BBC Sounds, Music, Radio, podcasts.

Hello and welcome to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry podcast with me, Kate Lamble.

This week, the inquiry restarted after its summer break,

and following more than a year of COVID-related closures and restrictions,

it's reopened its doors to any bereaved and survivors

or any members of the public who'd like to attend the hearings in person.

And so we look forward to hearing and seeing those who may want to come and hear what we're doing

over the next few days and weeks.

Before the pandemic, the inquiry room was constantly crammed with rows and rows of lawyers

representing all of the core participants.

But restrictions remain on how many of them can attend, which means at the moment

space still feels cavernous and empty.

However, it does mean we've been able to get back on the media desk to watch evidence from one of the inquiry's expert witnesses, Barbara Lane.

And during Barbara Lane's evidence, she told the inquiry, the fire risk assessor at Grenfell Tower exhibited professionally reckless behaviour.

And she thought the fire risk assessments for the building were not suitable and

sufficient, the legal requirement, in at least six different ways. Let's get started with the

evidence then. Barbara Lane is a specialist in fire engineering at Arup, a company which

works on building design, planning and construction. She's been giving expert evidence to the

inquiry since 2018,

and you can hear that in episode 17, 99 and 133 of this podcast. This week, though, she was

giving her expert view on the fire risk assessments carried out for Grenfell Tower in the years

leading up to the fire. And listening to the evidence,

...