have it enlarged like thank you that's that's the the structure and you can see i think eight sector panels uh at the time of the fire yes yes that's great ranged

00:35:36 the fire yes yes that's great ranged around the top now as as one of those panels we see the lap the third up from the bottom on the left at about 10 o'clock yes yes that's great um does that sector panel represent the local authorities at the lrf that's

00:35:49 local authorities at the lrf that's correct right and so as far as the makeup of the la of the lap is concerned i think it's right that john baradel the deputy chair of the lrf chaired the lap at the time that's correct right

00:36:00 at the time that's correct right now the rest of the local authorities panel as you can see is made up of six chief executives uh

00:36:07 uh well you can't see it from this i don't think but is it right that it was made up of six

00:36:11 up of six regional supplements six chief executives from each of the six sub-regional reliance forums which made up the sub-regional resilience tier that's correct and we can see that at about eight o'clock on the on the

00:36:23 about eight o'clock on the on the on the structure that's correct now we'll come back in due course to the sub-regional resilience tier shortly but in dealing with the lap for the for the moment

00:36:32 moment there's as you say six local authority chief executives is this right who are on the lap together with john baradel as the chair that's correct plus the chief executive of london councils a

00:36:43 the chief executive of london councils a practitioner advisor the chair of the local authorities panel implementation group as well and then ourselves as secretary at support

00:36:53 support and

00:36:55 and i think at the time we also had the inner london west coroner as a standing member yes yes and you say ourselves the secretary that's the lrg that's correct right

00:37:06 that's the lrg that's correct right and the

00:37:07 and the chief executive of london councils and i hesitate to add another acronym but we do see it as known as the celc is that correct

00:37:14 correct no see

00:37:15 no see celc is the chief executive uh of london chapter i think i'm not entirely sure so selk is the meeting of all london chief executives that takes place on a

00:37:27 that takes place on a four to six week basis that covers all local authority uh

00:37:33 uh business

00:37:34 business the chief executive of london councils was john o'brien and that's london councils as the the lobbying body yes well we'll come to that i think in due course as well um

00:37:44 um you mentioned the um [Music]

00:37:47 [Music] the

00:37:48 the coroner i think the coroner represents all coroners in london that's correct yes uh and um there's also i think a representative of the director of public health did you mention that that's correct yeah i

00:37:59 mention that that's correct yeah i didn't mention it but yes that's correct what about the d what about the dclg would that also be on the lap

00:38:08 i can't recall if they were at the time but they certainly are now um

00:38:14 um apologies but but yes they quite possibly could have been members of the right at the time it would be in the terms of reference if they were i ask you because well let's look at what john baradel says please let can we have his first witness statement up at gos before

00:38:27 first witness statement up at gos before we lose the diagram on the screen i see that um at about seven o'clock there was a box headed government clg and military so i'd rather assume that

00:38:40 so i'd rather assume that clg were there but so that's representatives of of the forum so these are all the uh representatives of the forum that you see so each of those

00:38:51 that you see so each of those sector panels contributing to the forum the military and government sit as members of the london resilience forum but not necessarily they wouldn't necessarily sit within the local authorities panel certainly not not

00:39:03 authorities panel certainly not not within the local authorities panel no at the forum yes yes yes yes can i just see if i can tease this out then can we go to john baradel's statement we'll come back to the structure in a moment

00:39:14 come back to the structure in a moment but um

00:39:15 but um or perhaps leave it on the screen it says to be helpful but and if we can have up at the same time john baradel's first statement gol40 is 1706 page two

00:39:43 page um uh

00:39:46 uh page two paragraph four uh and there's a list of names there and these are let's go back to page one at the at the foot of page one to

00:39:57 one at the at the foot of page one to say we know what this is this is a list of members of the local authorities panel as of june 2017 and this is barra del two and if we go back to page

00:40:08 del two and if we go back to page two please you'll see there in the list uh the um penultimate um

00:40:15 um name at the um prep and ultimate name at the bottom just above your name marsha osivenwoo department of communities and local government resilience and emergencies division so it looks from this list as if

00:40:27 so it looks from this list as if the lap did have on it some representation from central government yes that's correct that's correct is it thank you now is the remit of the lap

00:40:38 of the lap to represent all 33 london local authorities on the lr or in the lrf so that's its remit in relation to the lrf but also its wider ream is to

00:40:51 lrf but also its wider ream is to support

00:40:52 support the collective resilience arrangements of local government in london

00:40:59 but how would it do that other than through the lrf

00:41:07 the lrf because it would look after the specific to local government uh

00:41:12 uh business in relation to resilience so where there were economies of scale to be met through collective planning for local government specific

00:41:23 specific tasks or kind of duties under the act where

00:41:29 where as i said before we had the lead lead responder

00:41:32 responder principal so local government had the responsibility for a number of the capabilities within

00:41:39 within the lrf or the plans of the lrf and the partnership so it would be for the local authorities panel to decide how they would be achieved and broken down and that was the purpose also of

00:41:51 the purpose also of the the lap implementation group to actually oversee and manage that work so that the the work wasn't replicated 33 times but could be achieved in a common

00:42:02 times but could be achieved in a common way where possible across the 33 boroughs

00:42:05 boroughs right

00:42:06 right so is do i take it from that answer that the lap had essentially two two functions facing different ways one facing into the lrf and one facing out to each of the three

00:42:19 and one facing out to each of the three 33 and indeed all of the 33 local authorities to assist each one either individually or collectively with their own

00:42:26 own local resilience arrangements is that is that a fair way of yeah

00:42:33 yeah not necessarily to us i suppose yes to it to assist each other the the individual boroughs but so that they can work as a collective so that the there's some kind of consistency so that's where the minimum standards for

00:42:45 that's where the minimum standards for london were born through the local authorities panel that that's their initiative um a way to represent or kind of digest the work

00:42:56 represent or kind of digest the work on behalf of local authorities they had seven or eight of the the frameworks that local authorities had to produce that they could be broken down into the sub-regional areas so that an area could lead on a

00:43:07 lead on a a piece of work on behalf of all local authorities as an example of how they worked and operated right now um just just looking at this more closely was it the case that not all london not each of

00:43:18 the case that not all london not each of the 33 london local authorities had a seat

00:43:21 seat uh at the lrf no there would no because they they were represented through the local authorities panel through the so through they said they were de facto members if you like but

00:43:32 were de facto members if you like but but that representation was through the panel

00:43:35 panel and

00:43:36 and is this right that the 33 las were represented on the lap and therefore through the lrf by the six sub-regional chief executives yes that's correct yes i see and how did

00:43:47 yes that's correct yes i see and how did the chief executives these six sub-regional chief executives who sat on the

00:43:52 the lap share the knowledge with other chief executives who didn't sit on the lap uh so so we had the the sub-regional tier which brought together uh the brf

00:44:03 tier which brought together uh the brf so

00:44:04 so i'll be clear at the outset that that was a multi-agency tier at the time was subsequently reinforced as local authority only to bring that together but there were different ways in which each of the

00:44:15 different ways in which each of the sub-regions did that but it's it's quite regular for local authorities to act in sub-regional groupings now they're not always co-terminus for for different subjects topics

00:44:27 subjects topics but there was a an expectation and quite often uh local authority chief execs would group together to discuss important issues that they needed to speak to each other on in that local

00:44:40 speak to each other on in that local tier

00:44:42 how did the chief executives who sat on the lap share their knowledge

00:44:47 knowledge though how did they disseminate that among the among the other chief executives of other boroughs who didn't sit on the panel was that was that through the srr

00:44:59 was that was that through the srr so there'd be a a number of ways that would either be direct communications that we would send to all chief execs on their behalf if it was a matter of of lapping and sharing something to all chief executives so that wasn't

00:45:11 chief executives so that wasn't irregular that there was a communication to all chief executives likewise also through all emergency planning

00:45:18 planning departments as well it was quite regular that we would email all 33 so that they're all apprised of the information and then informally those representative chief execs would

00:45:29 those representative chief execs would have conversations with their colleagues within the local area right i see well we'll come back in in in due course to the sub-regional resilience forums themselves which i think may help to answer that question in a bit more

00:45:41 to answer that question in a bit more detail before i do let's let's take a a perhaps a look at some other parts of this but is it right the structure of the lap changed after june 2017 when a resilience support team was

00:45:53 when a resilience support team was created

00:46:00 yes yes and that was headed by mark sawyer i think that's correct yes and i think you described that team in your second statement uh at paragraph 16 as the second secretary act was focused on business

00:46:11 secretary act was focused on business management and policy is that right that's correct yes and and i think that provided

00:46:17 provided technical support to the lap the nap ig and sub-regional groupings yes that's correct so just in terms of the the post 2017

00:46:28 the the post 2017 uh

00:46:29 uh piece in april 2017 uh mark sawyer who who was previously a member of the london resilience group then transferred and reported directly into the local authorities panel as the

00:46:41 into the local authorities panel as the local authority chief executive liaison officer so that was from april 2017 so pre-fire pre-fire and then post fire in the subsequent

00:46:52 in the subsequent april financial year so 2018 a larger team was established at the re the resilient support team i see so the creation of the resilience support team was not a response to the fire

00:47:05 was not a response to the fire uh it was

00:47:07 uh it was not direct response i think it was a response to to 2017 in general as as described yesterday as that kind of watershed year in a number of uh incidents across london yes i see and i think you say that the

00:47:20 i see and i think you say that the uh creation and expansion of the resilience support team was facilitated through increased funding contributions by individual boroughs that's correct yes i see is there any reason why that was separate to the london resilience

00:47:31 was separate to the london resilience group

00:47:32 group rather than sitting within a strengthened london resilience group uh

00:47:40 so going back slightly to uh 2016 at that point uh the elf fifa as was was an authority which had direct representation from

00:47:51 which had direct representation from local local borough councillors on the authority so there was some direct scrutiny uh if required of the role the the

00:48:00 the the functions that lrg as then or lfbep as its predecessor or part predecessor would have performed subsequently with a a direct deputy

00:48:11 subsequently with a a direct deputy mayor

00:48:12 mayor and the lfc structure there wasn't that direct scrutiny so this was an opportunity for specific

00:48:20 specific local authority solely vested in their interest london resilience group had a widened support function in terms of both the partnership and

00:48:31 in terms of both the partnership and looking after local authorities in that support function so this gave them something dedicated and solely focused on local authority support i see right

00:48:42 i see right but the functions would have overlapped though didn't they uh

00:48:46 uh they did slightly yes right and how was that overlap um sorted out through the uh service level agreement there was a clear delineation of the the

00:48:57 there was a clear delineation of the the task between the the two groups now i want them to turn please to london local authority gold is it right that the lap had oversight of and was responsible for london local authority

00:49:08 responsible for london local authority gold or llag arrangements that's correct and in summary is this right the reason for the existence of the llag arrangement is as you set out in your first statement uh at paragraph 12 if we can

00:49:21 statement uh at paragraph 12 if we can just go to that i'll just ask you just to confirm this page

00:49:29 page four paragraph twelve you say the first change does top to touched upon hold on um

00:49:38 um that's the second statement we did the first statement page four paragraph twelve in the event of may syria of the most serious emergencies in london local authorities need to work closely together and operate in a consistent way

00:49:49 together and operate in a consistent way to deliver this they have agreed to pool decision-making authority and place it within a single chief executive the london local authority gold lag who will speak for local authorities as the pan london response is managed the llag

00:50:01 london response is managed the llag arrangements are underpinned by a resolution passed on behalf of each london borough council and the common council of the city of london i exhibit the resolution as jh7

00:50:12 i exhibit the resolution as jh7 which is presented as an appendix to a report which i exhibit as hjh8 and then you go on to exhibit other documents

00:50:20 documents but is what can you just confirm for us that what you say there as i've read out to you from paragraph 12 is correct that's correct now you say the the llag arrangements are underpinned by a resolution also

00:50:32 are underpinned by a resolution also known as the gold resolution that i think was ratified in 2011 wasn't it that's correct and let's just have that up

00:50:39 up it's jh7 at lfb 3061166

00:50:50 um is that it that's correct and it says it's called appendix a local authority gold resolution resolution passed by each london borough council and the common council of the city of london the councils so is it right that all 33

00:51:03 councils so is it right that all 33 local authorities are parties for their own interest to the gold resolution and also to the mutual aid memorandum of understanding yes that's correct and the mutual aid memorandum of

00:51:16 correct and the mutual aid memorandum of understanding let's just have that up because you also exhibit that is at lfb 3061169

00:51:29 and if you go please well that's it is it it's appendix c to the the report yes that's correct yes yes uh and if you go to page two you can see the statement of

00:51:40 to page two you can see the statement of purpose

00:51:42 purpose uh and the first paragraph and second paragraphs tell you what the purpose is this agreement sets out the intentions of the local authorities listed in appendix 1 all of which are category 1 responders for the purposes of the

00:51:54 responders for the purposes of the civil contingencies act 2004 collectively referred to as the participating authorities to provide mutual aid and assistance to each other during an emergency or other disruptive or rising tide incidents

00:52:06 or rising tide incidents each of the participating authorities will endeavor to provide assistance to another of the participating authorities in the form of provision of personnel and or equipment in the event of or in the reasonable anticipation of an emergency or other disruptive or rising

00:52:19 emergency or other disruptive or rising tide incident when asked to do so in accordance with these procedures just to be clear a rising tide incident was one which gradually it developed wasn't it

00:52:28 wasn't it yes so it's a perhaps a flooding incident that you you get a few days warning too and it and it slowly increases yes yes yes but it's not i mean it's not um it's not water related solely not solely

00:52:39 it's not water related solely not solely no no so we described neither as acute shocks or or so your sudden sudden impact or rising time yes

00:52:46 time yes um now

00:52:49 um now before the grenfell tower fire how many times in your experience and to your knowledge had the gold resolution been activated since it was passed in 2011

00:53:07 i think the only time was probably around the heavy snowfall 2008 2009 and possibly subsequently in 2010 when mutual aid was coordinated between

00:53:18 coordinated between that's before 2011. that's before it is so

00:53:21 so the the lag arrangements were in place or the lag agreement was in place it was it was amended in 2010 to take account of those circumstances uh where the

00:53:33 those circumstances uh where the uh

00:53:35 uh before

00:53:37 before 2010 we had government offices and regional bases so there was a kind of a definition for a regional scale emergency i think under the national concept of operations that

00:53:50 the national concept of operations that terminated terminology was no longer in place and it also wanted to take account of the rising tide type incident where an incident such as the snow in 20 2008 2009

00:54:02 2008 2009 uh didn't convene an scg per se but there was still a need for the local for the london local authority gold arrangements to to be enacted right because there was a shortage of grit we

00:54:13 because there was a shortage of grit we had to invoke kind of prioritization of those suppliers across local authorities under the mutual aid agreement right um but after 2011 can you think of instances where the llag

00:54:24 instances where the llag arrangements were invoked uh

00:54:29 uh not invoked not off the the top of my head there were there were instances where

00:54:33 where mutual aid was provided but i can't remember an instance let me see if i can prompt a recollection um croydon flooding 2014

00:54:44 flooding 2014 uh so yeah they they were invoked but the croydon borough still remained the the leading right responder to that through their chief executive i think there was

00:54:55 their chief executive i think there was one point at which there was a sudden evacuation required on the night of the 14th of february uh at that point where it it flicked into due to the met police

00:55:07 it it flicked into due to the met police taking control centrally at lambeth as opposed to within their borough uh the london local authority gold arrangements but that was soon then passed back to to the borough but they the majority of the response to the croydon kennedy flooding

00:55:19 response to the croydon kennedy flooding was led by croydon borough council right and what about the westminster and london bridge attacks in the earlier part of 2017 so a terrorist attack is is slightly

00:55:31 so a terrorist attack is is slightly different that we will so part of the london local authority gold arrangements is to provide the local authority voice as it were when you have a single representative from the metropolitan police

00:55:43 from the metropolitan police and the all of the other emergency services

00:55:47 services for a terrorist incident we're always conscious of uh secondary attacks or multiple attacks in different places and therefore and due to other arrangements that we bring in in terms

00:55:58 arrangements that we bring in in terms of

00:55:59 of um

00:56:00 um hate crime monitoring prevent monitoring and all boroughs stepping up to provide that monitoring arrangements then the local authority gold arrangements are always invoked but uh for in the

00:56:11 always invoked but uh for in the instance of westminster uh westminster still directly represented themselves as the local authority gold representative uh the lag

00:56:22 authority gold representative uh the lag was informed and also represented at the scg

00:56:25 scg um

00:56:27 um on that afternoon but took on the the wider kind of uh prevent monitoring hate crime monitoring aspects of it so does it come to this that the grenfell tower fire was the first time

00:56:40 grenfell tower fire was the first time since

00:56:41 since the lag gold resolution in 2011 that the full

00:56:45 full lnag gold response was invoked

00:56:51 uh

00:56:54 yes there will have been other times that we called lag or notified them of an incident but in terms of them actually responding uh then i think it is i can't recall another time uh when it was invoked in that way

00:57:08 time uh when it was invoked in that way and then

00:57:10 and then in the

00:57:11 in the back against the background of llag let's then turn to another tentacle of the london resilience structure namely the ll

00:57:18 the ll uh acc the london local authority control center coordination uh right so in the in the in chapter 9 it is described as a

00:57:29 is described as a the provision of a control center but in london we have always termed it and all of our documentation describes it as a coordination center right and so sorry to be nicotine but it

00:57:41 right and so sorry to be nicotine but it but it it is that coordination of the asset as opposed to any form of control over anybody else's assets and

00:57:51 and that helps coordinate does it mutual aid requests from borrower to borrow or borrow across london that's correct right and facilitates the collective decision-making process i think you say

00:58:02 decision-making process i think you say statement yeah so it's a supporting function to local authority gold so that we can pull together information from all 33 boroughs and provide it in a simple

00:58:13 boroughs and provide it in a simple digest for that single chief executive who is representing local government at an scg that was its intention for large wide-scale flooding pandemic influenza for example or that

00:58:25 pandemic influenza for example or that kind of

00:58:27 kind of affecting all 33 boroughs or where mutual aid needs to be strategized because there was a a scarcity of the resource and therefore there might be a priority to to some

00:58:38 there might be a priority to to some others over another would the llacc become involved where mutual aid was sought from either one neighboring borough or um fellow boroughs in a tribal

00:58:50 um fellow boroughs in a tribal arrangement so the the mutual aid agreements uh and there was a mutual aid uh guidance document provided to all of the boroughs uh does

00:58:59 uh does set out that it it's it's best achieved by the the borough in need contacting either its neighbors or other boroughs directly themselves they're the ones who who understand the need

00:59:11 who understand the need and can describe the resource that they need directly but what it does say is that that they should inform the lack where that's happening so that we have an understanding of what's being shared

00:59:22 understanding of what's being shared when in case of a further incident or the lack can support the administration of mutual aid under the direction of lag

00:59:33 direction of lag when it is uh required across multiple boroughs right now you say there's a mutual aid guidance document that is that that's not the same as it is the mou we just looked at

00:59:44 looked at no there was a separate guidance document so guidance for borough emergency control centers as part of a a suite of lag arrangements that we had right um forgive me but what can you

00:59:55 right um forgive me but what can you remember what its title was the the mutual aid guidance document was it entitled guidance for borough emergency control centers uh no i think i think i think it would be guidance for mutual aid guidance for

01:00:07 mutual aid guidance for uh under the local authority gold arrangements now um and is it right that the llac collects and disseminates information and then facilitates the collective decision making process

01:00:20 decision making process uh that's that's correct it doesn't have a decision making process it provides the information for lag upon which they can make decisions

01:00:30 now when you say they you mean lla dlnag yes all the relevant individuals appointed to hold the liag position at any given time yeah yes yes yes as

01:00:42 any given time yeah yes yes yes as opposed to the lack having a decision-making function itself right and just to revisit something um the llag

01:00:50 llag the

01:00:51 the the per there is actually a person isn't it local london local authority gold is a person at a particular time that's correct is one of the 33 chief execs or however many were eligible for the rotor

01:01:02 however many were eligible for the rotor at that time yeah and is it right there's a duty of two duty officers every 24 hours i think what is it three for on on lag we always endeavoured to have two chief

01:01:13 we always endeavoured to have two chief executives on that road as you had a lag and a shadow lag and they did a two-week period uh on a wednesday to wednesday basis right

01:01:22 right i see and just to be clear um

01:01:27 um the the arrangements underpinning the local authority gold resolution and the the powers that are within it or contemplated that would be exercised by it

01:01:38 would be exercised by it come from the resolution which is in turn is this right authorized by the regulations made under the cca yes yes

01:01:46 yes yes then let's turn to another i'm sorry can i just

01:01:50 i just interrupt clarify one thing the uh and the gold resolution that we looked at earlier i haven't got it on the screen at the moment but um let's have that up then uh it is

01:02:03 let's have that up then uh it is uh at lfb triple zero six one one six thank you very much

01:02:11 now this this is the actual resolution and

01:02:17 and a quick look through it suggested to me that the only if as it were

01:02:23 passing their paragraph which contains something

01:02:27 something by way of

01:02:28 by way of active resolution was number two is that right

01:02:33 right because one tells you um the powers under which it's made yes number two tells you what it's doing yes and number three tells you who's going to do it or who the

01:02:44 to do it or who the head of pay head of paid services number two which is the uh effective paragraph only uh deals with the council's functions under section 1381 of the local government act

01:02:57 section 1381 of the local government act yes which is to do with finances and that's correct the the ability to spend money

01:03:02 money in an emergency yes it doesn't go any further than that no so where do we look for the do we look for the memorandum of understanding for the delegation of or the undertaking to

01:03:14 the delegation of or the undertaking to exercise powers and provide resources but that's that's the power that a local authority has in in an emergency there are there are other

01:03:25 there are there are other remits so the the remit of of re-housing is under the housing act not the civil contingencies act well i raised the question because it again at first blush it seemed to me that this was very limited in its scope

01:03:38 that this was very limited in its scope it is it is quite limited in escape and doesn't say anything about providing assistance it just allows people to spend money that's right

01:03:48 right that's the power that local authorities have in response to an emergency under the under 138 that's their power right thank you

01:04:04 what is the source then to the best of your understanding of the power by the llag for the time being to make decisions

01:04:11 decisions in relation to any particular incident so that they have the the decision i think to to incur expenditure on behalf of that authority in order to i think i think section 138 talks about the

01:04:24 think section 138 talks about the the response to an emergency where they can alleviate or kind of uh

01:04:29 uh respond to emergencies by spending money to alleviate the suffering uh or remediate property i think i can't remember the exact wording

01:04:43 but to find other is this right to find the other powers where would one find the other powers of decision making vested in the chief executive for the time being in respect

01:04:54 executive for the time being in respect of a civil emergency so

01:04:59 so in an emergency a local authority is still discharging the duties and statutory services that it has outside of an emergency so the the the power to rehouse people comes from the

01:05:11 comes from the um housing act i think is it 1974 sorry i think it's that act and likewise it's other statutory functions in relation to adult social

01:05:22 functions in relation to adult social care and everything else it is trying to do

01:05:26 do normal services in abnormal circumstances right

01:05:32 i just put another document in front of you which might help lfb triple zero six one one seven zero

01:05:40 this is the chief executive circular date of the 26th of july twenty eleven which meant i think to all um cheap bureau chief executives and emergency planning officers noting the addendum to the gold

01:05:52 noting the addendum to the gold resolution as you can see was this a document which um

01:06:00 well you can look at it actually it explains the substance of the changes in at the foot of page one

01:06:10 and in paragraph two it says

01:06:16 well so paragraph one to formalize the role of local authority gold in lower impact emerging incidents enabling them to coordinate any local authority responses necessary brackets la gold would not have power to either direct

01:06:27 would not have power to either direct councils or incur any expenditure uh and then two in exceptional circumstances to empower local authority gold

01:06:37 gold to respond to incidents and exercise delegated powers where gold command had not been convened for example in the event of extreme and disruptive weather or rather events this could only happen where detailed safeguards are complied with them where

01:06:48 safeguards are complied with them where absolutely necessary and three in extreme and rapidly developing situations the local authority gold may need to take immediate action it is proposed that where this is absolutely essential they should be able to

01:06:59 essential they should be able to exercise their delegated power swiftly incurring

01:07:03 incurring including incurring minimum levels of expenditure up to a sum not incl exceeding 1 million pounds in total now um

01:07:11 now um can you help if these three uh

01:07:16 these three changes summarized here which

01:07:21 which are gradated ever more extreme are they limited to spending money uh or are

01:07:29 uh or are or are they indications that the local authority gold person has got wider powers

01:07:36 no i think i think the limitations to the spending of money i see

01:07:43 i see um let's then turn to so i think to go to go back the as i understand and this this kind of predated uh my involvement in emergency

01:07:55 predated uh my involvement in emergency planning but following the the civil contingencies that the recognition of the close proximity of london boroughs to each other and the scale of of incidents such as flooding uh

01:08:07 flooding uh and bearing in mind that the cca was was predicated on the the four refs the flooding flew foot and mouth and the fuel crisis where they could occur fairly ubiquitously across london

01:08:19 occur fairly ubiquitously across london boroughs and across boundaries so it was a means by which to create representation of local government in a meeting of other partners so that you didn't have 33 chief executives or

01:08:30 didn't have 33 chief executives or wildly different strategies of local government in wide area instances that there were there was an acknowledgement of kind of a single site disruptive incident that then had knock-on repercussions across a

01:08:43 then had knock-on repercussions across a number of other boroughs so a for example a terrorist attack where the kind of

01:08:47 kind of the the

01:08:48 the the either the understanding or kind of um

01:08:55 the perception that there would be other secondary attacks or where a community cohesion

01:09:00 cohesion is affected on a more widely more more wide basis um and then it was addended in 2010 as a result of the response to the snowfall

01:09:13 result of the response to the snowfall which which caused quite disruptive impacts into london in 2008 2009 where there wasn't an sdg formed

01:09:21 formed so they were acting outside of the parameters of that gold command which is why it talks about the the kind of without the instigation of gold command which we would now take as an scg so that they had the

01:09:34 take as an scg so that they had the ability to direct those kind of resources of the grit uh and kind of low level resources with the agreement of all 33 boroughs but i agree with you that the limits of

01:09:45 but i agree with you that the limits of their power are quite uh are very limited that that's a that's the limit of democracy that we live in well it might help if i explain why i asked the question about the uh

01:09:57 asked the question about the uh the

01:09:59 the resolution and that is because we've already heard in evidence how some people were of the view that once the london gold arrangements had been activated

01:10:11 had been activated london gold was able to take executive action in other words to give directions um

01:10:18 um and i was therefore interested i still am interested in understanding first whether that's correct and secondly where does the source of the authority come from

01:10:29 so we may get there in due course through mr millet's questions but that was what was underlying my concern yeah i i

01:10:38 yeah i i i think this this is the the document it's a supporting mechanism to the local authority the democracy the words takeover and and intervention

01:10:51 the words takeover and and intervention have been used quite a lot the only time i've ever heard them used in conjunction with the local authority gold arrangements is in relation to grenfell fire and only afterwards they

01:11:02 grenfell fire and only afterwards they they were never in the vocabulary or

01:11:05 or of of the lag arrangements before then not to my knowledge anyway

01:11:21 so can you perhaps you can't assist us in identifying the source of the power or authority of the

01:11:30 the um of john baradel in this instance to direct

01:11:35 to direct rbkc's housing department for example to do certain things invite by their chief executive who is appointed by the leader of that council who is

01:11:47 leader of that council who is democratically appointed by the residents of

01:11:52 the royal borough of kinston chelsea so was it your understanding at least that when llage was involved the

01:12:02 the the llag in this case john baradel would essentially step into the shoes is this right of nicholas holgate and exercise his powers but with perhaps a greater

01:12:13 his powers but with perhaps a greater access to funding

01:12:19 so let me take the last bit first the greater access to funding there was no greater access to funding so so there is no

01:12:26 no fund held anywhere that they can spend on they are spending on behalf of that borough that is affected by the emergency so it is still those resources they they had

01:12:38 those resources they they had access to

01:12:40 access to local government resources from across london but as did any borough any time under the mutual aid agreement that they could have called upon or requested that the support there was there was no

01:12:51 the support there was there was no pseudo organization of london local authority gold that had access to any greater resources than were already available to any other borough at a time of incident that they could ask for directly themselves right

01:13:02 could ask for directly themselves right but then ignoring my second the second part of my question and just concentrating on the first part uh was it your understanding that when john baradel got involved as the llag in

01:13:14 john baradel got involved as the llag in this incident he was

01:13:16 he was stepping into the shoes of nicholas holgate and exercising nicholas holgate's powers as chief executive of our bkc

01:13:26 i think that's probably a better question for for john baradel my understanding that he was stepping into part of the shoes of nicholas colgate so he wasn't taking over the entirety entire function of the local

01:13:38 entirety entire function of the local authority

01:13:39 authority but was supporting the response to this incident in particular well that and so sorry but but there is a wide range of local authorities duties that that still went on in the background

01:13:51 still went on in the background that that the head of paid service of that authority is still responsible for the running off it's a question for john barronelle as to what he understood his powers were but my question for you

01:14:02 but my question for you is what were the powers or what was the source of the powers of john baradel to

01:14:09 to exercise

01:14:11 exercise the authority of and make the kinds of decisions that would be made by nicholas holgate after he had after the gold resolution had been invoked so he had the the

01:14:23 so he had the the uh of authority and the power in this to to spend money in order to alleviate the suffering i think i think uh section 138 uh describes what the local authorities

01:14:35 uh describes what the local authorities duties in response to an emergency are

01:14:40 are well would you would let me try by way of a practical example would it have been open to laura johnson who was who was head of how making the housing decisions at our bkc in the aftermath of the fire to say to john baradel i don't

01:14:54 the fire to say to john baradel i don't recognize your decisions i'm only going to take my orders from nicholas holgate

01:15:06 i'm sorry i'm i'm stumped i don't know in that much detail i think it would take but but in in relation to the responsibility

01:15:17 the responsibility that that in terms of rehousing stems from the housing act not from the civil contingencies act or section 138 of the local government act that's where the duty to re-house people in an emergency comes from so it is it

01:15:29 in an emergency comes from so it is it is always the umbrella of the authority that is is responding it's not

01:15:37 it's not suddenly a transfer of duty to a civil protection team or or anything else

01:15:43 else it is

01:15:44 it is each of those services still fulfilling their duties and obligations under their statutory responsibilities to deliver those services in abnormal circumstances or or

01:15:56 services in abnormal circumstances or or with increased services to meet the needs of the people who are suffering as a result of an emergency in my opinion and that's why it is an authority-wide response suddenly the responsibility doesn't flick to

01:16:08 responsibility doesn't flick to a contingency planning team or any other structure it remains a responsibility of the entirety of the authority to deliver its duties are there regardless of an emergency or

01:16:20 are there regardless of an emergency or not the the civil contingencies act gives us a framework in which to plan and prepare and collaborate but it doesn't provide a duty to respond nor does it provide an expectation of what that response looks

01:16:32 expectation of what that response looks like that comes from the existing legislation i don't know whether you can help with this question but i think well you may be able to um what was there an understanding as far as you

01:16:43 there an understanding as far as you were aware of the position and role of the london gold the chief executive who happened to be london gold at the time

01:16:54 happened to be london gold at the time was he

01:16:55 was he understood to hold an advisory role or was he understood to be a delegate of the local authority or the chief executive who would invoke london gold

01:17:06 executive who would invoke london gold what was there any clear understanding of his position

01:17:12 so my understanding was always that it was that remit of of advocacy of local government in the wide representing uh

01:17:23 uh the wider response to provide a kind of overview of what local government itself could do but the responsibilities never shift from that one borough to somebody else that they they can't

01:17:36 to somebody else that they they can't because that's a democracy that we live in

01:17:40 in is it

01:17:41 is it right thank you very much

01:17:48 mr jonathan that's a convenient moment for a break yes very well thank you well we take a break during the morning and the afternoon sessions as you probably know mr hetherington this is a good time to take the morning break

01:17:59 a good time to take the morning break we'll stop there we'll resume please at 25 to 12

01:18:03 25 to 12 and i have to ask you on this and other occasions please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room all right thank you very much

01:18:20 thank you very much mr millet uh 25 to 12. thank you

01:35:33 would you ask mr heatherington to come back in please

01:35:47 ready to carry on yes yes yes yes mr chairman thank you just in light of the exchanges we had just before the break this morning between you and me and you and the chairman

01:35:57 chairman and can i go back please to paragraph 12 of your first statement of page four which we looked at together and you confirmed as correct

01:36:08 confirmed as correct um and you you say there uh

01:36:11 uh in the second sentence to deliver this they have agreed that london legal authorities have agree have agreed to pool decision-making authority and place it within a single chief executive the

01:36:23 it within a single chief executive the london local authority gold llag who will speak for local authorities as the pan response london is managed now what decision-making authority is it that you're referring to there which you

01:36:35 that you're referring to there which you say was placed within the single chief executive acting as lnag so it could differ in different uh incidents and circumstances but we would

01:36:46 incidents and circumstances but we would typically expect the

01:36:49 the local authority goal to set a strategy for how local government will respond uh how uh mutual aid may be prioritized so so to to to give you an example back

01:37:00 so so to to to give you an example back in the the grit situation we had to

01:37:04 we had to at times not supply some boroughs but prioritize or take

01:37:10 or take resources from one borough to another to even out of supply across london to make sure that everybody had a certain amount of supply to go so they were providing a strategy by within

01:37:21 they were providing a strategy by within which local authorities themselves could respond in a consistent manner so that it was supportive to the emergency services other agencies didn't have 33 different ways of working when there was

01:37:33 different ways of working when there was a

01:37:35 a pan-london wide emergency affecting multiple boroughs with the decisions would be made by the llag

01:37:42 llag on behalf of and binding the authority in any given case such as the authority to give some of your grit to the next order in your instance

01:37:55 is that right

01:37:59 so sorry i'm just i'm just pausing on the word

01:38:02 the word binding

01:38:05 i don't know whether it's that strong in terms of direction uh or not

01:38:10 uh or not but i think it was it's a recognition of the proximity of london boroughs and the joint

01:38:19 interests and responsibilities that they hold that they want to act in a cohesive and coherent manner to each other rather than having multiple different response mechanisms

01:38:30 multiple different response mechanisms ms hetherington you have used the words pool decision making authority yeah no maybe that has a meaning to a lawyer which it didn't have to some others but um is that what you meant

01:38:49 yes and i suppose in the situation of a strategic coordinating group where they are representing local authorities they do have uh decision making or authority uh

01:38:59 uh to act on behalf of local government and then provide direction i guess uh back to individual borrowers but but it's

01:39:09 uh yeah i i suppose they they do have that decision-making or authority

01:39:17 but the the statutory responsibility would still rest with each individual local authority

01:39:33 right

01:39:39 let's look at um uh your second uh

01:39:43 well let's look at lfb double zero one one nine one three three it's a document you've exhibited your second witness statement

01:39:51 statement a paragraph 104. i don't think i need to show you the statement but this here's the document now this i think it post dates the grenfell tower fire uh and is entitled guidance note for

01:40:02 uh and is entitled guidance note for chief executives initiating panel and support during emergencies and if you uh go down to

01:40:11 to the penultimate paragraph under the heading summary resilience arrangements it says the gold resolution facilitates coordination of the collective local authority effort

01:40:22 collective local authority effort including provision of advice guidance and support where necessary to help shape the responses of individual authorities it delegates formal support from the lnag so that they can provide collective

01:40:34 lnag so that they can provide collective guidance and advice on behalf of london local government to deliver a coordinated response in emergency situations following the convening of the of gold straight strategic coordination groups now i think

01:40:45 coordination groups now i think just pausing there that reflects what you've been telling us does it yeah i think this is probably a a far better use of wording than in my statement right but we don't find a

01:40:57 statement right but we don't find a trace in that description of the idea that what is delegated to llag is the formal decision-making powers legally vested in the chief executive

01:41:09 legally vested in the chief executive for the time being do we

01:41:13 so you're saying it's not in this not in there no there's no trace of of that idea in there

01:41:21 so sorry i i don't understand the

01:41:25 question well the question is if that's an accurate description of gold resolution then gold resolution is not the source of of the power of the llag for the time

01:41:36 of of the power of the llag for the time being to make formal binding decisions on behalf of the relevant local authority

01:41:43 authority is it

01:41:44 is it [Music]

01:41:47 [Music] uh

01:41:49 uh no no

01:41:56 um now we may need to come back to that in in due course when we come to look at what happened can we then move on in the in the structure to the l-a-p-i-g

01:42:09 to the l-a-p-i-g uh

01:42:11 is it right that within the lap sat the local authorities panel implementation group or l-a-p-i-g yes correct yes and i think in your first statement we don't need to go to it paragraph 23 you refer to it as the

01:42:23 it paragraph 23 you refer to it as the practitioner level group beneath the lap that's correct yes and which practitioners would make up or sit on the lap ig so there was a representative from each

01:42:34 so there was a representative from each sub-regional area at practitioner level it was normally decided amongst those areas so that collective group of boroughs would typically appoint uh one of the more experienced uh emergency

01:42:46 one of the more experienced uh emergency planning managers uh to represent them um but it was up to them that their representation of that sub-regional area and did at the time of the fire did that include david kerry

01:42:57 include david kerry so so david carey sat on the lap ig as the practitioner advisor to the chair of lap right so uh he'd held that as a long-standing position i think from 2007

01:43:10 long-standing position i think from 2007 perhaps i see uh

01:43:13 uh so to be clear david kerry was both the practitioner advisor on the lap but also the chair of the lapig now he wasn't chair of the la pig that that fell to a separate chief

01:43:25 pig that that fell to a separate chief executive

01:43:27 executive right who was that

01:43:35 forgive me i can't remember the exact details at the time subsequently i think it was joe negrini from croydon uh and michael lockwood held the position for a period of time

01:43:47 for a period of time um

01:43:49 um it would probably be in in the minutes to the meeting i'm trying to think who it was at that particular time right apologies and can you um help us in fact it might have been charlie parker at the time of the fire from westminster

01:44:01 time of the fire from westminster can you explain what does the local authorities panel implementation group do

01:44:05 do in a nutshell so

01:44:09 so they translate the the the lap strategy if you like or the lack direction into uh action uh they provide that the practitioner advice they're there to to provide a kind of upwards

01:44:20 upwards issues

01:44:21 issues management raising function to the local authorities panel they're there to ensure that practitioners who are actually going to do the work and and develop the local authority-led capabilities are appointed

01:44:34 capabilities are appointed supported

01:44:35 supported and they they act as a filter between the the wider local authority emergency planning teams or contingency planning teams and the local authorities panel

01:44:44 panel would they be involved in any way once gold is invoked once llage not it's a it's a planning and preparation function right and then let's turn to the voluntary and

01:44:55 and then let's turn to the voluntary and faith sectors and go back can we if we can please to the diagram of the structure lfb triple zero six one one six two please page seven

01:45:05 um there it is uh and um we've looked at the lap that's one of the panels on the lrf

01:45:10 lrf which is now in front of us we can see as we've seen before there are many others i'm not going to ask you about all of them but um let's just look at the voluntary sector panel and the faith sector panel um which are at noon and one o'clock um

01:45:23 um which are at noon and one o'clock um on the

01:45:24 on the on the diagram is it the case that a representative of each of those panels would attend the london resilience forum meetings that's correct yes and do you agree that the category one responders

01:45:35 agree that the category one responders are under a legal duty to have regard to voluntary organizations in their area yes that's correct yes and

01:45:43 and the words have must have regard are set out in in the uh regulations um

01:45:53 um what did you understand having regard to the statutory expression to mean or to entail

01:45:59 entail uh so is a an understanding of their existence and to capitalize on uh their capability wherever uh possible to understand the the capabilities that they could bring

01:46:11 the capabilities that they could bring to bear and support a response so so to give you an example from the voluntary sector panel

01:46:21 panel they produced as a panel a document entitled voluntary sector capabilities that was published to the forum so that there was a clear understanding of what was available to them as a panel they hosted

01:46:32 available to them as a panel they hosted um

01:46:34 um periodically there was there was one that took place in in april of 2017 a voluntary sector awareness day which members of the resilience partnership were invited to to better understand and then there was also a mechanism

01:46:46 and then there was also a mechanism certainly in the faith sector for engagement through the brf so the voluntary sector panel was made up predominantly of the larger

01:46:57 predominantly of the larger uh organizations british red cross st john's ambulance female auxiliary nursing uh germany et cetera that the large london-wide organizations but they did have um

01:47:09 but they did have um engagement in the local level and certainly with the faith sector through the through their own work and their own

01:47:16 their own structure

01:47:18 structure they would encourage engagement through the borough resilience forums right but detecting that answer something of a distinction between the voluntary sector and the faith sector is it that the

01:47:29 and the faith sector is it that the voluntary sector produced a london-wide capabilities document but the faith sector produced an engagement through or effective engagement through the brfs

01:47:40 effective engagement through the brfs so faith was uh they provided a better network or each borough had a faith network that we provided contact details to for the brfs to engage with themselves i think the

01:47:51 to engage with themselves i think the faith sector also had a major incident uh protocol that they conv that they derived themselves and it was led by the archdeacon of of london i believe so

01:48:03 archdeacon of of london i believe so luke miller that's right and we'll come to him in a minute um just just in relation to um the voluntary sector for the moment did representatives of the voluntary

01:48:14 did representatives of the voluntary sector panel have input into planning for emergencies you say they produce the capabilities document do they have input into the lrf's

01:48:24 lrf's um overarching uh resilience um

01:48:28 um preparation yes so so wherever possible we'd involve uh all the relevant uh sector panels that we needed on the individual capabilities there was also then a consultation process that would have

01:48:41 consultation process that would have gone through uh forum membership or or either the programme board level or the forum membership that enable people interaction with each of the capabilities that are being developed

01:48:52 capabilities that are being developed and i think it's right that the chair of the voluntary sector panel at the time of the fire was emma sprague and the chair of the faith sector panel at the time of the fire was luke miller the archdeacon of london that's correct

01:49:03 the archdeacon of london that's correct yeah then then turning to the the sub-regional resilience forums that's that to be clear not the same as the borough resilience forums or the brfs

01:49:14 borough resilience forums or the brfs which is a a broader grouping i think um and if we look at the diagram still on the screen uh i think we can see the subregional resilience tier

01:49:25 the subregional resilience tier um to to the bottom left at eight o'clock yes yes that's correct and into that fed the borough resilience four of the brfs that's correct yes now um so let's just let's try and be be

01:49:38 now um so let's just let's try and be be clear about this we we've discussed before that there were six sub-regional resilience forums is that right that's correct and they're chaired by a chief executive of one of the london boroughs within

01:49:48 within the region making up the sub-regional forum that's correct right

01:49:54 and was every london borough a member of a sub-regional resilience tier yes right

01:50:05 and the chief executive of any london borough could at any time be

01:50:12 be uh a chair is this right of the sub-regional resilience forum that's correct right and i think it's right that rbkc was and is a member of the central srrf yes that's correct yes and the chair at the

01:50:23 that's correct yes and the chair at the time of the fire was elena kelly of southwark that's correct and the other local authorities within that cluster within that srrf were is this right the city of london city of westminster london borough of

01:50:35 city of westminster london borough of lambeth southwark um tower hamlets that's correct right it was nicholas holgate ever did he ever serve as the chair of the of that srf the central srrf no

01:50:48 the central srrf no why is that uh

01:50:51 uh i i i don't know eleanor was a prominent chief executive probably the one of the most experienced in that sub-region and took on the role right and how often do the role of chair

01:51:03 right and how often do the role of chair of the central s the central srrf get rotated uh it wasn't on a fixed periodical basis it was it was a if there was a

01:51:14 basis it was it was a if there was a volunteer chief executive who would do it then they held that position whilst they were in office i i see so and how long have had um eleanor kelly

01:51:25 and how long have had um eleanor kelly been chair of the central srrf as at june 2017 i think from memory from 2013 onwards right

01:51:38 would would nicholas holgate as chief executive of rbkc have attended the srrf meetings for the central district no why is that

01:51:49 the central district no why is that it it was a more practitioner level so the

01:51:53 the sub-regional tier had multi-agency representative and then the typically the emergency planning manager continues playing

01:52:01 playing uh from each of the local authorities right so

01:52:04 right so he wouldn't he would never have attended meetings is this right and there was no system whereby the chairs of the srrs rotated so that all she could all 33 chief executives uh in london could get her get a shot at

01:52:15 uh in london could get her get a shot at being a chair no formalized system though right or even an informal system it sounds right

01:52:24 were these srfs as they were at the time of the fire attended by other agencies such as the emergency services or central government uh at the time yes they were they were yes

01:52:35 yes i think this is right david kerry attended on behalf of ekc that's correct that he says uh uh of what you say actually and srrfs i think act is this right as a conduit between the borough

01:52:47 right as a conduit between the borough resilience forum which you can see uh at about seven o'clock on the on the map in front of us uh on the one hand and the lrf in the center on the other that's correct um

01:52:58 center on the other that's correct um is it right that that's now changed i think that srrfs are now called sub-regional groups srgs that's correct uh and it's it's only local authority attendance although other agencies have uh the right to

01:53:10 other agencies have uh the right to invite right to attend if they so wish i said it's a greater collaboration at a local of a local authority level right is and and can you just explain briefly what the practical implications of that change are

01:53:22 change are uh so so previously we had emergency services uh coming to the sub-regional tier it was an information sharing mechanism it didn't have the power to set policy because for

01:53:33 have the power to set policy because for the metropolitan police the london fire brigade london ambulance service they had one policy for for the entirety of london so there wasn't the ability to deviate to policy in in that local area

01:53:44 deviate to policy in in that local area and therefore its greatest strength was in the collective strength for local authorities they were the the differing denominator if you like uh

01:53:55 the differing denominator if you like uh and the the reason that they predominantly existed uh all emergency or all cap ones uh should and tattoos tend to borrow resilience for us that they already have that kind of local

01:54:06 they already have that kind of local implementation at a multi-agency level and therefore uh it was felt that it was it was more

01:54:15 a greater efficiency of everybody's time at the sub-regional tier to focus on local authority uh work uh and kind of cooperation between them let's then turn next to the borough resilience forum as

01:54:27 next to the borough resilience forum as you can see on the on the plan in front of you at about seven o'clock um there were 33 i think in london weren't there and they're a statutory body created under the act itself yes that's correct

01:54:38 under the act itself yes that's correct made up of a single borough that's correct so they were they were they were made a statutory body in the uh revision in 2012. so so previously to 2012 the sub-regional tier had had been

01:54:51 2012 the sub-regional tier had had been a statutory function that was then uh changed to london having a mechanism for that inter-relationship between the the lrf and the brf which became the statutory function now you're saying

01:55:02 statutory function now you're saying your second statement to paragraph seven that they meet once every six months yes uh that

01:55:08 uh that like the

01:55:09 like the lrf duty they have a duty to meet at least at least six months right was it your understanding that the requirement to meet every six months or at least every six months was an internal meeting or was it brfs meeting

01:55:21 internal meeting or was it brfs meeting each other at least every six months an internal meeting right so they were required to gather as a brf at least every six months i see and who would it have been from within a borough

01:55:33 would it have been from within a borough who should be making up a borough resilience forum so it should be the uh category one responder agencies uh represented within that borough um and also uh local category 2

01:55:46 also uh local category 2 responders and then there is also encouragement for engagement with the voluntary and faith sector

01:55:53 sector and other agencies at that level so that the military for example would attend as many as they could on a rotational basis right but you say the category won't respond to agencies represented within that borough and i mean who would it

01:56:05 that borough and i mean who would it have been in rbkc for example from nfb it would be the nfb it would be the lfb uh borough commander or potentially delegated to a station commander right

01:56:16 delegated to a station commander right thank you and um but representation of that emergency service there but but the representation would be through somebody who had some kind of authority or at least familiarity with the borough itself that's correct yes i

01:56:28 the borough itself that's correct yes i see

01:56:29 see and we've had evidence from david kerry that he chaired the rbkc's borough resilience forum between 2013 and 2016. that was his evidence on day 268 at page 17 to 18

01:56:43 268 at page 17 to 18 and it's clear from other documents can i show you lfb double zero double one nine one nine one

01:56:57 this is your exhibit 68 and we can see what it is it is the lrp's borough resilience forum guidance and um if you go please in it to page 7

01:57:14 you can see the second bullet point down

01:57:22 that it says the chair this is in the first bubble under governance the chair should be a person of authority that is recognized across the partnership preferably that sits on senior strategic multi-agency groups the

01:57:34 senior strategic multi-agency groups the chair must be a representative of any category one responder and should be rotated periodically and at least at the very least reviewed annually to ensure buy-in from all agencies and

01:57:45 and why was that the case why was it necessary to rotate the chair periodically so this is a guidance document that that we provided

01:57:56 we provided uh

01:57:59 it was to encourage other agencies to be engaged in in the borough resilience for what we were finding was that it very much fell to a local authority to secretariat and chair

01:58:10 local authority to secretariat and chair and we were trying to encourage engagement from from all agencies and create a a shared onus of responsibility as as you would at the lrf amongst borough resilience forum

01:58:21 lrf amongst borough resilience forum members so it didn't all just fall to a local authority uh however but

01:58:29 but recognizing that they exist due to that kind of geography in london as of 2017 was this guidance

01:58:39 guidance that the chair of the brf should be rotated

01:58:43 rotated periodically um one which was complied with or was it generally not complied with different different resilience forums tackled it in in different ways so i know there were borough resilience

01:58:55 know there were borough resilience forums who who alternated their chair between different emergency services and always provided a local authority secretary secretariat and

01:59:03 and but but we didn't we had a monitoring process uh a fairly passive monitoring process that we we invited each brf to provide a report

01:59:14 report uh of its membership and who chairs et cetera on an annual basis to the to the srf um

01:59:20 srf um but it was for their um

01:59:26 application of this guidance to put it into place right did the when you say um

01:59:33 um that last answer us was that the lrg yes sorry yes did the lrg have any any power to at least um suggest to or or even compel

01:59:44 at least um suggest to or or even compel um

01:59:44 um a category-run responder but a local authority rather to rotate its chair of its brf in accordance with this guidance no did a review of david kerry's position

01:59:55 did a review of david kerry's position ever take place do you know no

01:59:58 no no no not by london resilience right was it unusual for only one individual to occupy the chair of a brf for three years no it wasn't right

02:00:11 so in your experience was it often the case it sounds as if it was that the the these roles well let me let me try this differently david kerry i think had a number of significant roles within the lrf didn't

02:00:22 significant roles within the lrf didn't he that's correct i mean he was he was he sat on the brf um he was a member of the lapig would you agree that it was often the case that these roles would be performed

02:00:33 case that these roles would be performed by the same person within the borough resilience forum that's correct yes yeah and in respect of rbkc was there a danger of over reliance on one individual as opposed to a spread within rbkc

02:00:46 a spread within rbkc of people who had accumulated knowledge and contributed to the london resilience landscape perhaps from different perspectives absolutely i would say not just in our bkc but across the

02:00:57 just in our bkc but across the whole partnership so this concentration of

02:01:01 of knowledge expert and expertise was endemic would you say yes yeah now it's right to think that um according to the guidance according to the act

02:01:12 the guidance according to the act uh

02:01:14 uh uh

02:01:16 uh the

02:01:17 the borough resilience forum has a duty to assess risk and publish a borough risk register yes that's correct that's a fundamental activity isn't it that's correct yes yes um let's go to lfb double zero one one

02:01:28 um let's go to lfb double zero one one nine one

02:01:29 nine one double zip i'm sorry um it's this document actually page

02:01:37 if we can go to page nine in it

02:01:41 we'll look at it later i think in a bit more detail i have other questions for you about it but

02:01:47 but um on page nine um you can see there is business planning you see that there and if you go down the page please to page 10

02:01:58 page 10 you can see risk assessment process at paragraph 2.4 and then at page 11 you've got uh paragraph 2.5 regional planning cycle

02:02:09 uh paragraph 2.5 regional planning cycle railing 3 year cycle and then on page 12 local capability development yes that's correct yes um these are some of the roles for the brf have those

02:02:20 of the roles for the brf have those roles changed since the grenfell tower fired you know no there were no changes this guidance was was to try and distill as you've seen through evidence there's a huge raft of of guidance that comes

02:02:32 a huge raft of of guidance that comes out from from different places we were just trying to distill into a fairly manageable document a single source for all agencies just to kind of guide them through what their

02:02:43 kind of guide them through what their responsibilities were provide examples of good practice potentially i think perhaps in in an earlier uh version of the brf guidance and generally just help them to achieve

02:02:55 and generally just help them to achieve the duties and responsibilities they had at a brf level right so this am i right this document is a document you would expect is this right a chief executive to be familiar with

02:03:06 a chief executive to be familiar with uh not necessarily the the chief executive i would expect the members of the borough resilience forum to be uh familiar with um and it's a kind of

02:03:17 and it's a kind of uh impact that the borrower resilience form were often managed at the contingency planning unit level as opposed to a wider uh more senior approach so this is would it be right to

02:03:28 approach so this is would it be right to describe this document as a handbook to the guides yes yes yep a guide to guys yeah that's good right well we'll come we will likely come back to it in due course

02:03:39 likely come back to it in due course um can i then turn please to back can we go back to the diagram i want now to turn to the london resilience programme board

02:03:47 board another element of this in the architecture for london resilience uh and if you look at the plan in front of us there we can see feeding into the london resilience forum at about five o'clock

02:03:59 at about five o'clock on the plan is the london resilience programme board and underneath that feeding into that is underpinning capabilities and risk-based capabilities yes yes that's

02:04:11 risk-based capabilities yes yes that's great now um capability what is that let's go to lfb triple zero six one one eight nine

02:04:25 you can see that i'm answering the question i i posed but th this is is this right well let me show you this is

02:04:34 this is the first page of a document entitled london resilience partnership framework review process uh and uh if you look at the terminology

02:04:47 uh and uh if you look at the terminology associated terminology under paragraph two capability is defined there as a demonstrable ability to respond to and recover from a particular threat of hazard uk civil protection lexicon

02:04:59 hazard uk civil protection lexicon definition a capability will typically incorporate doctrine plans stroke documents resources and logistics training exercising and interoperability there are criteria by which london

02:05:11 there are criteria by which london capabilities are assessed now

02:05:14 now first then can you explain what underpinning capabilities means in the diagram we've just been looking at so the underpinning capabilities were those generic capabilities such as

02:05:25 those generic capabilities such as strategic coordination the communications protocol the recovery protocol or the london emergency services liaison panel major incident protocols which would be used in pretty much all incidents

02:05:39 used in pretty much all incidents as the kind of overarching structure to which we would respond right

02:05:46 those are guidance documents are they they're they're they're they're the response frameworks by which we uh underpin our the capability that's

02:05:58 underpin our the capability that's that's the uh plans documents and kind of doctrine element of the capability right but would i be writing thinking that as part of that you referred to the lslp

02:06:10 as part of that you referred to the lslp major incidence protocol that in turn would carry definitions of what a local authority would be expected to do for example rest centers uh or the um

02:06:21 uh or the um friends and relatives reception center yes so so that the framework would be a document that would outline the roles and responsibilities that the way in which we would uh expect

02:06:32 that the way in which we would uh expect to operate in response to an emergency so so the underpinning ones are generic to almost any incident and then the risk specific would be for example the mass fatalities framework the flooding framework uh a

02:06:45 framework the flooding framework uh a pandemic influenza framework that gives you specific guidance in relation to that

02:06:50 that uh that specific task that you're carrying out or responsible right so but but i be writing thinking that the contents

02:06:56 contents of the

02:06:58 of the framework documents which created the framework for the capabilities would themselves include things to be done by local authorities that's correct and therefore it was seen by the the lap and

02:07:09 therefore it was seen by the the lap and the napig that's correct yes yes but also to be overseen by the um the sub-regional sub-regional resilience tier and the borough resilience forum

02:07:22 tier and the borough resilience forum in other words intra district or intra-borough yes so they the the the pan london capability documents provided the framework within which we all expected the the the various agencies to respond

02:07:35 the the the various agencies to respond so that we had an understanding of what the roles and responsibilities were in relation to each other i thought going back to the if we can get back to the plan then

02:07:43 plan then um

02:07:45 um please uh that we had a moment ago uh there it is you've got underpinning capabilities pointing into london resilience program board but is it right

02:07:56 resilience program board but is it right in fact to say that the underpinning capabilities actually wrap around the whole structure absolutely yes right i understand now um so far as risk-based capabilities

02:08:07 capabilities risk-based capabilities are concerned what what does that mean and what are they uh so they were the other suite of frameworks or specific capabilities uh for a specific risk

02:08:18 for a specific risk or

02:08:19 or or the outcome of a of a risk so we we had

02:08:23 had mass fatalities as i've said flooding uh cbrn

02:08:27 cbrn um

02:08:28 um there's a list of about 20 also differing capabilities the humanitarian assistance capability the evacuation shelter or all of those specific uh elements that would then be used in

02:08:40 elements that would then be used in conjunction to one another underneath the the kind of overarching or underpinning capabilities that would provide the kind of framework within which we respond i see i follow so now

02:08:51 which we respond i see i follow so now then go to your second statement please page 26 paragraph 83

02:08:58 you say there

02:09:02 the process of capability development and the development of training exercises is overseen by the london resilience programme board

02:09:12 for which lrg provides the secretariat the purpose of lrpb overall is to ensure that the lrp works together towards the implementation of the lrp delivery plan

02:09:23 implementation of the lrp delivery plan and it plays a number of roles in that regard including developing the lrp's partnership strategy allocating work to agencies sector panels and capability development groups

02:09:34 panels and capability development groups and overseeing work such as the process of identifying lessons and implementing them through the use of training and exercises

02:09:42 exercises would it be fair to say in summary that the lrpb simplifying it perhaps oversees three things perhaps first risk through the london risk advisory group which

02:09:53 the london risk advisory group which drafts the london risk register yes yes that's good the second lessons learned through the partnership lessons process yes yes that's great and then third training and exercising yes

02:10:05 training and exercising yes yes there are three distinct groups that sit under the programme board yes yes is there anything else anything i've missed in in identifying that trinity of capabilities

02:10:17 capabilities no that they act as the the kind of uh

02:10:23 the consistent information to be used by any of the capability development groups working groups in order to inform them of of what they need to be uh cognizant of and kind of uh

02:10:37 uh cognizant of and kind of uh be building in terms of their response right

02:10:39 right now let's go please 2 lfb00119205

02:10:48 this is your exhibit 69 and this is the london resilience partnership strategy document and if we go in it please uh and well you can see from the bottom that it was version 2 approved by lrf on

02:11:02 that it was version 2 approved by lrf on in october 2016. if you go please to page 8 you can see that it's made up of a number of

02:11:13 a number of representative agencies if you go to the foot of the page

02:11:21 you can see structures for developing capabilities

02:11:26 and it says that the lrp implements the partnership strategy through the london resilience program its membership includes representatives of agencies sector panels and capability development groups the chair of lrpb is a member of

02:11:37 groups the chair of lrpb is a member of the lrf

02:11:40 the lrf now just help me with that um the chairmanship of the lrf the lrf is a sorry the chairmanship of the lrpb the membership of the lrf is is

02:11:51 the lrpb the membership of the lrf is is the groups we've seen so different panels

02:11:54 panels so so lrp is was at the time chaired by steve hammers the head of program is now chaired by myself as the head of resilience

02:12:05 right but just help me the chair of lrp it says here is a member of the lrf presumably the chair is an individual yes yes yes so looking at the lrf structure who would be the where would

02:12:17 structure who would be the where would the individual come from you don't have individual members of the nrf do you

02:12:27 well there are named members of the the lrf but they're they're panels or boards

02:12:34 or boards they're not they're not individuals yes so who would be from where would the individual person occupying the chair of the lrp b be drawn from the london resilience group from the resilience group yes

02:12:49 so it was it was steve han whilst he was in the post and then i i took over the chair of lrpv once he left right but it says nrf not not not lrg

02:12:59 not lrg is that wrong uh that could be a that could either be a typo or a kind of recognition that the the lrp is is itself reporting into the lrf as well

02:13:10 itself reporting into the lrf as well right i think i see um now um if we go to the

02:13:17 the london resilience forum terms of reference

02:13:19 reference we'll find that at lfb triple zero six one one six two page three

02:13:32 um this is paragraph eight and we've got the diagram again and it says in the second paragraph under operating model in order to achieve its objectives the london resilience forum

02:13:44 objectives the london resilience forum will be supported by an officer level program management board to be known as the london resilience program board the sub-regional resilience tier and sector panels

02:13:56 and if you go then to

02:14:00 uh the rest well you can see the structure of the rest of it um

02:14:05 um who else would sit on the board at the lrpb

02:14:10 so so that the program board is is made up of the uh agencies at a more operational level uh so it'd be a tier below the chief operating

02:14:21 operating uh

02:14:22 uh chief officer level expectation at the lrf right and then if you look at the third bullet point down uh under london resilience program board

02:14:33 uh under london resilience program board will it says be chaired by the head of the london resilience group and that i think makes it makes what you were saying earlier clear yes but it's lrg not nrf

02:14:44 lrg not nrf um and that i think with steve hamm at the time of the fire as you've confirmed yes um

02:14:49 yes um according to the uh well let's go to page let's get back to the document we were on before lfb double zero double one nine two zero five which is the strategy

02:15:01 two zero five which is the strategy document we were looking at if we go in that place to page eight again um

02:15:05 um according to that um we've seen it says it says lrf my question is looking at both of these did you or any of the other deputy heads of london resilience have any role

02:15:17 of london resilience have any role uh on the on the um lrpb

02:15:24 yes yes so we would feed in you would treat that work yes

02:15:31 and and did you or any of the other deputy heads of london resilience have any role on the london resilience forum other than through the lrg

02:15:41 not other than through our role as the secretary after the the forum and the work that we did in in support of the work of the forum a minute strategy and if we go in this same document

02:15:52 and if we go in this same document please to page nine

02:15:55 this is the lrp strategy document at the top of page nine there's a reference to a senior responsible owner the lrf appoints a senior responsible owner who was a member of the lrf to coordinate the

02:16:06 member of the lrf to coordinate the development of capabilities for identified risks their role is to ensure the timely delivery of the work

02:16:14 now you refer to in your second statement of paragraph 82 i don't think we need to go to it to a senior responsible owner or sro in respect of each strat age capability is

02:16:26 respect of each strat age capability is that the same or is that the sro or senior responsible owner referred to in this document yes that's the same that is that right then let's turn to

02:16:37 let's turn to uh

02:16:37 uh the capability groups and risk based capability in more detail if we go back to the diagram please at lfb double one lfb double zero one two three seven six

02:16:49 lfb double zero one two three seven six nine page

02:16:51 nine page three

02:16:53 three it's a slightly different diagram in fact um if we look at that can we have that expanded

02:17:02 this diagram sits within a document which starts on page one which i should show you first if i can because it might again might help people

02:17:13 because it might again might help people trying to keep up with what we've been doing this morning but london resilience uh which is the first item is london resilience the brand stroke all-encompassing term london resilience forum the executive oversight body

02:17:26 forum the executive oversight body london resilience partnership a shared responsibility to continually develop london resilience the london resilience group and it has six bullet points and it says supports the partnership in preparedness

02:17:37 supports the partnership in preparedness and response jointly funded and governed by gla

02:17:42 by gla lla and phil and the london fire commissioner hosted by the london fire brigade programmes of work 20 person team 24 7 response capability team of nine people including lfp

02:17:53 team of nine people including lfp volunteers um and then underneath it always perhaps tongue-in-cheek lr lrg lrt and our flrp ministers tend to refer to lrfs of late with lrfs of collaborative bodies and do

02:18:05 with lrfs of collaborative bodies and do not have power of direction i'll show you that really is a conduit to showing everybody else

02:18:11 else the system perhaps in simple terms but

02:18:15 but look at the diagram now page three

02:18:19 um just explaining it we've got the lrf set strategy and work program and then underneath that uh the lrpb coordinates work then there are the sector panels which we are familiar with

02:18:32 sector panels which we are familiar with now and then you've got on the left hand side the subgroups subgroups risk assessment learning and implementation training and exercising and capability groups develop and maintain partnership capabilities

02:18:45 maintain partnership capabilities um

02:18:46 um now

02:18:48 now i think those are new those are subgroups we haven't or capability groups we haven't looked at before or are they

02:18:55 are they uh they're they're the capability groups to to develop each of the partnership frameworks or or capabilities that this is this is a newer way in which we depict the

02:19:06 newer way in which we depict the structure of the forum from the purple uh

02:19:09 uh blob shaped diagram that you you referred to earlier yes i see so they sit underneath although they sit within the bubbles that say underpinning capabilities and risk based capability i follow

02:19:20 follow who sits on those groups so that will be practitioners emergency planners from from all the respective agencies that need to feed into that capability and if you look at

02:19:32 into that capability and if you look at capability groups as i read to your moment to go develop and maintain so sorry i thought you were referring to capability groups then but right sorry who sits on on sub groups uh so again that's category one uh responders so so

02:19:44 that's category one uh responders so so the risk assessment uh has has membership from all category one and two responders uh uh and a representative from local authorities from each of the sub-regional areas to provide the the local uh kind of input

02:19:58 local uh kind of input uh the learning and implementation group again has uh representatives from all the category one and

02:20:04 one and two responders uh possibly less the category two responders that they they may attend less frequently and then the training and exercising group again is a multi-agency group of

02:20:15 group again is a multi-agency group of category one and two responders

02:20:20 now let's focusing on capability groups then uh go back to uh the um lrp guide the lrp strategy document that's lfb00199205

02:20:40 and if we go to page 14 in this document now

02:20:45 now that we can see a summary of partnership capabilities as of 2016 and underneath them you've got evacuation shelter flooding etc you can

02:20:57 evacuation shelter flooding etc you can see that what do these capabilities mean in practice so each of those capabilities is a framework uh this this is the the kind of the under underpinning or or and risk

02:21:08 and risk based capabilities that we were talking to earlier so the the horizontal lines are those that we may use it in relation to any incident uh and quite widely used uh and then each of the

02:21:20 widely used uh and then each of the individual is a risk-based response so so the uh flooding framework for example will will give you the the kind of greater granularity and details and roles and responsibilities in respect to

02:21:31 roles and responsibilities in respect to that specific capability likewise the mass fatalities may have a a different membership because it's more focused around the the dvi process um and so the specifics of how we manage uh

02:21:44 and so the specifics of how we manage uh disaster mortuaries in response to an incident so we may well have incidents that don't use all of those specific capabilities but they're they're almost a plug and play uh

02:21:55 a plug and play uh set of of functions that we can invoke any one of them at the time that we need to and that creates the structure of subgroups underneath the strategic coordinating response so does each of these um dark blue

02:22:09 so does each of these um dark blue columns

02:22:10 columns represent topics in respect to which there is a document comprising a framework or protocol that's right yeah with that with an sro appointed from that lead agency

02:22:23 appointed from that lead agency who would sit on the program board or or the lrf the sro typically was the lrf member so that it had that highest level of ownership and they would then determine who

02:22:34 who is going to deliver that exact framework so to give you an example local authorities uh where the sro for structural collapse is is one animal

02:22:45 structural collapse is is one animal diseases is another disruption to fuel mass shelter

02:22:53 excess deaths

02:22:56 certainly so that's a number of capabilities that

02:23:01 that john baradel is as the chair of lap would be the sro for each of those in the eyes of the lrf but through the work of lap that can discharge that work through lap

02:23:12 that can discharge that work through lap ig to formulate a group and an individual to develop and lead that exact right capability what tells me which sro is responsible for which blue

02:23:23 which sro is responsible for which blue column uh not this document but the overarching work program uh for the uh partnership would the london resilience partnership work program would what's that

02:23:34 that uh so so

02:23:35 uh so so is that is that another that would be another document yes right who generated that uh so we generate that as part of the uh

02:23:42 the uh so london resilience group sorry rather than we generate that as part of our secretariat business administration support to the lrf and that that will change periodically

02:23:54 and that that will change periodically right and just to help me um the capabilities here are these risk based capabilities or underpinning capabilities so so this document here shows both so so that the vertical lines

02:24:07 shows both so so that the vertical lines are the risk-based capabilities they're they're individual or kind of caused by specific risks the supporting capabilities or the underpinning underpin the response to anything so that the coordination and situation

02:24:18 that the coordination and situation awareness we now term as the strategic coordinating protocol the recovery is the recovery coordinating protocol that you might use in response to any incident

02:24:30 so see if i can summarize this if i got this right uh there is a london risk register which which identifies risks which are then set out in the blue columns here

02:24:42 set out in the blue columns here yes

02:24:43 yes so the london risk register will set out a series of risks derived from that risks are a number of capabilities that we have to respond to those risks so there may be multiple risks that would

02:24:54 there may be multiple risks that would cause mass fatalities for instance but therefore we need the generic capability to respond to mass fatalities so we distill the overarching risk register into what capabilities we need

02:25:06 register into what capabilities we need to respond to and therefore have a program of capabilities to respond to meet

02:25:12 to meet those risks deemed necessary and whose responsibility is it to compile and maintain the london risk register as the community risk register so the london resilience group provide

02:25:24 so the london resilience group provide the the administration and support and we provide the chair to the london risk advisory group and present that to the forum

02:25:30 forum well i think we come to that shortly um but just perhaps leaving that on one side um

02:25:36 side um is is is this the way that it works that the lrg generates this document which is the capable risk-based capabilities by reference to a number of well

02:25:47 by reference to a number of well by reference to framework documents corresponding to each of the blue columns

02:25:51 columns yes

02:25:52 yes and then there's a there's an sro for each of those to be identified in a separate document yes yes

02:26:02 uh and then the resilient the london resilience programme board provides

02:26:08 provides um assessment and training in respect to that

02:26:12 that uh

02:26:13 uh no

02:26:14 no so

02:26:15 so the sro and the lead responsible agency provide that the framework and also the the training needs analysis and the training in respect to each of that those capabilities so so as as the

02:26:26 those capabilities so so as as the document earlier said a capability is made up of of not just a framework but also resources training exercising doctrine etc that the sro is that lead agency and that's the principle that is

02:26:38 agency and that's the principle that is adhered through i imagine most lrs but that that kind of stems through right away from risk assessment all the way through in terms of it is uh logical that the uh pandemic

02:26:51 of it is uh logical that the uh pandemic influenza is is risk assessed by the the national health service uh as the the agency closest to it they then are the sro for the development of the capability uh outlining in conjunction

02:27:03 capability uh outlining in conjunction with all the other responders the the collective roles and responsibilities so people understand their part in that plan and then also devising or the training needs analysis and the the

02:27:16 the training needs analysis and the the joint training element or assurance through exercising element but each agency then still has the responsibility to understand their part in these

02:27:28 understand their part in these documents

02:27:29 documents and train uh and ensure that they have the ability to deliver their roles in responsibility so just to see if i can look at it from a different viewpoint i'm david kerry and i'm

02:27:41 viewpoint i'm david kerry and i'm sitting in rbkc [Music]

02:27:43 [Music] i'm looking at this document what do i have to be familiar with uh you will have to be familiar with all of the elements within them that portray to a local authority role of responsibility and in order to know what

02:27:55 responsibility and in order to know what that is

02:27:56 that is what do i look at i look at the dot the document which tells me yeah that's a separate document not identified here

02:28:05 it's a separate document so each of these will be a separate document but the document which tells me which i need to know whether i need to know about flooding but don't need to know about um animal disease

02:28:16 animal disease is a separate document which i would also need to be familiar with yes

02:28:22 it would be each of these documents that outlines that the roles and responsibilities yes yes but i think you said earlier that the sro would be the person responsible and that wouldn't necessarily always be so so the the sro

02:28:33 necessarily always be so so the the sro is responsible for the production of the framework and the ownership and the administration as that lead agency yes so the lrf has a duty to maintain

02:28:45 yes so the lrf has a duty to maintain the risk register and a systematic approach to multi-agency aspects of its work and this is that systematic approach of how we can define what capabilities and frameworks are required

02:28:57 capabilities and frameworks are required who is responsible for delivering them and a program of work over a three-year rolling program so so in any one year a third of these frameworks would be expected to be

02:29:08 expected to be revised and then published through the lrf system and is it the case that in respect of each of these blue columns all of the five lilac colored columns would be engaged in case there was a

02:29:20 would be engaged in case there was a structural collapse then then you're that the person in the brf um responsible for contingency planning would need to know what to do in under

02:29:31 would need to know what to do in under each of these five lilac bands uh yes not necessarily all of them would be invoked but they were but they are uh then they're not specific to any one particular risk of cause and by that you

02:29:42 particular risk of cause and by that you mean you could have humanitarian assistance because of structural collapse a mass evacuation but not need to

02:29:48 to have a little local authority gold resolution absolutely yeah i see that now um

02:29:53 now um uh we we've looked at quite a lot this morning but before we move on to the next topic risk assessment which i think flows from the capabilities that i've been asking you about we've already touched on and just reflect for a moment

02:30:05 touched on and just reflect for a moment on the structure of london resilience would you agree that the structures and arrangements were of labyrinthine complexity

02:30:14 i'd agree that they are complicated yes i think those practitioners in it understand it but i uh completely appreciate that to the lay person it is a complicated structure

02:30:27 a complicated structure and do you consider that each body has a clearly defined role and set of responsibilities so i think we have documents that lays out each constituent's parts roles and

02:30:38 out each constituent's parts roles and responsibilities that that are there and written i think alongside that there is a plethora of guidance that for people to get their head around which doesn't make

02:30:49 get their head around which doesn't make it clear

02:30:50 it clear was it your experience practical experience as at june 2017 that bodies and relevant individuals clearly understood their roles and the scape of their responsibilities within this architecture

02:31:02 architecture uh

02:31:03 uh yes i think bodies did understand their their roles uh

02:31:09 uh because they lived and breathed it and and through all the structures that we have there was also so for the sub-regional tier for example associated to the the formal business

02:31:20 associated to the the formal business meeting in the afternoon was a workshop session in the morning which would take through uh and improve the the understanding of any one of these capabilities so on a cyclical basis over a period of years we would approach a

02:31:32 a period of years we would approach a number of these topics so that there was local familiarity with the the topic and the understanding of the roles and responsibilities laid out within them did any of the prior experiences so far as there were any uh involving a london

02:31:45 as there were any uh involving a london resilience response um prompt any reflection on whether this network of structures of what some might regard as byzantine intricacy

02:31:56 regard as byzantine intricacy was

02:31:57 was necessarily conducive to giving full effect

02:32:00 effect to the cca um

02:32:07 so we we were constantly as you could see through the the two diagrams i think that the the green color diagram that you brought up at the end with the square boxes which laid out the the structure of the the forum is a lot

02:32:19 structure of the the forum is a lot easier to understand under the previous uh purple blob so so we're continually looking to refine our processes um the roles of a local resilience forum are are actually quite

02:32:30 are are actually quite uh discrete they're laid out in the the the guidance through the role of resilience forum to compile the risk register to have a systematic program of work in regard to the duties which is this systematic

02:32:42 the duties which is this systematic program here and to support a coordinated program of training and exercising for partners in those multi-agency elements the difficulty comes in the additional

02:32:53 difficulty comes in the additional expectations that are placed upon a local resilience form which are ill-defined or hidden through a raft of guidance uh that then further confuse right

02:33:05 right let's continue then i want next to look at plans policies and procedures and first with looking at risk assessment um now in your second witness statement paragraph 43 page 14

02:33:17 paragraph 43 page 14 we can just go to that you provide us with an overview of the london resilient resilience risk assessment process and a group known as the london risk advisory group or elrag

02:33:29 the london risk advisory group or elrag and you say that their role is to produce and update the london risk register lrr following the conduct of risk assessments and the collation of relevant data the lr or lrag if you don't mind using that itself is a group

02:33:41 don't mind using that itself is a group which consists of members from a number of responders for example police utilities local authorities etc which will each own the risks within their remit the lead agency for a given risk will prob will be primarily responsible

02:33:53 will prob will be primarily responsible for reviewing it are you right to understand that this group the lrag is made up of category 1 and category 2 responders that's correct right did it include any other organizations such as the dclg

02:34:05 organizations such as the dclg uh yes dclg are present and members of that group they are and what is the relationship between lrag and the statutory responsibility of category one responders

02:34:17 responders how do they how does lrag help so so elrag is part of that lrf role to

02:34:25 to jointly compile a community risk register so this is the group that will review the risks on a periodic basis over a two-year rolling policy so all of the risks

02:34:37 all of the risks derive from the national risk register and the local risk assessment guidance provided by the cabinet office so they will review those scores uh apply uh kind of the london context

02:34:48 uh kind of the london context and then produce the london risk register as a result and you mentioned utilities there there they are category two responders aren't they they are yes and that's how they they feed into lrag um now you go on to say

02:35:01 feed into lrag um now you go on to say as i've shown you that they will own the risks within their remit and there's a lead agency for a given risk which is primarily responsible for owning it

02:35:10 owning it um

02:35:13 is that different from capabilities that we saw

02:35:18 we saw yes so so the process is risk assessment planning assumption or contextualization risk assessment planning assumption and then all of that information derives what capabilities you therefore need

02:35:29 what capabilities you therefore need so the outcomes of all the risks derive what capabilities we need to be able to respond as a collective as the resilience partnership to any any one risk i see so just help me is the

02:35:42 one risk i see so just help me is the capabilities document the one with the blue columns and the lilac bands the product of the work of elrag

02:35:50 not not directly it's the product of the work of the forum lrag is is one of those feeding uh pieces of information which informs it right i see

02:36:02 it right i see then let's let's look at um the rest register you describe elrag as as a working group um let's go to paragraph 45 where you say say what you well i'm what i'm

02:36:14 say say what you well i'm what i'm putting to you uh please page 15 you say the development of the rr at the lr

02:36:22 at the lr involves a collective approach to risk management with all relevant agencies including representatives from local authorities within the six sub-regional resilience areas being able to recommend risks for consideration and

02:36:34 to recommend risks for consideration and also to play a role in scoring the risk which are deemed applicable to london this process is coordinated by the lrag which is a working group for which lrg provides the secretariat

02:36:46 provides the secretariat um

02:36:48 um now just to be clear is it right that the

02:36:50 the the london risk register the lrr

02:36:54 the lrr um is developed in line with the national risk register that's correct and that's produced by the cabinet office that's correct it's civil contingencies secretariat i think yes yes that's correct yeah and that's

02:37:06 yes yes that's correct yeah and that's essentially is it a list of risks identifiable which then provides a springboard for planning that's correct right

02:37:13 right now um

02:37:14 now um let's dive into that then lfb triple zero 61165

02:37:20 and what i'm showing you here is

02:37:25 is yes the london risk register as of february 2017 this is version 5.4 as you can see from the bottom left hand corner of your screen and it it

02:37:36 and it it it carries the badge of the london resilience partnership now just to recap before i ask my question the london resilience programme board is this right tell me if any of this is

02:37:47 this right tell me if any of this is wrong the london resilience programme board oversees the work of the london resilience advisory group lrag and that's which is responsible for producing and updating the london risk

02:37:58 producing and updating the london risk register that's correct right um and the london resilience program board

02:38:04 board uh if well if we go to um

02:38:07 um [Music]

02:38:09 [Music] well we've seen it we've seen it in the diagram it's probably easiest to ask you the london resilience program board feeds into the london resilience forum so is that is that why the london risk register is produced under the london

02:38:20 register is produced under the london resilience partnership banner yeah so all of our documents took a a similar look and feel to them under the auspices of the london resilience partnership

02:38:31 of the london resilience partnership right so it it it's there's no is it right there's no real significance in it saying london resilience partnership as opposed to london resilience forum no right

02:38:40 right um now um you if we go back to your second witness statement please which we were looking at a moment ago and stick with power at page 15 look at paragraph 47 if we can have that in full on your

02:38:51 47 if we can have that in full on your screen it says the lrr does not constitute an exhaustive list of every individual and specific incident which could possibly occur it would simply not be it would simply not be possible to list

02:39:03 would simply not be possible to list ever each and every potential risk instead the lr offers an overview of the principal risks which may affect london as a whole and which is based on the work of the lrag in analyzing historical and scientific data considering the

02:39:15 and scientific data considering the national guidance and determining whether a particular risk ought to be included

02:39:20 included now going back if we can to the london risk register we were just looking at please lfb triple zero 61165 can i ask you to go to page 13 in that document

02:39:31 document and go

02:39:32 and go to

02:39:34 to the

02:39:35 the um the top of it it says

02:39:40 severe space weather and that's defined uh disruption to coastal electrical substations and you've got red

02:39:51 and you've got red identified as very high risk and then underneath that severe wildfires forest or merlin fire london fire brigade

02:40:00 brigade forest or moorland fire across up to 1500 hectares over a period of seven to ten days evacuation of between one hundred and three thousand homes up to ten

02:40:11 three thousand homes up to ten fatalities and one hundred casualties and the risk is level low green

02:40:17 low green now

02:40:19 now we've looked through this document that's the closest thing to um a fire risk we've been able to find is it right that a high-rise or urban tower block fire is not listed that's correct right

02:40:30 correct right do you know why that was so it wasn't contained as a risk uh in the national risk register or the local risk assessment guidance that was was provided to us as an applicable risk nor

02:40:42 provided to us as an applicable risk nor was it raised by any one of the agencies uh as a member of elrag as a risk that they considered requiring right a london wide approach now at this point

02:40:54 at this point which is february 2017 [Music]

02:40:58 [Music] can you help us then

02:41:02 were you aware yourself that there had been

02:41:05 been at least two major fires in tower blocks in london since 2009 i mean one could name many more than this but there was lachlan in july 2009 and a dare tower in october 2015

02:41:19 and a dare tower in october 2015 do you know whether any consideration was given to tower block fires in light of those experiences when revising this document in february 2017.

02:41:31 february 2017. uh

02:41:32 uh not specifically at that time though uh it wasn't brought to the attention of the group that there was a requirement uh

02:41:40 uh in response to either those fights now um

02:41:43 um if we go to page 23 and we'll come back to that question shortly but if we come go to page 23 in the document second row from the bottom uh

02:41:54 uh this has building collapse in it you see that hl

02:42:02 uh 22 sorry hl105 complex built environments there are two there are two entries there hl105 complex built environments a consequence of a major incident

02:42:13 consequence of a major incident affecting large buildings straight complex built environments incidents in these facilities have the potential to trigger a complex chain of events that lead to serious consequences for public and you could see the statutes on the

02:42:24 and you could see the statutes on the right hand side health and safety at work act and the regulations fire and rescue services act 2004 and guidance pursuant to the rro and then two down from that local

02:42:35 and then two down from that local building safety systems and practices uh uh you see that um now um you you've um you've graded that as yellow as medium

02:42:48 yellow as medium uh now behind that entry um if we go please to your second statement

02:42:59 you can see how you describe this

02:43:04 if you go please to paragraph 48 you say

02:43:11 you say prior to the grenfell tower fire there was no specific entry on the nrr or lr for urban or tower blocked fires there is a general risk which would be applicable to such a situation headed hl

02:43:22 applicable to such a situation headed hl 105 complex built environments this relates to specific issues associated with a major incident affecting large buildings or complex built environments etc and you quoting there essentially

02:43:34 etc and you quoting there essentially from what i've just read to you there is deemed to be a medium risk of such an event occurring in london

02:43:40 now if you then go to what lies behind that you've provided some more detail if you go please to lfb

02:43:54 uh yeah lfb double zero double one nine one three two

02:44:07 um this is

02:44:09 this is well just help me what is this document uh so this is the individual risk assessment so every line that you see in the overarching risk register has a wealth of detail behind it as you can

02:44:22 wealth of detail behind it as you can see here with the hazard outcome description um subcategories uh uh and uh historical information relating to it and the times at which it was reviewed so

02:44:33 reviewed so so to be clear for everybody this is the underlying granular risk data comprising the assessment which we see at hl105 that's correct right then if we go please to

02:44:47 then if we go please to page

02:44:52 two

02:44:56 you can see fire as as one of the risks

02:45:03 and then if you go to page three

02:45:11 you can see his key historical evidence which

02:45:17 which runs in reverse chronological order from

02:45:21 from january 1971 the fire in glasgow when the barriers at ibrox collapsed uh uh

02:45:31 uh uh to 10th of february 2006 uh when there was um a riot so it appears at the the midnight opening of a new ikea furniture

02:45:42 midnight opening of a new ikea furniture superstore in edmonton uh

02:45:46 uh there's no reference there to any major london fire is there

02:45:52 no it's probably the closest applicable risk rather than being a directly applicable risk i think that the complex urban environment was supposed to be related to a public space

02:46:03 supposed to be related to a public space as opposed to any residential dwelling yes

02:46:07 yes right

02:46:09 right but if you get back to page two you can see what the complex built environment includes

02:46:15 includes the very top of the screen sports stadia city or town center complexes large educational establishments etc etc um nothing there about dense housing or

02:46:26 um nothing there about dense housing or town or residential tower blocks is there no

02:46:29 there no no why is that

02:46:33 because the guidance given to us at the time either through the the national risk register and its associated local risk assessment guidance or anything provided by any of the individual agencies considering uh

02:46:45 considering uh risks pertinent to them that they need to draw to the attention of multi-agency partners uh never brought that around there was there was a a sense of uh

02:46:54 uh the building regulation standards that we've heard already in evidence uh

02:47:00 uh being sufficient to a ward against all mitigator against fires of that nature is that right so it's on that answer is it right that the london resilience group's view those compiling this risk

02:47:12 group's view those compiling this risk register was that the building regulations were sufficiently robust that ate

02:47:18 that ate a um

02:47:21 a um an emergency within the civil contingencies act would not need to be contemplated where it arose from a tower block fire it was simply

02:47:31 simply not not necessary to consider it so not necessarily london resilience groups view we're not the uh only ones who contribute to this but there was no

02:47:42 who contribute to this but there was no uh

02:47:43 uh guidance or a direction given to us as the secretariat and and managers of the the local uh risk advisory group to produce the london risk register of that

02:47:54 produce the london risk register of that type of risk occurring but london's a built up area yes yes and it has a high concentration of high-rise buildings and tower blocks yes and many of those high-rise buildings are residential aren't they yes yes

02:48:06 are residential aren't they yes yes and a fire occurring in such a building was always going to pose surely a risk of some kind yes yes

02:48:13 yes and the chance of an urban fire or a tower block fire it was much more likely in london than for example a wildfire no yes yes so how can you account for um

02:48:24 yes yes so how can you account for um the fact that a tower block fire given everything you've just accepted was omitted from this this document

02:48:33 because again it was never raised by any of the individual agencies who appreciated it as a risk factor that they could generate

02:48:41 generate into this collective risk register at any stage it was never raised by somebody to bring it to to the attention of a collective nor was it contained within the

02:48:53 nor was it contained within the risk assessment guidance given by central government it now has been that's been reflected in the 2019 version standing right back i think you would agree that the

02:49:04 agree that the the cca 2004 regulations say that the duty to assess the risk of an emergency occurring

02:49:11 occurring by category one responder or on the part of the category one responder was in relation to an emergency which affects or may affects the area in which the functions of the general category one responder are exercisable yes yes yes

02:49:25 exercisable yes yes yes uh

02:49:25 uh and therefore do you accept or is that it must have been the case that um after the latino house fire in southwark in 2009

02:49:36 southwark in 2009 southwark

02:49:37 southwark uh as a category one responder uh should have been feeding that risk into this process

02:49:43 process if the architecture was to to run as planned yes and similarly uh uh rbkc after the adair fire in october 2015. yes yes i'm

02:49:54 fire in october 2015. yes yes i'm has any thought ever been given to why that didn't happen no

02:50:00 no i mean did was it was it known to uh chief executives of local authorities such as those in the position of nicholas holgate that they had to consider uh things like tower block fires in

02:50:12 uh things like tower block fires in their area and feed them into the risk assessment as when it was updated so i don't know if it was it was known to them as you've laid out there was a duty on the category one responders to to

02:50:23 to assess the risks that are applicable to them and and to raise them so that we have a uh coordinated risk register for for the entirety of london i i don't know whether they knew that themselves

02:50:34 know whether they knew that themselves in person right now high-rise residential blocks are not limited to rbkc or southwark of course are they they are fairly widespread across london some more densely than others in certain boroughs but is it to your knowledge was

02:50:46 boroughs but is it to your knowledge was it the case that at no stage any of these 33 london boroughs being category 1 responders fed the risk of a tower block fire into

02:50:57 into the london local resilience risk assessment i can't recall a time when that was ever raised to us right

02:51:06 or raised to the group sorry

02:51:11 now this document i think was updated in june 2019 wasn't it yes yes let's look at that

02:51:22 so so the which document do you mean the the

02:51:25 the risk register you're quite right let me put let me put the document to you um can we go to nfb double zero double one nine one three two

02:51:41 uh now

02:51:45 this is version 2.3

02:51:54 if you go please

02:51:58 go please to

02:52:02 uh

02:52:06 i'm sorry i need another document actually i think we need lfb double zero double one nine one three five

02:52:16 um we we can compare the key historical evidence that i've just shown you running to february 2006 with

02:52:28 what's coming up next and if

02:52:38 this is a spreadsheet

02:52:48 lfe double zero double one nine one three five

02:52:55 this is your exhibit 35 mr heatherington say it ought to be familiar to you

02:53:22 yes thank you if we can have that expanded

02:53:26 expanded now you can see that and this dot this document was updated uh in june 2019 and you can see

02:53:37 and you can see that if you go to

02:53:40 to if you scroll down

02:53:49 no scroll back up again to the keep the key historical evidence and relevant information there on the screen about two-thirds of the way down the block of text you can see that there are

02:54:02 that there are two fires in two files overseas you've got the 25th of march 2018 camarova shopping center fire russia fire engulfed the upper floors of the winter cherry shopping mall an

02:54:13 winter cherry shopping mall an entertainment complex killing at least 64 people

02:54:16 64 people 41 of which were children and then an incident two years before that oh 18 months before that in pakistan the khalid plaza shopping malfire in december 2014 13 killed when

02:54:28 december 2014 13 killed when short-circuited a shop sparked a fire in a three-story shopping center but no reference to the grenfell tower fire

02:54:38 fire when this was reviewed and updated in june 2019 no so i think by june 2019 we were aware of revisions to the uh national risk register and the

02:54:49 national risk register and the associated local risk assessment guidance which was due to include a major urban fire incorporating a towel block fire and as we saw earlier that the the outcome descriptive to this

02:55:00 that the the outcome descriptive to this was a public building as opposed to a residential building so i think it's probably an administrative function to to keep those two risks separate uh in the knowledge that a new risk was coming in uh to to provide

02:55:12 risk was coming in uh to to provide better descriptor to a urban tower fire right so are you saying that that um risk hl 105 which is what this information went to was was was public buildings and a new risk was coming in

02:55:24 buildings and a new risk was coming in for tower blocks that's right which is why there was no reference to the grenfell tower hit fire here that's right

02:55:30 right um i see um now the london borough of hammersmith and fulham modeled a training exercise other witnesses have referred to called exercise babel on the risk of a tower block fire and that exercise took place on the 6th

02:55:41 and that exercise took place on the 6th of november 2015 only a week or so after the adair tower fire in rbkc were you aware of that exercise at the time no i wasn't you were at deputy head of emergency planning at lfb did you not

02:55:53 emergency planning at lfb did you not were you not told about that exercise or exercises like it not personally i can't remember that exercise did you keep tabs on what training was being done um by individual local authorities

02:56:04 um by individual local authorities uh

02:56:05 uh not specifically to any granular detail what we

02:56:09 what we did provide is through the sub-regional resilience for a members update so each borough resilience forwards had the ability to share information about its current

02:56:20 share information about its current work program training and exercising and recent incidents so that they were able to share experience with other members of that sub-regional resilience forum so we would publish that so we would that was a form that we would circulate

02:56:33 that was a form that we would circulate to them before the meeting up three four weeks before the meeting they would fill it in we would compile it and then it would be part of the discussion and the information sharing practice um i've

02:56:44 information sharing practice um i've looked back over records and the idea fire was not raised at a sub-regional resilience forum in order to share information with other parties should it have been yes yes um do you do you accept

02:56:55 accept uh that the risk of a high rise or urban tower block fire should have been included as a separate entry on the london risk register before june 2017 uh completely now no knowing the um

02:57:07 uh completely now no knowing the um information that we have yeah and the absence of it was a serious failing

02:57:16 yes in in hindsight a serious failing that the the kind of information that we were given at the time through uh tentative probing was that always that uh and i think you heard this through evidence that was read in to

02:57:28 through evidence that was read in to peter holland when he asked about a serious fire in another country would that ever happen in the uk and he was told that no because of the strong building regulations that we have in place that wouldn't happen in in the uk

02:57:40 place that wouldn't happen in in the uk and that was always uh that the kind of mentality that was held erroneously now looking back absolutely now peter holland was the cr as the chief fire and rescue

02:57:51 was the cr as the chief fire and rescue advisers the cfra from 2013. uh did you did you in your role do you have dealings with him uh no i'm just aware of that comment through having seen previous uh evidence

02:58:03 through having seen previous uh evidence right i see so but are you telling us that the the lrg and in general perhaps you in particular were of the view that it was not necessary to include a

02:58:16 that it was not necessary to include a tower block fire or a cladding fire in particular as a risk because you coincidentally perhaps shared the same view as peter holland or the shame same view

02:58:27 view as others perhaps within the dc lg that it couldn't happen here i think we were afforded the same interpretation by other experts of it and nor was it raised to us as uh

02:58:39 as uh so we as lrg are not solely responsible that's that's the point of the coalition of the

02:58:45 of the london resilience forum that partners work collaboratively together to jointly assess the risk and that's why all of the category one responders feed into this it is not solely our view or

02:58:56 this it is not solely our view or anything else we provide the administrative support and direction behind them did anybody from the dclg ever give you or your colleagues on the lrg any reason to think

02:59:08 lrg any reason to think that a major tower block fire as a result of the presence of combustible material in the in the cladding structure

02:59:16 structure was not a risk you needed to consider

02:59:24 so just i just wish is there a double negative i'm sorry yes did they ever give us indication that it was a risk no i don't ever remember did they no

02:59:35 remember did they no explicitly say that it wasn't uh no again either i don't think it was ever formally raised in any shape or form there were probably informal discussions around it but there

02:59:47 informal discussions around it but there was always that belief of of the building regulations in the uk uh would ward against it but my question was

02:59:55 was an express one did anybody from the dhdclg ever give you or your colleagues on the llg any reason to think that a major tower block fire as a result of the presence of combustible materials in the cladding structure

03:00:08 materials in the cladding structure did not present a risk that you needed to consider for the purposes of the lrr no

03:00:15 no right

03:00:19 mr chairman i've got one or two further questions on this before a natural break could you complete them in five minutes easily

03:00:26 easily you should carry on then um thank you can i ask you then to go to lfb double09142

03:00:36 this is your exhibit 39

03:00:43 uh this is the london risk register and planning assumptions february 2020 and if you go please to

03:00:53 to the top of page two point two

03:00:58 point two uh new risks in the nsra 2019 you say in addition to it it says in addition to 27 new threats to be assessed mps led the second one is major fire r54 lfb

03:01:13 the second one is major fire r54 lfb and now in your second witness statement you say that the lfb is a late and this is paragraph 53 on page 17. i don't think there's a need to go to it but you say that the lead the lfb is the lead agency in relation to the risk of a

03:01:24 agency in relation to the risk of a major fire but the the ongoing response to covid19 has caused a delay in the implementation of the new risk assessment guidelines is that right that's correct and has that now been

03:01:35 that's correct and has that now been completed you know uh yes sir the the new risk register was published uh incorporating this in february 2029. but the grenfell tower fire occurred in 2017 the pandemic took hold in the first

03:01:47 the pandemic took hold in the first quarter of 2020 uh almost three years later so in the three or two and a half perhaps years between these two events

03:01:58 years between these two events um

03:01:59 um why did it take so long for an urban or tower block fire to be added to the london risk register because we were following the the guidance under the national security risk assessment so that was published

03:02:10 risk assessment so that was published fairly soon after in 2017 so it would have probably already been in draft at the time of the fire and

03:02:17 and then we were made aware that there would be new methodology coming in with the the new risks brought in so we were uh awaiting that guidance to to as to how we implemented that and added it into

03:02:29 we implemented that and added it into our risk assessment right and as part of your consideration of timing did you have regard to the requirement of the civil contingencies act uh on

03:02:37 on category one responders to update the risk assessment quotes from time to time on quotes

03:02:43 on quotes yes you did and what did you think that meant from time to time so we we had a a a systematic approach to all of the risks that we had available through the local risk

03:02:54 available through the local risk assessment guidance or raised by any of the one category one responders into a policy they were reviewed on a two-year basis so uh four meetings a year of the

03:03:05 four meetings a year of the london risk advisory group and they chunk down uh 15 or so risks at each time that that lead agency responsible for the

03:03:16 kind of indicative risk scoring would be brought and presented to the risk advisory group the group would agree those scorings if there was a deviation from the national guidance and that would formulate the london risk

03:03:29 and that would formulate the london risk register what we did what we didn't want to do is make up a a risk that then sat out with the the national guidance we were expecting this guidance to come to work there were indications that there

03:03:40 work there were indications that there would be a change and an introduction of a major fire risk in light of uh grenfell and other instances uh into the london risk the local risk assessment guidance uh

03:03:51 guidance uh which which provides a kind of accompanying guidance to the national security risk assessment yes i see thank you mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes thank you very much well this heather includes time we

03:04:02 much well this heather includes time we had a break get some lunch so we'll stop there we'll resume please at five past two

03:04:07 two and while you're out of the room please take care not to discuss your evidence or anything to do with it with anyone else

03:04:14 else thank you very much

03:04:23 thank you mr millet five past two please