Testimony from Brian Martin (former DETR Building Regulations official) about the Garnock Court fire investigation, suppressed BRE reports, Class 0 confusion, and failures to act on combustible cladding warnings.
00:00:18 would you ask dr smith to come back in please
00:00:31 all right dr smith well we'll see if there's any more questions for you shall we thank you yes mr millet yes mr chairman thank you just one short run of questions for you dr smith uh now um in his evidence on day 96 when he came
00:00:45 in his evidence on day 96 when he came to assist the inquiry phil clark told us and i'm summarizing his evidence at day 96 pages 104-115 that he was given unsupervised
00:00:56 104-115 that he was given unsupervised access to the bre files for some three days in order to allow him to prepare his witness statement for the inquiry after a time when his employment at the bre had ceased
00:01:08 bre had ceased uh and he and i'm summarizing he told us that he had obtained access to the celetex hardcopy file and the electronic systems
00:01:16 systems namely the s drive the v drive and anvil among others i think and believed that the searches hadn't retrieved everything now he said that you were the one who afforded him access to those documents is that right
00:01:27 is that right um
00:01:29 um we did arrange yes and phil clark did come to sight however he didn't have unrestricted access to the electronic files the it team retrieved
00:01:40 electronic files the it team retrieved the files and copied them into the
00:01:44 into the you know a new area on the electronic system so
00:01:49 so he wasn't accessing the like originals if you like they were copies i see and who supervised the i.t team retrieving the files and
00:02:00 the i.t team retrieving the files and copying them um
00:02:04 well the it director at the time and where were the hard copy files where were they kept well they were kept on the system oh sorry the hard copy files um so the hard copy files were kept in secure
00:02:16 hard copy files were kept in secure filing cabinets um
00:02:19 um within a different area of the um
00:02:24 to where he was sitting yes and did
00:02:29 and did phil clark have access was he afforded access to the hardcopy files um
00:02:35 um he
00:02:36 he he would have seen yes he would have seen some of the hard copy files was he afforded unsupervised access to the hard copy file um
00:02:46 file um no it wasn't unsupervised access he was in an office that was an empty office with a desk chair and
00:02:54 and [Music]
00:02:55 [Music] a desktop computer that was
00:03:00 that was where so you can access the electronic files
00:03:03 files i think he also had a video recorder so that he could watch
00:03:08 watch although the video files were probably on usb sticks actually that he could watch on the on the computer as well and
00:03:16 and at all times he was um when he was in that office there were people that were on site and stationed outside of the office it was on the top floor which was
00:03:28 office it was on the top floor which was the management floor in bre
00:03:32 in bre um and he was um escorted to to lunch and and so on and so forth i mean he wasn't he wasn't given free free
00:03:43 mean he wasn't he wasn't given free free reign and free access to come and go as he pleased or or or any such thing how was he afforded access to the hard copy files um i think did he go to the cupboard and pull them out no he didn't go and help
00:03:55 pull them out no he didn't go and help no no they were remote from where he was so um so how did he access the hard copy file so they would have been um requested and then they would have been retrieved by an administrator or the
00:04:08 retrieved by an administrator or the other person that was involved in supervising him was angela richards who was a very senior administrator involved with the compliance and quality team
00:04:20 compliance and quality team and during phil clark's physical possession of any hard copy files was he at all times accompanied and supervised by somebody from the bre
00:04:32 and supervised by somebody from the bre he was supervised insofar as people were were there but whether whether they were sat there
00:04:38 sat there watching him you know i i can't i don't know i don't know whether that they would have been sat there sort of watching him every you know every move that he he made
00:04:49 know every move that he he made right were you aware that he obtained and reviewed the celetex hard copy test file
00:04:54 file um i don't know specifically which files he did
00:04:58 he did request
00:04:59 request and and review i mean obviously he had to um
00:05:03 to um access the necessary materials in order to
00:05:07 to you know to prepare and respond to his witness statement did you discuss the celetex test file or any other hard copy all the electronic files with him um not at that time no at that time
00:05:20 um not at that time no at that time being the three days he was afforded access yes correct right
00:05:25 right what safeguards were put in place to ensure the integrity of the files he was given access to start with hard copy
00:05:35 what safeguards were put in place to ensure the integrity of the hard copy files to which he was afforded access um could you please explain what you mean
00:05:46 could you please explain what you mean yeah um what uh what um system was put in place to make sure that phil clark didn't take things out of the hard copy files and destroy them to be blunt um
00:05:58 to be blunt um well i don't know how he could possibly have done that anyway because i say he was in a room with nothing in there other than a desk and and a chair
00:06:10 and a chair where was he when he had access to the physical hard copy files in that room so they were brought to him where they yes and and then those files having been brought to him and put on the desk one assumes the desk
00:06:22 and put on the desk one assumes the desk yes what safeguards have put in place to make sure that what was brought to him uh remained uh
00:06:30 uh intact
00:06:31 intact so that what was taken away was the same well he
00:06:35 well he he was in that room for all of the time and when he had finished with the files they were retrieved from him and um and returned
00:06:44 returned so when when he was in that room for all of the time with the files what safeguards did the bre put in place to make sure that the integrity of the files their completeness
00:06:56 files their completeness as they had been brought to him remained intact other than somebody being stationed there and
00:07:04 there and um ensuring that he remained in the room with the files i mean that that's that was the nature of um i think the point mr millet is inviting you to consider is this what was there to
00:07:16 consider is this what was there to prevent phil clark from taking a piece of paper out of the file and slipping it into his pocket
00:07:28 well insofar as nobody sat there and actually
00:07:31 actually watched him 100 of the time um i can't you know i can't comment on that you know that wasn't nobody sat there and watched him 100 of
00:07:42 nobody sat there and watched him 100 of the time right and was the hard copy file not checked before he had access to it and then reviewed again afterwards to make sure it was the same as well they were certainly reviewed um in the course of other people preparing their witness
00:07:55 of other people preparing their witness statements ahead of phil clark using them why did you allow him unsupervised access to the test records of a test that was to be examined as
00:08:06 of a test that was to be examined as part of the inquiry after such time as he ceased to be an employee of the bre well i say it was done under restricted conditions and we had no reason to believe that he would
00:08:17 believe that he would act in the way that you're suggesting yes thank you very much um dr smith those are all the prepared questions i have for you other than one and it's a question we sometimes ask
00:08:28 and it's a question we sometimes ask witnesses of a particular status or stature in this inquiry and it's this you've sat there patiently answering my questions now for the best part of a week looking back on
00:08:39 looking back on all of the material we've covered and looking back on your whole time at the bre
00:08:44 bre is there anything in light of the grenfell tower fire that you sitting there now on reflection would have done differently um
00:08:55 um i think i'd like to further reflect on that and rather than just sort of make some off the cuff remarks here and now if i may it has been quite tiring and a
00:09:06 if i may it has been quite tiring and a long um a long process so i would prefer to reflect on that and um well i think maybe make a submission later i don't think a submission
00:09:17 later i don't think a submission will answer my question i would like to have your reflected your reflections even though they may be off the cuff on oath in public now please
00:09:28 on oath in public now please um
00:09:29 um well
00:09:34 i i really i'm not prepared i i haven't prepared an answer to that and i'm i just feel sort of exhausted by this process and i
00:09:46 sort of exhausted by this process and i don't feel that that's that i can really um directly answer you right now very well
00:09:53 very well well it remains for me to thank you very much dr smith for coming to the inquiry and assisting with your your evidence it's been extremely helpful to us in our investigations so on behalf of my entire team thank you very much thank you and
00:10:05 team thank you very much thank you and dr smith it's uh right that i should thank you as well on behalf of all the members of the panel we learn a lot from hearing from particularly from senior people in organizations about what happened
00:10:17 organizations about what happened and it's very helpful to us to have your evidence so we really are very grateful to you for coming along i'm sorry that it has gone on a long time and i'm sure it must have been tiring and at times difficult but um you
00:10:29 tiring and at times difficult but um you should rest assured that we have found it very useful thank you very much indeed
00:10:33 indeed thank you all right thank you very much and now you're free to go of course thank you
00:10:50 right just a minute no i think we have uh another witness to come do we not we do uh we do
00:10:57 uh we do but i'm going to ask you to rise if i may yes for the usual reason too yes for these reasons well
00:11:04 well um we'll rise just for a moment and perhaps you'd ask the usher to come and fetch us
00:11:08 fetch us yes thank you very much absolutely
00:19:22 yes mr thank you uh i now call mr anthony bird please
00:19:28 please thank you
00:19:35 good afternoon mr bird sir i understand you're going to affirm i am sir well the words should be there on the screen in front of you would you read them out please i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm
00:19:47 sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much would you like to sit down and make yourself comfortable thank you
00:19:59 yes yes thank you mr chairman mr bird good afternoon good night can i start by thanking you very much for attending the public inquiry here and giving us your evidence we're very much grateful to you
00:20:10 evidence we're very much grateful to you for assisting us in our investigations if you have any difficulty understanding my questions uh or the way i phrase them then i can ask the question again or put it in a different way just please just say
00:20:22 different way just please just say we will take in the normal way scheduled breaks during the course of your evidence this afternoon and mid-morning on monday uh but if you need a break at any other time please just let us know
00:20:33 any other time please just let us know thank you can i ask you please to keep your voice up so that the transcriber who sits to your right can get down everything you're saying a nod or a shake of the head doesn't work you have to say yes or no as the
00:20:45 work you have to say yes or no as the case may be if that is your evidence now you've provided your uh the inquiry with one witness statement with us which is at clg3019461
00:20:56 it's dated the 23rd of november 2018. can we please have that up on the screen clg 3019461
00:21:07 is that the first page of your statement yes it is can we please go to page 75.
00:21:16 there's a signature there above the date 23rd november 2018. is that your signature yes it is have you read this witness statement recently i have and can you confirm that its contents are true
00:21:26 true i can and and have you discussed your witness statement or the evidence that you're going to give today with anybody before coming here only my legal team yeah
00:21:34 yeah now you joined what was then i think the department for environment trade of the regions in may 1998 yes and you're you're at that time i think a senior fire safety professional yes yes that
00:21:46 fire safety professional yes yes that was your formal job title was it did you have any professional or scientific qualifications in relation to fire uh yes i did what were those so in addition to studying aspects of fire
00:21:58 addition to studying aspects of fire within my building surveying degree i also sat the entrance exams for full membership of the institution of fire engineers and what happened as a result of sitting those exams i became a full
00:22:09 of sitting those exams i became a full corporate member of the ife right and when was that
00:22:17 96 97 right forgive me you've asked specifically about fire i also have other building studies and related sort of certificates are they
00:22:28 related sort of certificates are they relevant or not oh yes i'd like yes i was coming on to those but please do tell us no so so i have a an ordinary national diploma in building studies i have a higher national certificate
00:22:40 i have a higher national certificate in building studies i have a bachelor of science degree in building surveying and i've mentioned already the institution of fire engineers but i also
00:22:52 institution of fire engineers but i also sat entrance exams for membership of the institute of building control and did you pass i did yes i did later becoming a fellow of the institute of
00:23:04 becoming a fellow of the institute of building control ibc that was subsumed into the rscs and i became a fellow of the rics making me a chartered surveyor
00:23:16 a chartered surveyor and i became a member of the association of building engineers at the time becoming thereafter a fellow of that association as well making me a chartered building engineer as well
00:23:33 thank you now um you i think were at uh you were the head of policy technical policy at what became mhclg from october 2007.
00:23:44 2007. yes and you stayed in that post until uh december 2013. what were your responsibilities in that role
00:23:52 role as head of technical policy i led a team of technical policy experts overseeing the different parts of the building regulations i was involved working with my team in
00:24:04 i was involved working with my team in terms of the letting of related research work supporting technical parts of the building regulations i would support ministers in providing briefings
00:24:15 ministers in providing briefings and supporting them in parliamentary questions etc i would also undertake and support the building regulations advisory committee as i was
00:24:26 as i was in my capacity header technical policy supporting brack as the building regulations advisory committee and i attended forums and similar offering speaking engagements
00:24:38 offering speaking engagements for
00:24:40 for events in relation to related building regulations can we
00:24:44 can we um well does it follow from what you've just told us that you were in effect the most senior official below director level
00:24:53 level uh no within that department deputy director is is the head of building riggs division so right bob ledson was there so i was one below yes yeah and let's see if we
00:25:05 one below yes yeah and let's see if we can put that into a visual format can you please go to clg triple zero one nine four six two what i'm putting on the screen for you there is an organogram that you've referred to a paragraph nine of your statement
00:25:17 paragraph nine of your statement uh now it looks as if it's been printed in um
00:25:22 um if writ but i don't is it is there an english version of this or a clearer version of it i wonder if we could expand it
00:25:33 well it may not be possible is this the document that you exhibited to your statement i can't recollect i'm quite hard to tell
00:25:44 i can't recollect i'm quite hard to tell just a bit sir let's not spend but we may have to come back to that it's done something slightly surprising on its appearance um can we please um go
00:25:55 on its appearance um can we please um go to your statement at paragraph seven you set out some of your responsibilities there some of which you've told us about already if we go to the foot of page two of your statement
00:26:10 um
00:26:13 you say there that uh as head of technical policy uh
00:26:21 uh i was responsible for leading a team of officials civil servants on and then if you turn the page all technical aspects of building regulations in england including overseeing technical reviews of the
00:26:32 overseeing technical reviews of the statutory approved documents and any supporting guidance and their publication and dissemination now after you left the department i think you moved then to the bsi i did
00:26:43 think you moved then to the bsi i did yes are you still working at the ps4 and in your statement i think you referred to your appointment to brac as you told us ending in at the end of 2018. is that was that right i am still
00:26:55 2018. is that was that right i am still a member of brac um that was ex i i joined it in 2015 right and i've been my period has been extended
00:27:05 extended i see
00:27:06 i see now i'm going to focus i think on a number of specific topics during the course of your evidence and i'll tell you what those are first is contract cc 1924 then second the radar research thirdly
00:27:18 then second the radar research thirdly the revision of approved document be leading to the publication of the 2006 edition in april 2007 and finally the fire at lacanal in 2009
00:27:29 fire at lacanal in 2009 and related matters i'm going to begin then with contract cc 1924 and the garnet caught fire do you recall the fire that took place in a building called garnet court in irvine on the 11th of june 1999. yes
00:27:42 in irvine on the 11th of june 1999. yes i do you do were you aware of the circumstances of that fire at the time yes i was would you agree that in the history of fire events in the united kingdom that fire was a major fire event
00:27:53 kingdom that fire was a major fire event yes
00:27:54 yes now this was a local authority block of flats isn't it which had been refurbished in this case in 1991 in fact the same year as the fire at nosley heights uh in liverpool yes yes and it had been
00:28:07 uh in liverpool yes yes and it had been clad in
00:28:08 clad in grp glass reinforced plastic panels yes yes
00:28:12 yes were you aware of that fact at the time of the irvine fire in 1999
00:28:23 no i don't believe i was it was through my involvement with
00:28:29 with the select committee and the run-up to the select committee that i started to read information further about the the nolsley heights fire right and that
00:28:40 the nolsley heights fire right and that um
00:28:41 um well the select committee was was in the summer of 1999. yeah yes it was hearings were the hearings were but as part of my involvement in preparation for that
00:28:52 my involvement in preparation for that that's when i i first learned about knowlesley heights did you know anything it by let's say mid 1999 the date of the garnet caught fire about grp panels which were used to cloud garnet cord
00:29:05 which were used to cloud garnet cord no
00:29:07 no did you recognize at the time that grp panels were combustible i would have known that yes yes now after the garnet caught fire so far as we are aware the bre investigated and
00:29:19 we are aware the bre investigated and produced three reports into the garnet court fire i'll just i'll show you what they are on the screen
00:29:26 screen um the first is bre 303537
00:29:36 and i think we need page two for that please this is um entitled fire at garnet court irvine on 11th june 1999 prepared for north ayrshire council
00:29:47 north ayrshire council uh and dated august 1999. you see that yes uh and signed by nigel smith smithers on behalf of the bre
00:29:57 is that a document that you saw at the time do you think
00:30:02 i i believe my then
00:30:06 boss the principal fire safety professional tony edwards to whom i worked to it would have been provided to tony and he would have shared it with me right thank you can we then go to bre triple zero three five
00:30:20 then go to bre triple zero three five three seven seven page 22. so same document page 22 and this is a further report for north asia council dated
00:30:32 report for north asia council dated april 2000 uh into the garnet caught fire uh and again is that a document that you saw at the time i don't believe so
00:30:43 the time i don't believe so and then finally bre triple zero three five three seven five
00:30:51 this is the detr project report prepared for you dated august 2000 you see that yes i do and
00:31:02 you see that yes i do and if you go to page two you can see uh that again it says prepared for you yes by penny morgan at
00:31:11 at the fire safety engineering center at the bre and approved by nigel smithes yeah did you see that at the time well it seems so because it's got your i believe i did your name on it now um the reports to north asia council
00:31:24 now um the reports to north asia council make numerous references to class naught and in particular the fact that the cladding at garnet court should have had a class naught classification whereas the bre's investigation of real fires report to the detr the one on the
00:31:37 fires report to the detr the one on the screen
00:31:38 screen makes no mention of class not at all we've studied these documents take that difference from from me my question is were you yourself ever aware of that discrepancy no i was not
00:31:53 so let me just try one or two of these on on you we if we look at the august 99 north asha report at bre 30 3537 and go to page six in
00:32:04 at bre 30 3537 and go to page six in that which is the first of the three reports i showed you paragraph 3.1.1 near the foot of the screen
00:32:11 screen and
00:32:13 and let's keep that on the page and i'll show it to you remedial measures and then halfway down the paragraph you'll see towards the right hand side it says the spandrel panel to be an external insulated render of panels
00:32:25 external insulated render of panels between the windows of either a non-combustible or class naught material you see that sentence i do i'm going to ask you to see that and compare it with the report you saw a year later in
00:32:37 with the report you saw a year later in august 2000 can we please have a bre seven 3035375 page four
00:32:46 and i'd like both of those up at the same time
00:32:50 same time so i wanted bre triple zero three five three seven seven page six at the same time as bre triple zero three five three seven five page four can we do that
00:33:03 page four can we do that have those up at the same time
00:33:20 yes thank you very much now just i'll just pick up the discrepancy between them and just ask you about it so on the left hand side as i've shown you uh under 3.1.1 the sentence ends between
00:33:32 uh under 3.1.1 the sentence ends between the windows of either a non-combustible or class naught material whereas if you look uh on the
00:33:42 the right hand side uh under remedial [Music]
00:33:48 [Music] we want page four on the right hand side not page six please
00:33:55 under remedial measures yes
00:33:59 yes thank you you can see in the third line which is the um the same the spandrel panel to be an external insulated render of panels between the windows of a non-combustible material
00:34:10 material and that's different from between the windows of either a non-combustible material or class naught material now just looking at that discrepancy you can see the words all class naught have
00:34:22 can see the words all class naught have been removed after non-combustible and there's a grammatical um consequential change as well isn't there
00:34:28 there yes are you able to account for the discrepancy why is the report that was sent to you in uh august 2000 as part of the investigation of real fires report different
00:34:40 fires report different from the bre report centered it to north asia
00:34:43 asia i do not know do you remember any discussion about uh removing the report the reference to class naught in the
00:34:55 in the version of the report that came to government no i do not
00:35:03 and looking uh on uh if we uh
00:35:09 uh can please uh on the both on the screen looking at the north asia report left hand side can we go to page
00:35:16 page nine
00:35:18 nine and looking at the final paragraph on page nine
00:35:23 which starts in the case of the fire at garnet court and then flip over to page ten please that says
00:35:32 that says uh
00:35:34 uh in a hanging second paragraph on that page although the material used in 1991 should have been class naught we have reservations about its current current performance
00:35:45 about its current current performance and then you see the words at the end of the next paragraph we suggest that non-combustible materials are chosen wherever possible and that's in the report that went to north asia compare that right hand side please uh
00:35:58 compare that right hand side please uh with what you see a year later page seven
00:36:01 seven if we can go to page seven on the right hand side you can see in the third paragraph down the same text repeated word for word you see
00:36:11 you see uh
00:36:12 uh sorry which paragraph i i i'm asking you to look at the paragraph
00:36:17 paragraph um
00:36:18 um uh
00:36:19 uh two above implications for building regulations towards the bottom okay and you can see that the long paragraph ends grp was the main material involved
00:36:30 ends grp was the main material involved and then it goes straight on to the remedial measures no
00:36:34 no reference there or no paragraph in the between the two which says although the material used in 1991 should have been class naught we have reservations about its current performance again do you know why that was excised
00:36:46 again do you know why that was excised from an otherwise very similar if not identical report sent to north asia the year before i do not and the same question in relation to the last sentence that you can see had been removed
00:36:58 been removed you can see the words we suggest that non-combustible materials are chosen wherever possible it does not appear on the right-hand side the report you saw no i think again
00:37:09 again do i take it that you knew nothing about that discrepancy i knew nothing about that do you know when you came to learn about that discrepancy by following the inquiry as i have these past few
00:37:21 the inquiry as i have these past few weeks right have you any inkling as to why those amendments says excisions from the text were made i do not
00:37:31 i do not um from my perspective that would be a specific question of course to take back to bre
00:37:38 to bre we've asked the bre about that and they were unable to assist us
00:37:44 now looking at this now does it concern you that the investigation of real fires report to you in 2000 is different in these respects from the one sent by the bre to north
00:37:56 from the one sent by the bre to north asia
00:37:57 asia on this matter yes i i i find it surprising that this would have happened and can't think for a reason why right
00:38:10 you can't think of a reason why if it wasn't done at detr's investigation have you any inkling as to on who's in instigation it was done i do not
00:38:24 do you know can you think of any reason why the bre would consider that the department would not want to be kept informed of their concerns about the reaction
00:38:36 of their concerns about the reaction to fire performance of class naught materials or products i do
00:38:44 not can i ask you then to look at another section of the 1999 report left hand side page 24 this time and go to page 24 items two and three
00:39:02 uh item two says it is highly unlikely that the material used as cladding for garnet court and the four sister blocks was class naught at the time of the fire it is also highly likely that the grp
00:39:14 it is also highly likely that the grp supplied would never have achieved class naught
00:39:18 naught now take it from me mr bird that those two
00:39:22 two conclusions do not appear in the august 2000 report prepared for you by the bre can you think of any reason why the bre would not set those observations or
00:39:33 would not set those observations or findings out in the clearest terms to the department in this neighborhood i do not
00:39:37 not and and if i may given the importance of the investigation of real fire contracts it is imperative that we should be receiving the fullest information about the fires that are
00:39:48 information about the fires that are being investigated
00:39:58 now can i ask you then to look at bre three zeros three well before i ask you that okay
00:40:05 that okay these reports are prepared by the bre and sent to the department yes was anybody else involved to your knowledge in the decision-making process about what those
00:40:17 decision-making process about what those reports should contain other than the bre or possibly the department no
00:40:22 no so can we safely conclude that whoever made the decision to excise those passages from the north ayrshire report
00:40:33 from the north ayrshire report that i've shown you and send you the version without those matters excised we're either people in the bre or people in government
00:40:44 in government there can't have been anybody else given that is who the documents went to yes
00:40:52 yes but you can't sitting there now even offer any kind of excellent no however speculative no but the point i would add though that we didn't receive these documents
00:41:03 we didn't receive these documents um digitally at this stage they were probably still coming forward as hard copy
00:41:08 copy so as a client receiving these documents that would have been typically in hard copy
00:41:14 copy um
00:41:15 um and i have no answer to why this has happened
00:41:21 as i say in terms of it going back to the people specifically named on the front covers of the of the documents to ask that very specific questions
00:41:32 ask that very specific questions to the best of your recollection casting your mind back to the time of the garnet caught fire june 1999 and into 2000 [Music]
00:41:41 [Music] was there a particular sensitivity or anxiety about class naught as a safe and appropriate classification for the external walls of a high-rise building
00:41:52 a high-rise building no not that i can recall right let's go to bre 3035379 please
00:42:01 now this uh well we need to go to page 22 in this pack of documents um i should just tell you what it is it's a a pack of documents provided to the
00:42:11 the to the to the inquiry by the bre there's a copy of their file on garnok so that's what this is and if we go to page 22 you can see looking at it it's addressed to tony
00:42:24 looking at it it's addressed to tony do you know who that might that is or that might be so
00:42:29 so potentially two people if it's come from the bre it might have been a gentleman called tony morris right i believed worked there um the fact it's from the bre as i said
00:42:42 um the fact it's from the bre as i said i don't think this could be the case but the principal fire safety professional to whom i worked for at the department was tony edwards right well let's see if we can get a little
00:42:53 well let's see if we can get a little bit further into it um if you uh look through this it's difficult to interpolate but it says a material alteration
00:43:05 alteration still need limited comb on or over curtain wall
00:43:14 is class naught
00:43:18 combustible barriers looked 135 every other floor bre
00:43:25 bre report i think that is is pvl l doc avoiding risk something in submission to committee
00:43:37 submission to committee all right or maybe risk question in submission to committee now obviously that this is my reading
00:43:44 reading document doing the best i can with it um
00:43:49 first have you ever seen this before i have not
00:43:53 have not were you ever privy to a conversation uh along the lines suggested by this note difficult though i know it is to know
00:44:03 know did you suggest or were you aware of any suggestion emanating from the department that the bre's reporting on ghana court was to be prepared as a privileged eagle document in order to avoid it being
00:44:14 document in order to avoid it being quotable in the select committee inquiry no i was not
00:44:20 let's go to bre 3035378 please
00:44:28 this is an email chain if we go to page 25 in this eve in this run this is an email from september 1999
00:44:39 from september 1999 now we don't need to go to the whole thing but if we go to page 26 you can see at the at the bottom there is an email from somebody called colleen wade in new
00:44:51 somebody called colleen wade in new zealand
00:44:52 zealand uh as you can see to iafss newcastle and sfpe newcastle which gets forwarded on by martian ship to penny morgan so it seems to go into
00:45:03 to penny morgan so it seems to go into bre
00:45:05 bre uh
00:45:07 uh and it looks as if the two newcastle entities there are are part of the university of newcastle uh that's my guesswork and it says this in a recent fire and flammability bulletin reference was made to a fire in
00:45:19 bulletin reference was made to a fire in a 13-story block of flats in irvine ayrshire in june of this year the fire apparently spread externally up the block via over cladding engulfing the upper nine floors in minutes does
00:45:30 the upper nine floors in minutes does anyone know where or from whom i could get some more information about this incident
00:45:36 incident and if we then look at peter field's response to brian martin if we go to the top of page 25
00:45:45 uh following the following the screen from bottom to top we can see um the course of this email um
00:45:54 um it goes to penny morgan from penny morgan it goes to brian martin and she asks how much can we tell them p and then brian martin to you and can you see that in the middle of your screen and have you put out any press
00:46:07 screen and have you put out any press releases can we assume that anything said at the select committee hearing is in the public domain regards brian and
00:46:14 and further up the chain uh
00:46:17 uh there's an email from peter field he's at the bre 23rd of september 1999 to brian martin and you copy to penny morgan
00:46:27 morgan uh brian
00:46:28 uh brian i discussed this with anthony yesterday following inquiries from radio our position is to refer all matters to detr where it is appropriate to do so i.e if
00:46:39 where it is appropriate to do so i.e if they are seeking to put the issue on into a regulatory context and then in a capital letters it says we should not comment
00:46:45 comment all inquiries we receive must be referred to tom harvey bre press he has been adequately briefed as ever let me know of any approaches please peter now peter field as i say bre you and brian
00:46:56 peter field as i say bre you and brian martin the government um had you instructed the bre not to comment on the fire not that i can recall but what i'm no i would not have instructed the bre
00:47:07 no i would not have instructed the bre not to comment on the fire i would have suggested that where there are questions in relation to government matters that they should refer them the
00:47:18 matters that they should refer them the matter to dtr so for us to deal with looking at this email
00:47:25 right i see yeah and why was that typically we wouldn't want bre commenting upon building regulations matters or similar
00:47:36 building regulations matters or similar if it could be more readily directed to press officers within detr right now at this time you'll you'll know that the um the select committee was still um
00:47:49 the um the select committee was still um still sitting in the sense that it had heard evidence in the july of 1999 yeah and didn't report until the december of 1999. did that have a bearing on uh on what you were telling uh peter field and he then re relayed to brian martin
00:48:02 he then re relayed to brian martin uh no it would have been there have been many situations whereby press are asking questions potentially in relation to a building rights issue
00:48:13 in relation to a building rights issue um and where best we'd suggest hand it over in terms of to the dtr to the press officer for the department to answer right let's then turn to the select committee
00:48:26 let's then turn to the select committee you i think attended the select committee
00:48:28 committee inquiry
00:48:29 inquiry on the 20th of july 1999 is that right i did and you didn't give evidence no i i i joined the minister paul everell um head of building regulations
00:48:41 everell um head of building regulations tony edwards principal fire safety professional and i also attended but i did i did not give evidence no now let's look at the minutes of the select committee clg 3019484
00:48:57 that is the minutes of evidence and dependencies of the tuesday the 20th of july 1999 and you can see who was there as the fbu and then
00:49:06 and then fire safety development group david harper and dr bob moore and then from the bre or as it was called the building research establishment fire research station peterfield tony morris and sarah colwell
00:49:19 peterfield tony morris and sarah colwell and then others were represented as well including cwct dr stephen ledbetter and the from the department as you can see nick rainsford
00:49:30 nick rainsford paul leverell tony edwards and you mr bird yes yes so is it right that you would have heard or did hear the evidence given by dr by david harper and dr moore yes can we
00:49:43 david harper and dr moore yes can we then go to clg 3019484
00:49:49 and go to page nine and at page nine
00:49:56 this is the memorandum by the fire safety development group uh whose members you've just seen so far at least so far as the select committee was concerned
00:50:07 select committee was concerned um is this a document you think you read at the time yes yes
00:50:13 yes yes so it would would it have been a document you would have been familiar with yourself
00:50:19 i would have read the document once it had been
00:50:22 had been made available right um yes and what about uh are those others from the detr tony edwards and them and nick rainsford um i would i would suggest well mr
00:50:33 um i would i would suggest well mr rainsford as a minister i would envisage given his appearance he probably would have read it tony edwards would definitively have read it because he was in charge of the fire safety aspects of the building regulations paul everell as
00:50:45 the building regulations paul everell as well right now if we look at paragraph two this has this has a title memoranda and then two whether a risk is posed by such cladding then if you look at 2.2
00:50:57 such cladding then if you look at 2.2 it says this we believe there is confusion about the class naught standard for two reasons class not materials refer to the performance of the surface of the
00:51:08 to the performance of the surface of the material but applies to the total product i.e the facing plus any coating adhesive paint etc plus the substrate to which the facing is bonded clearly these other elements will affect the
00:51:19 other elements will affect the performance of the cladding in a fire and will vary with the nature of the coating the thickness of the adhesive the type of substrate etc just pausing there
00:51:30 just pausing there on the basis of your knowledge experience and expertise at the time did you agree with that assessment no you didn't not necessarily in terms of the confusion existing it was my understanding having been
00:51:41 it was my understanding having been formerly a building control officer as well
00:51:44 well that there was understanding that actually
00:51:47 actually the application of what class naught equated to and therefore what it might mean thereafter as to what um what performance might continue
00:51:58 um what performance might continue subject to the substrate that sat beneath that leaving aside the first sentence and taking the second sentence on it's right isn't it that class not materials refers to the performance of the surface of the
00:52:09 to the performance of the surface of the material but applies to the total product yes i agree with this right okay
00:52:13 okay so your disagreement is about the extent or existence of confusion rather than the analysis of the makeup of class naught yes yes thank you then looking at 2.3 a material of limited combustibility can
00:52:25 a material of limited combustibility can achieve a class naught rating as defined by the regulations but a class naught material is not equivalent and that's got an italic knot equivalent to a material limited combustibility
00:52:36 material limited combustibility a material of limiting combustibility is generally a material which is totally non-combustible or which contains a small amount of combustible material combustible materials like plastic wood
00:52:47 combustible materials like plastic wood etc are not in italics materials of limited combustibility but can achieve class north performance by adding fire retardant chemicals or facing the combustible material with a metal foil
00:52:58 combustible material with a metal foil or sheet there thus there is a fundamental difference between products that are inherently class naught and products modified to enhance their performance this serves to undermine the
00:53:10 performance this serves to undermine the integrity of the regulations and therefore reduces fire safety
00:53:15 now um leaving aside the opinions in the last
00:53:21 last uh in the last line last sentence there do you agree with the rest of paragraph 2.3
00:53:26 2.3 um
00:53:27 um could we maybe take it bit by bit to make sure yes yes so
00:53:36 so i agree that class not naught material is not equivalent to a material of limited combustibility yes it's generally immature
00:53:59 a material limited combustibility is generally a material which is totally non-combustible or which contains a small amount of combustible material
00:54:11 yes yes yes commercial materials like plastic wood are not materials of limited combustibility but can achieve class naught performance by adding fire return yes i agree with
00:54:23 by adding fire return yes i agree with that yes
00:54:25 that yes thus there is a fundamental difference between products that are inherently crass naught and products modified to enhance
00:54:32 enhance i agree there is a difference yes and do you agree with the last sentence this serves to undermine the integrity of the regulations and therefore reduces fire safety no i do not why is that because there are situations whereby
00:54:45 there are situations whereby there are provisions within the regulation within the statutory guidance that
00:54:51 that for the purposes of the external surface it would achieve club you'd want the performance of class naught but you might ask for additional levels of performance such as limited combustibility in certain situations
00:55:03 combustibility in certain situations right i see well we'll come back to that uh possibility later um if we go please two pages ahead in this document to page 11 we can see paragraph 5.3
00:55:14 11 we can see paragraph 5.3 and at 5.3 towards the top of the screen it says this there is also widespread concern amongst many firefighters about the safety of external clouding systems consisting of metal faced foam plastics
00:55:25 consisting of metal faced foam plastics these systems will generally have class north fire performance but in real fires the foam plastic lining can ignite and burn this helps to spread the fire via the building fabric and there will be an increase in the generation of smoke and
00:55:36 increase in the generation of smoke and toxic fumes collapse is also possible we believe this subject is still being reviewed by the detr and consider more stringent controls a priority uh
00:55:52 now um peter field also gave evidence and if we can go to page 19
00:56:00 19 paragraph 4 446 in this document he says
00:56:10 and this is in in the live evidence
00:56:16 oh it's got a long passage but let me just show it to you uh he says uh about two-thirds of the way down i think there are some circumstances you see
00:56:27 there are some circumstances you see that i do i think there are some circumstances whereby utilizing that of itself that's class naught would not adequately identify the fire performance of the complete system
00:56:39 now just taking the two passages i've just just shown you without asking a question on so far did you regard the evidence of the fire safety group and peter field of bre here
00:56:51 of bre here as clear
00:56:53 as clear mr millet could i ask could we go back a bit because i was looking at the larger document that then honed in so i've lost my place i'm so sorry yes of course is that does that help this is under examination of witnesses and this was
00:57:05 examination of witnesses and this was uh evidence yeah so remind me again please sir where we're looking at the bottom right hand corner of the page
00:57:14 thank you and
00:57:15 and i i think the context of this is mr field peter field of the bre telling the uh
00:57:24 the panel what he thought and i'll just run up to it again halfway down that paragraph he says there are have also been issues referred to already relating to the class naught
00:57:35 to already relating to the class naught system of fire spread which is basically a material-based system of classification i think there are some circumstances whereby utilizing that of itself would not adequately identify the fire performance of a complete system
00:57:46 complete system now was that evidence clear when you heard it yes yes and similarly the passage i read to you on page 11 widespread concern amongst many
00:57:57 widespread concern amongst many firefighters was that clear it was clear and from from my experience concern had been raised yes by firefighters thank you now can
00:58:08 yes by firefighters thank you now can you recall was there any view put forward to the select committee to counter
00:58:13 counter what what is said in those two passages namely
00:58:16 namely along the lines of evidence or submission to say no class naught is a reliable and a robust classification for reaction to fire on the external surface of a high-rise building i cannot recall no
00:58:29 high-rise building i cannot recall no now
00:58:30 now what at the time was your understanding of class naught so from my perspective class naught was utilized in relation to the external surface of
00:58:41 surface of a material and therefore by virtue of what it was looking to do was by virtue of two tests it was looking to control
00:58:51 control potential fire spread and the amount of heat given off by the material in in a fire condition but it was testing the surface and it
00:59:02 but it was testing the surface and it was the highest national classification for the performance of such materials
00:59:13 now um you say it was testing the surface i don't necessarily need to take you to it
00:59:21 to it but
00:59:22 but does that reflect paragraph what became paragraph 13 of appendix a of approved document b which was the definition yes yes and that definition i think said and i'm
00:59:34 that definition i think said and i'm summarizing that the the the material or the surface of a composite product should be composed throughout should be either of limited combustibility or else composed throughout class one with relevant
00:59:46 throughout class one with relevant indices yes and that was always the case wasn't it from 1992 at least even or even before that so far as you were aware as far as i'm aware yeah yes now
00:59:57 i'm aware yeah yes now you would also have been aware and i'm making that assumption given your expertise that um
01:00:03 um class naught was a product performance or material performance classification for lining materials yes
01:00:11 yes do you understand was there ever a time when you did understand how it came about that a test for lining materials
01:00:20 materials was thought suitable for the classification of the fire reaction performance of the surface of an external wall of a high-rise building i'm
01:00:29 i'm from recollection it is it has been utilized
01:00:33 utilized for quite some time long before i arrived at the department and
01:00:38 and but i suppose the the most sort of relevant point is there was no other tests to utilize and so it was
01:00:49 and so it was in terms of the surface it was used for that purposes and therefore has been used in a number of of the approved document right
01:01:00 approved document right was it
01:01:02 was it right so it was your understanding that a test for internal linings was transposed to an application for the external surfaces of walls simply because there was no other test available
01:01:14 was no other test available that
01:01:15 that in terms of the surface is my understanding where additional provisions of performance might be needed in terms of the substrate or insulation then they could also be set
01:01:26 insulation then they could also be set too but yeah that was my understanding for external surface right
01:01:32 right do you know the logic
01:01:35 the logic it sounds from your answer that the logic here was the bs 476 part six and seven tests and there were no other tests so those would do not those would do
01:01:46 not those would do forgive me i i can't in terms of the work that was done to show
01:01:52 show the performance from an internal lining to an external surface and when it was first utilized but it was felt that whilst the reference scenario is indeed
01:02:03 whilst the reference scenario is indeed an internal lining of a room obviously that you would be able to get an element of performance that would still meet your need
01:02:12 your need for external surfaces do you remember at any time in your career within government whether you heard any exp concerns expressed about whether it was appropriate
01:02:23 appropriate to use a test developed for internal linings as a test and classification standard for the external surface of external walls on high-rise buildings i
01:02:34 external walls on high-rise buildings i believe there had been suggestions by some that actually it might not be the most befitting test to utilize um
01:02:45 um and hence as a regulator therefore we as i was then we were very then mindful that how we might need to supplement that in certain situations such as asking for level uh sort of periods of
01:02:56 asking for level uh sort of periods of um limited combustibility in addition to that surface spread of flame rating right
01:03:04 right so you say there had been suggestions by some
01:03:07 some that it actually might not be the most befitting test to utilize now those are suggestions first do you know when those suggestions were made they were made um from from time to time um by people um
01:03:21 from time to time um by people um but
01:03:21 but generally on the whole whilst thought not ideal
01:03:25 not ideal uh um
01:03:28 uh um we were mindful that there were new tests coming down the track in terms of european test methods and similar but it was felt that for the purpose of regulations that they would be sufficient
01:03:40 that they would be sufficient and when needed you would add additional um
01:03:43 um items of performance to that specification and who are the people who made those suggestions from time to time
01:03:54 time [Music]
01:03:55 [Music] some parts of academia would raise it and some other
01:04:12 oh academia
01:04:15 academia um
01:04:16 um and
01:04:18 and some other fire safety experts can you give us any names or any organizations sorry
01:04:24 sorry the bre
01:04:26 the bre the bre ever say that they had doubts about
01:04:29 about the safety of class naught given that it had been derived from an internal linings test the bre would certainly have suggested that there are other more
01:04:41 suggested that there are other more tests that were that were under development that would be more befitting in terms of as they come forward in the european context so yeah yeah we can we can come to that material in due course did you
01:04:54 material in due course did you understand that there was a difference between class naught and limiting combustibility yes yes
01:05:03 and did you understand and i detected you did help me that although class naught would be achieved if a material or surface of a material of a composite product was
01:05:14 material of a composite product was composed throughout of material of limited combustibility the same was not true vice versa yes yes in other words the material was not of limited combustibility merely because it or the
01:05:26 combustibility merely because it or the product achieved class naught yeah right and that was crystal clear was it yes yes
01:05:34 and you were aware i think went you that the class naught could be achieved within the the definition and its use in what became 12.6 in diagram 40
01:05:45 40 as an alternative to material or limited combustibility by passing or achieving the relevant indices in the bs476 part six and seven tests turning first to part seven that's the
01:05:57 turning first to part seven that's the surface spread of flame test isn't it that's my understanding yeah were you aware that the reference scenario for that test was an internal fire yes i mean it originated as a method for testing flame spread within corridors
01:06:09 testing flame spread within corridors yeah yes and on bs 476 part 6 the fire propagation test that was also developed to test a fire within a compartment
01:06:20 fire within a compartment yes yes
01:06:22 yes yes so both of those tests have internal fires as reference scenarios not an external cutting fire yes
01:06:31 yes in the light of that what is the relevance or what was the relevance of the either of those tests or taking together class nor to assessing the risk of external fire spread in the event of a clouding fire
01:06:43 spread in the event of a clouding fire as i explained in terms of what they are very much material tests for internal arrangements it was felt that they could be utilized
01:06:54 it was felt that they could be utilized to even
01:06:55 to even to set performance for external facade
01:07:00 facade and similar in support of the building regulations however as i've touched upon already where needed we could supplement those provisions
01:07:11 we could supplement those provisions with others in terms of maybe a request for materials of limited combustibility but
01:07:18 but from
01:07:19 from from our understanding and my understanding at the time they were usable and could be utilized as part of the building regulations statutory guidance now when you say we could supplement
01:07:32 now when you say we could supplement those provisions with others in terms of maybe a request for materials of limited combustibility but what do you mean by reference to the building regulations at least until 2006. i'm sorry adb and
01:07:44 at least until 2006. i'm sorry adb and at least until 2006. so
01:07:48 so what you could you could
01:07:52 up to anything up to and included in 2000. up to before 2006 before before the amendments in 2006 yes from recollection
01:08:03 from recollection within the section 13 of the document that would be asking at the time um for ins
01:08:11 ins thermal insulation in ventilated cavities should be of material of limited combustibility yes
01:08:20 yes so that was what that's what you're referring to is yes i see yes sorry did you ever come to doubt at any time before the grenfell tower fire in june 2017
01:08:31 2017 where the class naught had at any time been an appropriate classification for external cladding material or products
01:08:46 in my experience no did you ever learn from debbie smith that her opinion of class naught was that it was based as it was on small-scale tests which were not
01:08:57 was on small-scale tests which were not appropriate or reliable indicators of how a cladding system might perform in a fire
01:09:02 fire we'd had discussions in terms of
01:09:08 i think with the backdrop in relation to the european test methodologies that were being developed at that time that they might
01:09:19 they might ultimately well no sorry
01:09:23 i had discussions with debbie where she had raised that perhaps a move to
01:09:29 a move to differing tests would be of benefit in the future yes that's not quite an answer to my question
01:09:38 question uh
01:09:39 uh it's a bit more general than that did you ever learn from her that her view of class naught in general was that small scale they were based on small scale tests and as such were an inappropriate and unreliable indicator
01:09:52 inappropriate and unreliable indicator of how a cladding system might perform in a fire
01:09:55 in a fire that was her her view of class north did you know that [Music]
01:10:03 i can't recall but
01:10:23 we we must have had discussions for recollection about
01:10:28 about a move ultimately to the new european test methodologies so we have a time frame for that the harmonization process which i think started with radar
01:10:40 process which i think started with radar to report on reaction to fire yes in may 2000
01:10:46 2000 was it about that time that you had these discussions with debbie in general about the
01:10:51 about the appropriateness of class naught was it in that context no i don't believe it was
01:10:57 was the radar work was something that we undertook
01:11:01 undertook because we had to bring about recognition of the new european test methodologies and how we would place them into the approved documents and how they would transpose into the approved documents
01:11:14 transpose into the approved documents whether we had discussions at that time debbie and i about
01:11:19 about cladding
01:11:21 cladding i no i don't think that would have been the case i think would have been focused in on the transposition between the national approach for surfaces and the new euro class so so the discussions
01:11:32 the new euro class so so the discussions about debbie smith's dr smith's views about class naught would have been earlier than the harmonization program i can't recall all right
01:11:43 i can't recall all right i'd like now to look please at some of the recommendations made by the select committee in their report after the evidence had been delivered can we go please to clg three zeros one nine four seven eight
01:11:55 seven eight this is the report date of the 14th of december 1999 entitled potential risk of fire spreading buildings via external cladding systems and if we can go to it please page 9
01:12:07 and if we can go to it please page 9 paragraph 20 i'd like to examine with you mr byrd the recommendation under the heading the adequacy of the regulations pertaining to their use which is just about a quarter of the way down your screen and it says this and
01:12:18 down your screen and it says this and i'll read the bold um as well and note the bold which i think is the recommendation notwithstanding
01:12:27 uh
01:12:29 yeah notwithstanding what i'm so sorry notwithstanding what we have said in paragraph 18 above we do not believe that it should take a serious fire in which many people are killed before all reasonable steps are
01:12:41 killed before all reasonable steps are taken towards minimizing the risks the evidence we have received strongly suggests that small-scale tests which are currently used to determine the fire safety of external cladding systems are
01:12:53 safety of external cladding systems are not fully effective in evaluating their performance in a live fire situation as a more appropriate test for external cladding systems now exists we see no reason why it should not be used
01:13:04 reason why it should not be used we believe it goes on that all external clouding systems should not should be required either to be entirely non-combustible or to be proven through
01:13:15 non-combustible or to be proven through full-scale testing not to pose an unacceptable level of risk in terms of fire spread and in bold we therefore recommend that compliance with the standard set in the test for assessing the fire performance
01:13:26 test for assessing the fire performance of external clouding systems which has been submitted to the british standards institution for adoption of as a british standard be substituted in a proof document b for previous
01:13:37 proof document b for previous requirements relating to the fire safety of external cladding systems what did you understand that recommendation then paragraph 20 to me
01:13:47 to me can we
01:13:48 can we can i see the full recommendation yes absolutely if we can go back a page please to page nine foot of page nine i'm really focusing on 20 in light of 18 which i read to you the recommendation
01:14:00 which i read to you the recommendation in bold as you can see in the last two lines there is there yeah so that was a recommendation from the select committee that either a cladding system should be entirely non-combustible
01:14:12 entirely non-combustible or
01:14:13 or its performance proven through full-scale testing yes and if we go over the page to page 10
01:14:20 10 i just want to draw your attention to the word
01:14:23 the word substituted in the second line there yes yes and looking at that word there again what did you understand that recommendation to mean that it should be that should happen and
01:14:34 that it should be that should happen and go into the approved document b as a way of showing compliance and did you understand it to mean that small-scale testing for class north under bs476 part six and seven
01:14:46 six and seven should be replaced should be removed and replaced by a full-scale test method method that was the recommendation made by the select committee that's and you were
01:14:57 select committee that's and you were never in any doubt about that were you uh no not as not as the recommendation made by the committee no no and if we
01:15:07 and if we go down the page here to paragraph 22. you can see that the recommend the committee recommended that the department um picking it up uh in the bold
01:15:18 uh in the bold instruct local authorities and registered social landlords to undertake a review of their existing building stock
01:15:25 stock with a view to ascertaining how many multi-storey buildings are currently using external cladding systems and how many cladding systems are in use which whilst complying with the regulations in force at the time when they were
01:15:37 force at the time when they were installed do not comply with current regulations see that yeah did that review ever take place
01:15:45 place i can't recall no i mean we have seen no evidence of any such review unless it's a survey done ahead of the cc 1924 tests
01:15:58 ahead of the cc 1924 tests but
01:15:59 but just just looking at the terms of that recommendation there you can't recall you've never seen one you don't know anything about it i can't recall right i mean sorry just to be clear
01:16:11 i mean sorry just to be clear often witnesses can't recall when they don't they can't remember one way or the other but are you saying you
01:16:18 you from your recollection uh are saying that it never took place no i'm not saying that sir um i'm trying to think back there was a formal response from the department from
01:16:32 formal response from the department from from the minister nick rainsford we're going to come to that in a moment oh okay but just in general terms i mean if there were uh a
01:16:42 uh a review as recommended you
01:16:46 you given the systems in place at the time would have been very likely to have known about it yes it wouldn't have been undertaken by perhaps the building regulations division as it was known at the time
01:16:57 division as it was known at the time that would have been undertaken um
01:17:00 um by somebody else um but i i don't recall this this this
01:17:07 this this and we've seen no evidence of it okay now can we then turn to the government's response please to the committee's recommendation that is at clg mr chairman i just know at the time i'm happy to carry on given that we started
01:17:18 happy to carry on given that we started with this witness shall we finish this point yes we can well yes let's do that um is a clg one four zeros three four seven
01:17:29 now this uh is a document uh we believe is which is dated the 6th of april
01:17:36 of april uh
01:17:37 uh 2000
01:17:39 2000 and
01:17:41 and we understand it to have been sent by nick rainsford the then minister um just looking at it it says appendix government response to the first report of the environment transport and regional affairs
01:17:52 regional affairs committee on potential risk of fast but in buildings via external planning systems
01:17:56 systems would that be right yes yes uh now um it's undated as i say but you can see from paragraph one at the very least that it post dates 15th of march 2000.
01:18:07 2000. did you have a role in preparing this draft
01:18:13 i do i i don't believe so um
01:18:17 um well noah
01:18:19 well noah it would have been prepared by tony edwards the principal fire safety professional working with caroline cousin who was the head of technical policy
01:18:30 head of technical policy then
01:18:31 then i might have been shown and asked to offer comment on the document but i didn't i didn't write it right let's see now let's scroll down to um paragraph nine
01:18:43 let's scroll down to um paragraph nine on page three please page three paragraph nine it says there the 1992 edition of the approved document to part b which was enforced at the time i gave evidence to
01:18:54 enforced at the time i gave evidence to the committee last year sets out the recommended provisions for the fire protection of external surfaces of walls in diagrammatic form however in the new 2000 edition of the approved document part b the test method mentioned in your
01:19:06 part b the test method mentioned in your recommendation currently bre fire note 9 is now quoted as an alternative to meeting these provisions for the external services of walls
01:19:17 now that's the department's response to the recommendation we've looked at together mr bird in other words the full scale test should be substituted in place of the previous requirements
01:19:28 in place of the previous requirements including class naught now here paragraph nine explains that fire note 9 would be referred to in the 2000 edition of approved document b yes yes
01:19:38 yes as an alternative to meeting these provisions now that wasn't the recommendation of the select committee was it they'd recommended the class not be replaced by the full system test i believe that was
01:19:50 the full system test i believe that was their recommendation yes not the class not be retained to sit alongside a full-scale test as an alternative route to compliance yes yes yes yes do you know what the reason was
01:20:02 do you know what the reason was that the minister had for ignoring the select committee's recommendation or refusing to follow it
01:20:10 no i do not however when i joined the department in 1998
01:20:19 in 1998 um
01:20:20 um we
01:20:21 we had just closed on the consultations that are mounted to the 2000 edition of the adb so the building regulations advisory committee would have asked a working
01:20:33 committee would have asked a working group to be formed and so potentially there was some discussion within that working group as to
01:20:41 as to where such a reference could go in relation to phi note 9
01:20:50 but as to why it went only in part in effect to as an alternative to
01:20:57 to what is now diagram 40 i can't recall why it was done in that way right
01:21:05 right do you know who made the decision to ignore or refuse to follow the select committee's recommendations ultimately the responsibility resides with ministers well that's certainly
01:21:16 well that's certainly uh that's certainly true but ministers act on advice do you know who ultimately gave the advice that the select committee's recommendation should not be followed so that would have been tony edwards
01:21:30 so that would have been tony edwards i would i would suggest he was the principal fire safety professional and what was the rationale for that advice
01:21:39 advice retaining class naught to sit alongside the new full-scale test in light of the select committee's conclusions and recommendations based on the evidence that it had received
01:21:51 the evidence that it had received that's not something i can answer and nor something that i'm aware of as to why it was placed there you can't help no i cannot now you gave a hint of the possible
01:22:02 now you gave a hint of the possible answer and and clearly that may be a an x-post factor after the event as it were rationalization to do with the closing of the con the agreement to amend uh
01:22:13 amend uh the
01:22:14 the amend adb right now adb was amended and a new version came out in july 2000 yes that's some months after this isn't it is there any reason given that adb was
01:22:27 is there any reason given that adb was as revised in production why the recommendations of the select committee
01:22:33 committee could not be carried into effect in those revive those revisions i can only assume that there wasn't necessarily agreement
01:22:43 agreement that
01:22:44 that it should go in as the only way of showing compliance
01:22:49 if we go down to paragraph eleven you can see
01:22:53 can see would it be right to understand that the minister would have been presented with a written submission advising him not only what to do but why to do it
01:23:05 not only what to do but why to do it that would be my understanding yes sir thank you and that probably would have come
01:23:10 come from
01:23:11 from the head of technical policy caroline cousin
01:23:15 cousin right thank you very much looking at paragraph 11 when the technical amendments to the document have been completed and it has been adopted as a british standard the department will amend the reference in the approved document to bre 509 to
01:23:28 the approved document to bre 509 to reflect its status as a british standard we will also review whether the reference to this method of demonstrating compliance should be strengthened it is unlikely that any such changes will be made immediately
01:23:39 such changes will be made immediately the status of the test method is changed as such minor amendments to the approved documents are difficult to promulgate to ensure that all users of the document are made aware of the change however supplements to the approved document are
01:23:50 supplements to the approved document are planned to give guidance on the new harmonized european methods of test and the amendment would be included in this
01:23:57 no amendment to strengthen the reference to
01:24:00 to what became bsa414 was included in the 2006 edition of approved document b published in april 2007 was it sorry could you repeat the question
01:24:11 sorry could you repeat the question yes no amendment to strengthen the reference to bsa414
01:24:20 bsa414 was included in the 2006 edition of approved document b it
01:24:26 it it was
01:24:29 it was the provision was recognized that it couldn't be which it isn't just an alternative to surface spread of flame when the reference to 8414 part 1 and
01:24:40 when the reference to 8414 part 1 and part 2
01:24:42 part 2 and bre
01:24:43 and bre br135 went into what was the 2006 edition it was there as an alternative to undertaking the provisions set out in
01:24:54 to undertaking the provisions set out in six point and twelve point uh in section 12 yes for um
01:25:00 um class for
01:25:02 class for surfaces and provisions in relation to the external wall yes yes that that is from say so entirely correct yes uh and therefore i think you would agree with me that in
01:25:13 me that in the amendments made in 2002 to reflect euro 2006
01:25:20 2006 2010
01:25:22 2010 2013 throughout all of those amendments fire note 9 and becoming bsa414 parts 1 and latterly part 2 from 2006 were provided as an
01:25:33 from 2006 were provided as an alternative route to compliance with the approved documents alternative to sections 6 12.6 and diagram 40.
01:25:44 12.6 and diagram 40. yes
01:25:45 yes and 12.7
01:25:46 and 12.7 but
01:25:48 but forgive me the select committee's recommendation did talk about making potentially of of there are two approaches you either it should be made entirely of non-combustible material
01:26:01 entirely of non-combustible material or it should be a full-scale test i believe what it's called here is the linear route does exist it with it within the approved document
01:26:13 it with it within the approved document b
01:26:14 b and then the citation of 8414 did go in um
01:26:21 as an alternative as an alternative that's my point yes there was never a substitution only
01:26:27 only an alternative yes the only point i would add is is that as alluded in this response from government to the select committee
01:26:38 government to the select committee that there would be a review undertaken as an appropriate point to see if that provision be strengthened and by virtue of
01:26:49 and by virtue of considerations of the statutory committee the building regulations advisory committee in the working party the the proposals for amendments of the various iterations to which you refer
01:27:00 various iterations to which you refer those would have been considered during that process right what did you understand by reference to this method of demonstrating compliance should be strengthened
01:27:12 strengthened i understood that to mean if they were going to make that definitively the method of showing compliance i see
01:27:21 why to the best of your knowledge at the time was it necessary to review whether the reference to that method of demonstrating compliance should become the method of demonstrating the compliance as you've just explained in
01:27:33 compliance as you've just explained in light of the clear recommendation of the select committee that that should have been so
01:27:38 been so as i say this is a response from
01:27:42 from the government it is a recommendation by a select committee which is obviously held with huge importance but it was still a recommendation and therefore it was for government to
01:27:53 therefore it was for government to consider
01:27:55 consider what it should do in relation to this matter
01:28:01 would that be a good point mr millet what one or two more questions and yeah it would be a very good point um was there a conscious decision to retain the provisions of diagram 40 class naught
01:28:12 provisions of diagram 40 class naught and diagram 40 in approved document b at this time
01:28:20 by virtue of it still remaining then yes
01:28:28 yes mr chairman it is now a convenient moment right thank you well as uh you were told mr bird we have a break during the afternoon and say we'll take it now we'll stop and now we'll resume please of
01:28:40 stop and now we'll resume please of course to four and now you've started giving your evidence i have to ask you please on this and other occasions not to talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room thank you sir thank you very much
01:29:02 thank you mr milit course to four please thank you
01:46:36 would you ask mr bird to come back in please
01:46:49 right mr bird yes sir thank you very much yes yes mr mr chairman thank you mr bird i just want to show you the ministerial submission um to which the chairman referred earlier before the break can we please go
01:47:00 break can we please go to clg3019457
01:47:04 and look at the first page there which is
01:47:09 the response
01:47:14 clg three zeros one nine four five seven
01:47:24 which is the response from caroline cousin head of technical policy uh 9th of march 2000 to paul everal and nick rainsford and this is mr rainsford's copy ticked by him as you can see on the 9th of march
01:47:36 him as you can see on the 9th of march itself and it's entitled sorry miss mr miller um that's been kicked by that's paul everyone is paul everest quite right okay yes good fair fair point uh and if you look down at this
01:47:48 point uh and if you look down at this document please and go to page two paragraph seven
01:47:59 uh it says the third point is that the bre large scale test for the fire performance of external cladding systems should be substituted in the approved document part b as a
01:48:10 in the approved document part b as a requirement for the safety of clouding systems the response explains that the approved documents do not make requirements but just offer guidance however it goes on to say that the 2000 edition of the approved document has been expanded to include a reference to
01:48:22 been expanded to include a reference to this test it also details the progress which has been made with the adoption of this method as a british standard now we have beyond that paragraph scoured this document for the advice given or any advice given
01:48:35 for the advice given or any advice given by
01:48:36 by ms cousin to the minister to ignore the select committee's recommendation to substitute class naught etcetera with the full-scale test and we can't see it this is the closest we get and there's nothing there as you
01:48:48 we get and there's nothing there as you can see about not following these select committee's guidance
01:48:53 guidance so are you able to offer any insight as to why
01:48:56 to why that advice was rejected or that recommendation was rejected i i am not sir right
01:49:06 is it possible that
01:49:09 that somebody perhaps above your pay grade as it were would have spoken to the minister um
01:49:18 um outside the formal ministerial submission in closing this advice which is this and
01:49:27 and persuaded him to do what he appears to have decided to do in the april 2000 document it was not uncommon for for detailed and important submissions like this
01:49:38 this for ministers to request a follow-up discussion with officials to talk items through i don't know if that happened or not but that that was quite common for that to happen in the department right
01:49:51 that to happen in the department right now
01:49:53 let's just think about who was there at the time um we know you were i mean and tony edwards was the select committee was did tony edwards have the same
01:50:05 was did tony edwards have the same technical experience and expertise that you had
01:50:09 you had in matters of fire and the building regulations relating to fire well he was the principal fire safety professional um and he was more experienced than me having worked within the industry
01:50:22 having worked within the industry so i'd suggest that um yes he was he was he was better than i well that's modest of you and what i'm really seeking to get at is whether you can think of any reason why any
01:50:35 can think of any reason why any um discussions of the kind that you've described
01:50:38 described which might have taken place between officials and the minister after caroline cousins formal ministerial submission would not have involved you
01:50:56 again i was
01:50:58 i was deputy
01:51:00 deputy to the fire safety portfolio part b i can't recall attending such a meeting no um
01:51:12 as i say ministers certainly something as important as this mr rainford would
01:51:18 would would potentially want to talk through what he was going to submit in writing um
01:51:25 um from recollection
01:51:29 mr everell
01:51:32 enjoyed a good relationship with ministers um and might have gone in his capacity caroline and tony but i can't recall attending would you have been uncommon or unusual
01:51:44 would you have been uncommon or unusual perhaps for you not to have attended those meetings given your involvement in the select committee evidence uh no
01:51:53 uh no it could have been a matter of circumstance in terms of my availability um
01:51:59 um i might have been at out of the country on business um
01:52:04 um these things did happen i you know i i was the junior on fire safety they wouldn't hold a meeting back with a minister
01:52:12 minister uh because i wasn't available i see it yeah um now can we just go back then to nick rainsford's document at clg one uh four zeros three four seven
01:52:25 three four seven and just pick pick it up at paragraph six
01:52:53 and you can see
01:52:57 there that uh
01:53:03 you can see there that there's a reference to a large series of large-scale fire tests three-quarters of the way down the paragraph to assess the fire performance of a range of existing and new clouding systems the results of this work will be
01:53:14 systems the results of this work will be used to determine the most appropriate method for specifying the fire performance requirements of cladding systems the revised guidance should be available by september 2001.
01:53:25 by september 2001. yes
01:53:26 yes that turned into didn't it see the contract cc 20 1924 yes yes let's now turn to
01:53:32 turn to that let's start with the bid document bre 3041836
01:53:42 and there it is we've been through this with a number of witnesses you can see that the project manager was miss or mrs rather s colwell project title review of far performance of external clouding systems and revision of bre report br
01:53:54 systems and revision of bre report br 135
01:53:56 135 and the date of it is the 23rd of december 1999. now that's only a week after the
01:54:02 after the select committee report on the 14th of december 1999 isn't it yes so request for bids would have gone out before that well imagine is that is that right i would have thought so right
01:54:13 would have thought so right now if we go to page three of the bid document uh we may not need to run through all of these but the project objectives are set out there um
01:54:21 um looking at the primary project objectives you can see three bullet points
01:54:25 points review the guidance contained in the approved documents uh update and maintain the building regulations and support the process of regulation and harmonization with europe yes yes and under those three objectives
01:54:37 yes yes and under those three objectives on page three and over to page four there are some specific objectives on the department's part and there's a longer bullet set of bullet points there yes yes
01:54:47 yes yes are you familiar with those or should i take you through them in detail let me let me summarize them if you go back to the bottom of page three the first is to carry out a survey
01:54:59 of the existing multi-story building stock in great britain in order to determine the composition and design of systems and the changing nature of materials currently in use within three months of the start date
01:55:10 within three months of the start date the the second is to review and update the existing guidance in br135 sorry the second is the database the third is to review and update the existing guidance in br135 yes
01:55:21 existing guidance in br135 yes and then over the page to complete an experimental program enabling the assessment of the fire performance of the range of both existing and new clouding systems within 12 months of the start date
01:55:33 12 months of the start date the next one is to utilize the large scale scenario based test to determine the most appropriate method for specifying the fire performance requirements of cladding systems and there are others as well which i don't think i need to
01:55:44 as well which i don't think i need to take you through um now these are the detr's objectives do you agree that they reflected the department's aims from recollection yes yes
01:55:55 from recollection yes yes and did all of those objectives remain in place and unchanged throughout the life of the the project the cc 1924 project
01:56:05 i believe so um from recollection there was some changes
01:56:11 changes along the way with regards to the testing program in terms of what more might need to be tested um so i can i can recollect
01:56:22 tested um so i can i can recollect well actually i might have seen in evidence that's come forward yes there's some emails from sarah cole within august 2001 about the changes to the testing regime but but the objectives themselves broadly yes yeah
01:56:39 now dr colwell told the inquiry that in her oral evidence that the objective of the project was to review and provide information but not to rewrite
01:56:48 rewrite um the adb was that your understanding
01:56:59 yes that was my understanding um if we go to bre 401392
01:57:07 this is a an annual progress report uh prepared for you dated the 27th of april 2001
01:57:18 uh and it was prepared by sarah colwell for you if we go to page five we see under the heading formation of the iag it says this 30 groups were
01:57:30 the iag it says this 30 groups were invited to join the industry advisory group for this project they included representatives from manufacturers range screen systems rendered systems and built up systems specifiers and building owners and users yes yes and under that
01:57:42 owners and users yes yes and under that list you can see that it is reported that 27 representatives accepted invitations to join the group their details are given in table 1. if we go to
01:57:54 if we go to page nine we can see who they are page nine table one is there members of the iag and you can see that your name appears right at the top of the list for the department yes yes
01:58:06 the department yes yes and you can see others there some from government but mainly from industry organizations county councils and
01:58:14 and industry representatives as well as doctors smith and colwell from the bre who had decided which manufacturers specifiers and building owners and users
01:58:25 specifiers and building owners and users would be invited to join the iag
01:58:28 sorry did you say manufacturers uh i uh well
01:58:33 uh well um i can see trade associations uh i don't see individual manufacturers necessarily all right
01:58:40 all right um amending my question then who had decided on this list so the way iag normally works is that they would come forward a recommendation
01:58:53 forward a recommendation by those undertaking the work this case bre and offering a list to me as the client i would have considered that list and would have suggested if we needed
01:59:04 would have suggested if we needed anybody in addition to that for the iag what then happens moving forward is that typically at the first meeting of the iag there would be a discussion quite early
01:59:15 there would be a discussion quite early on on the agenda items to see if we had missed anybody off of that list thinking about who we who would best serve
01:59:23 serve the membership and the work underway and what on what basis were these representatives chosen um from recollection we wanted of course to cover the relevant
01:59:34 cover the relevant regulators so there was myself franklin and wales the relevant regulator from scotland
01:59:42 scotland regulator for the home office a selection of consultants some of the representative from there from the enforcing authority which is from the
01:59:53 enforcing authority which is from the institute of building control a number of local authorities and then
01:59:58 and then just looking through the list a selection well more than actually probably the relevant trade associations that existed in the in the um the cladding sector
02:00:10 cladding sector and what was to be the function of the iag
02:00:13 iag typically the iag is there to provide support and input to the work program they would offer comments and and in terms of
02:00:24 in terms of their understanding of the marketplace they would also typically be
02:00:30 be shown
02:00:31 shown um
02:00:32 um things like the testing program to see that if they feel that that was the correct
02:00:38 correct tests to undertake so it's generally a very open um discussion to be had and actually for them to provide insight
02:00:50 for them to provide insight and and steer the work
02:00:53 the work now to meet the objectives which we looked at in the document there were several reports produced for the project weren't there one of which was a literature review yes let's look at that bre four zeros one three five three
02:01:06 bre four zeros one three five three and this is entitled and if we i think we need to go to page two for it uh it's entitled fire spread in external cladding right yes
02:01:18 right yes a literature review um that's not it this this is that is not it's a document that is a yes uh
02:01:27 uh i think we need to go a little bit further down in the document forgive me uh we go to paid four uh and that's where we see it forgive me uh if you look at page four you can see it was prepared by
02:01:39 four you can see it was prepared by sarah colwell jason foster and brian martin
02:01:43 martin uh on a date of the 30th of march uh for the department yes yes and that would have been you in the first instance would it uh
02:01:54 tony edwards was still in the department at this time he didn't leave till the summer of 2000. yes but you would have been on the receiving end of this document would you yes yes did you ask for it or did you
02:02:05 yes yes did you ask for it or did you did the department actually ask for it or did it come um it's not normal for contractors just to issue no so exactly so this was part of the contract can we go to page 14 first paragraph
02:02:16 can we go to page 14 first paragraph there we can see there that
02:02:23 in the first paragraph it says
02:02:27 it says irrespective of boundary distance diagram 40 provisions for external surfaces of walls in adb restricts the combustibility of external walls of high buildings where the top floor is at least 18 meters above ground level and
02:02:39 least 18 meters above ground level and those of the assembly and recreation purpose group to reduce the danger from fire spread up the external face of the building
02:02:47 building now when
02:02:48 now when first
02:02:49 first building up a little bit did you receive this report at the time i i can't recall but i would imagine i did yes and imagining you that you did can we imagine also that you read it yes
02:03:00 can we imagine also that you read it yes yes
02:03:01 yes and this this paragraph too yes
02:03:04 yes yes um no where it says diagram 40 restricts the combustibility of external walls of high buildings
02:03:16 walls of high buildings that is not correct is it that is not a correct statement in two respects
02:03:22 respects is it
02:03:23 is it given that diagram 40 talks about the surface of a cladding system
02:03:32 i can see why
02:03:34 why that terminology shouldn't have been used
02:03:38 used um however the likes of bs476 part six and part seven
02:03:44 seven whilst they are a reaction to fire test it the performance gleaned from those two tests is an aspect of combustibility but no i don't think that is quite
02:03:56 but no i don't think that is quite correct no and it's incorrect let me suggest to you in two respects first diagram 40 is only relevant to combustibility
02:04:07 is only relevant to combustibility in that class naught as one of its possible routes to achievement
02:04:14 rests on limited combustibility yes and secondly diagram 40 does not restrict the combustibility of the entirety of the external wall but only
02:04:26 external wall but only its surface i agree yes now
02:04:33 that confusion or error
02:04:38 or error uh was that identified by the department at the time
02:04:44 not that i can recall right it's quite a fundamental mistake isn't it looking at it now
02:05:00 it is a basic mistake to make yes um
02:05:09 and it doesn't actually capture the rest of the content in what was section 13 of the approved document b then so
02:05:20 so yes
02:05:21 yes it is a mistake yes
02:05:25 yes presumably you didn't notice at the time how
02:05:28 how it will ask how it could have come about that an organization as august in fire as the bre could have made such a basic error
02:05:39 i don't recall i raised it no no no
02:05:47 turning back to the literature review on page 12 if you can please um there's a heading facade costs now under that you'll see that uh finnegan
02:05:59 finnegan highlights the typical cost associated with different cladding systems based on figures given in the architects general in february 1998 in tables one two and three
02:06:10 three and you can see that the tables on page 12 there and over to page 13 list various different types of cladding systems and if we go to page 13 and look at table three types and costs of infill panels as
02:06:23 types and costs of infill panels as quoted in aj feb 1998 the penultimate entry there is this composite panel of 0.5 millimeters stove lacquered aluminium three millimeters
02:06:34 lacquered aluminium three millimeters polyethylene core half a millimeter mill finish aluminium with insulation and vapor barrier bonded to rear face and then there's a price or cost range
02:06:46 now dr colwell confirmed to us in her evidence at day 232 page 42 line 16 to 23 that that was
02:06:56 that was aluminium composite material with a polyethylene core were you aware of that
02:07:05 i was not and i can't recall
02:07:12 being aware at i can't reca i can't recall seeing that but it is in the report and so
02:07:21 so i would have seen the report right yep but you don't remember looking at it and seeing the presence there of acm with a pe no as one of the one of the infill panels quoted in the
02:07:34 one of the infill panels quoted in the aj
02:07:35 aj no more generally were you aware before approving this report or before seeing it perhaps that acm panels with a pe core
02:07:44 core were in use even commonly in use in the external wall arrangements of buildings in england and wales no you weren't no did this not strike you at the time as
02:07:55 did this not strike you at the time as an unnecessary and unusual uh item to consider given the upcoming project if in fact you thought that this kind of product
02:08:06 you thought that this kind of product wasn't in use no but
02:08:10 no but but from the perspective of the report and the undertaking of investigations it was for bre to come forward and suggest types and costs of infill panels
02:08:22 types and costs of infill panels and so i i would have seen it along with everything else listed there as this is what is being experienced in the marketplace right
02:08:32 right and therefore did you take from this that
02:08:36 that partly perhaps or perhaps only because bre had recommended that this kind of product be tested that this product was in use perhaps even commonly in use in the uk construction market
02:08:48 construction market i would not necessarily have had that thought
02:08:52 thought um
02:08:53 um but i just
02:08:56 if it was listed here as a costing i mean
02:09:01 i mean obviously it's taken from the architect's journal from the time um it doesn't give any values as to market share or similar but if this is what was coming forward
02:09:12 but if this is what was coming forward then
02:09:13 then yes it would be considered and put it this way you wouldn't have expected the bre
02:09:18 bre to have recommended testing to
02:09:22 to the department on a product which was not in common use or significantly commonly used um would have been a waste of time and
02:09:34 um would have been a waste of time and money
02:09:35 money um not necessarily a waste of time and money if
02:09:38 money if certainly if there are products coming forward which are innovative and new then if this was the case um which i believe it was then
02:09:49 then i whether this product or any others that were forming part of what is going to be a testing regime to work out the past fail criteria
02:10:00 past fail criteria of a new full-scale test then you would want to test things that you know
02:10:07 you know could you know could could could truly test the test as it were so no sometimes you would use products that were
02:10:16 were not that common but we wanted to to potentially see how they would perform in a full scale test was it your experience at the time 2000 spring of 2000 that acm panels of
02:10:28 2000 spring of 2000 that acm panels of the pe with the pe core were new to the market it was an innovative material
02:10:35 i can't recall and i i don't believe i had any experience of that type of product all right
02:10:43 right did it strike you at the time that there may be a fundamental problem with the statutory guidance which did not restrict the use of polyethylene called panels at
02:10:54 the use of polyethylene called panels at height
02:10:55 height provided only that they achieved class naught
02:10:58 naught i don't believe i would have had that thought at this time right did the bre ever explain the rationale for selecting this product the composite panel
02:11:08 panel not that i can recall no was there any discussion that you can recall either with the bre or internally within the department about this particular cladding product at this stage of the project not that i can
02:11:19 stage of the project not that i can recall no can we go to paragraph sorry page 27
02:11:24 page 27 and we can see the conclusions of the literature review there
02:11:30 if we can just have those expanded a little bit please you can see conclusion too
02:11:35 too the 2000 revision of adb goes some way to addressing the issues of fire performance of external clouding systems the review of br135 will help to clarify any remaining issues as identified
02:11:47 any remaining issues as identified now the the requirements for external surfaces
02:11:50 surfaces in both the 2000 and the 2002 versions of adb
02:11:55 of adb were that the external walls of a building over a certain height should meet the provisions of diagram 40. yes yes yes
02:12:03 yes yes to be clear in the 1992 version it was diagram 36 and in the uh 2000 version it was 13.5 yes
02:12:14 uh 2000 version it was 13.5 yes both versions of those diagrams in 1992 and 2000
02:12:19 and 2000 and indeed at 2002 i think uh stipulated class naught yes yes
02:12:27 yes yes and the only difference was that the height was the height for the requirement uh where it was reduced from 20 meters in 1992 to 18 meters in 2000.
02:12:38 in 1992 to 18 meters in 2000. is that that's right i think from my recollection yeah yeah otherwise they were exactly the same yes yes
02:12:44 yes now for insulation the 1992 version of approved document b required insulation in the external wall construction of buildings over 20 meters
02:12:57 of buildings over 20 meters to be
02:12:58 to be material of limited combustibility didn't it
02:13:01 didn't it from recollection yes yes i know it's difficult to remember so let me just pin this down with the document so you and others can see it can we please have bla four zeros five four eight two
02:13:13 eight two page seventy four
02:13:19 and it's 12.7
02:13:25 in a building with a story more than 20 meters above ground level insulation material used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility see appendix a
02:13:37 yes yes now let's let's leave that on the screen and track it through to the 2000 version clg one
02:13:45 clg one six zeros one two please page 90. this becomes 13.7 in that year in that version
02:13:54 version and let's have that at the same time
02:13:59 and you can see well you can't get
02:14:04 that clg one six zeroes one two page ninety
02:14:08 ninety uh
02:14:09 uh but can we please have 89 uh back a page yes thank you um and expand that a bit right on the right-hand side external wall construction and you see the second
02:14:20 construction and you see the second paragraph there in a building yes yes in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground level insulation material used in ventilated cavities in the external wall construction should be at limiting
02:14:31 construction should be at limiting combustibility see appendix a yes see that
02:14:35 that now comparing the two do you accept that in 2000 the effect of that change in the language in the second paragraph under
02:14:47 second paragraph under what became 13.7 was a reduction of the circumstances in which the guidance asked for insulation to be of limited combustibility yes in the context of the paragraph we
02:14:59 yes in the context of the paragraph we have just discussed and as i say this document what became the 2000 approved document had gone out to consultation
02:15:11 had gone out to consultation before my arrival in the department but as part of looking over paperwork in the inquiry i'm unable to find a version of the consultation document that might have suggested why that might have
02:15:22 have suggested why that might have happened
02:15:24 happened do you know yourself why there was a narrowing of the circumstances in which insulation was required to be of limited combustibility in the 2000 edition
02:15:35 combustibility in the 2000 edition no i do not but
02:15:38 but sir if i could just refer you to paragraph 13.7 the first paragraph yes notwithstanding the provision specifically in relation to the location of insulation and the height of the
02:15:50 of insulation and the height of the building
02:15:51 building the first paragraph is also a hugely important provision within the approved document which sets out from the outset the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire spread if
02:16:04 not provide a medium for fire spread if it is likely to be a risk to health or safety
02:16:08 or safety it then goes on in terms of the use of combustible materials for cladding framework and similar and then talks at the end
02:16:19 may present a risk in tall buildings even though the provisions for external surfaces in diagram 40 may have been satisfied yes and so
02:16:30 satisfied yes and so from my reading of of the approved document
02:16:33 document whilst the specific provisions do refer to less instances of thermal insulation being of limited combustibility you still have to be mindful of the
02:16:45 you still have to be mindful of the paragraph above that actually you need to look at each individual building on its merits and where it might be seen to be an issue you need to consider whether
02:16:56 you need to consider whether you need to provide a greater degree of materials of limited combustibility in a building
02:17:03 building yes yes yes and thank you and we will see what happens to that as we trace through the amendments later in your evidence but for the time being i think is this right that um
02:17:15 is this right that um the words you've just read to us helpfully are the same uh in uh 13.7 in 2000 as they were in the first paragraph of what was 12.7 in 1992. well i think well i think the
02:17:27 1992. well i think well i think the daily difference being the diagram number
02:17:30 number yes yes that remained the same um
02:17:35 um and therefore the uh
02:17:38 uh although the general principle remained the same there wasn't unless it seems a narrowing of the requirement for insulation material in the external wall construction now only to be in ventilated cavities i'd suggest
02:17:51 in ventilated cavities i'd suggest there's been a narrowing of the provision
02:17:54 provision um however i would wish to raise and maybe it will come up further when we start looking at maybe the approved document b 2006
02:18:05 the approved document b 2006 that there would still be a need even reading these provisions to ensure that you've met the functional requirements well indeed so and i'm going to come to that right now okay
02:18:18 um i think the answer to my question though however is taking into account the first paragraph of 12.7 and then 13.7 nonetheless the
02:18:29 the restriction the requirement for materials of limited combustibility so far as concerned insulation was narrowed in 2000
02:18:37 in 2000 turning to the functional requirement do you recall that was amended because in 1992 the requirement was that the external walls of the building shall resist the spread of fire over the walls
02:18:49 of fire over the walls but in 2000 that became the external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls you remember that i can recall
02:19:00 i can recall and i believe it might have happened as part of a consolidation exercise of the regulations that
02:19:07 that in doing so lawyers departmental lawyers looked over all parts of schedule one of the building regulations all the technical parts
02:19:18 parts and it was at that point such words as adequate and reasonable were added i believe to most of the provisions the the
02:19:29 most of the provisions the the functional requirements b1 to b5 as that was would bring them into line with the other extant functional requirements for the other technical parts of the building regs
02:19:40 technical parts of the building regs where they are predicated well let's focus on on the this particular functional requirement b4 can we put those up on the screen simultaneously
02:19:51 those up on the screen simultaneously let's have the 1992 version on the left we could take down what we've got there and put up bla four zeros five four eight two
02:19:59 eight two page seventy two and at the same time the 2000 version clg one
02:20:07 clg one six zeros 12 page 86.
02:20:20 so
02:20:46 right we've got it right now left hand side 1992
02:20:50 1992 external fire spread b41 the external walls of the building shall resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another having regard to the height use and position of the building
02:21:02 the building on the right hand side 2000 version external fire spread the external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another having
02:21:13 from one building to another having regard to the height use and position of the building so identical words
02:21:19 words uh other than the insertion of the word adequately yes yes now you told us that there was a schematic rationale for using the word adequately
02:21:32 rationale for using the word adequately um
02:21:33 um was there a specific rationale
02:21:38 rationale for inserting the word adequately in this functional requirement
02:21:44 um as i say from recollection it was a consolidation of the building rigs by by the departmental lawyers and
02:21:56 and these predications went in across
02:22:00 across part b
02:22:02 part b as i understand it in line with the same way other functional requirements are predicated in other parts of schedule one yes
02:22:14 yes did do you remember in 2000 any discussion
02:22:20 along the lines of whether the insertion of the word adequately relaxed the requirement to any extent
02:22:32 i don't recall any such discussions on that basis
02:22:40 if if at all possible what follows the functional requirements are normally performance statements by the secretary of state as to how one can show compliance with these functional
02:22:51 compliance with these functional requirements would it be helpful possible to put those side by side as well yes i think it would if we go please to page
02:23:03 73 on the left hand side and page uh sorry 73 on the right hand side there
02:23:14 sorry left hand side yes and then and the following page which i think is 87 on the right hand side thank you yes there they are and can you
02:23:26 there they are and can you thank you can you see how that helps us in any way it it does because when people have asked me previously and it's not been for a very long time what is adequate or reasonable
02:23:38 what is adequate or reasonable i always start with the overarching building act and the building regulations and the regulations talk in the context of part b of the building regulations is
02:23:50 part b of the building regulations is that they relate to the health and safety of people in and around buildings and firefighters engaged in search and rescue
02:23:59 rescue so with that understanding reading the functional requirement that you've just kindly shown i then suggest people move in to read the performance statements and they both appear to be exactly the same
02:24:12 appear to be exactly the same if the external walls are constructed so that the risk of ignition from an external source and the spread of fire over the surfaces is restricted by making provision them to have low rates of heat release
02:24:25 low rates of heat release so the performance statements didn't change and so i'm unable to to answer why departmental lawyers did what they did
02:24:36 departmental lawyers did what they did but i would go to suggest that nothing thereafter changed you were still considering what else is identical between 92 and 2000. yes
02:24:47 yes i mean do you accept that taking the functional requirement as amended by the insertion of the word adequately there was a risk that the reader might not turn the page and think that the performance requirement had been diluted
02:24:58 performance requirement had been diluted in some way so that it went from an absolute requirement by reference admittedly to the performance requirements to a relative one
02:25:10 to a relative one typically you can't look at any part of the building regulations or the statutory guidance in isolation and so i would like to think a competent professional whatever they be designer
02:25:21 professional whatever they be designer building control or similar if they
02:25:24 if they did look at the the change in the functional requirement or they acknowledge that they would then do what we've just done now to have a look into the document itself to try and work out what else has
02:25:35 itself to try and work out what else has been suggestive in terms of the secretary of state's view so is your evidence that the in fact the intended edition of the word adequate uh was really to have no effect at all
02:25:47 uh was really to have no effect at all because the performance requirements remain the same it was just a lawyer's thing for recollection yes to bring it into line to the other predications offered
02:25:58 line to the other predications offered to the other technical parts of the building rex right
02:26:04 but that doesn't really solve the problem of precision does it because you're then left with uh
02:26:13 uh provision for the walls to have low rates of heat release and how low is required to satisfy that
02:26:24 satisfy that that's a very fair comment sir but
02:26:27 but i
02:26:28 i presume again harking back to what i said about the legal locus you'd have to relate that to it's amounting to life safety
02:26:39 life safety because the building registers example don't cover pure economic loss or property protection so what you might need to do to achieve life safety you can then as we know and has been
02:26:51 can then as we know and has been discussed in the inquiry sir you know the approved documents are
02:26:56 are you know
02:26:57 you know are but one way of potentially showing compliance they they can tend to show compliance but for some of the more common
02:27:05 common situations and thereby what you can do is look at the provisions what's that what's asked for thereafter within the guidance to see
02:27:15 to see if
02:27:16 if if it take that as what is tantamount to being acceptable and adequate for common situations but i i do recognize the issue race
02:27:27 the issue race and in the end it
02:27:30 it might be thought that in each case it will be a question of what degree of risk you're prepared to tolerate
02:27:37 tolerate but the minister hasn't given very much assistance on that
02:27:43 i could see how some people might read it that way but from experience having worked in terms of building control and then as a regulator
02:27:55 and then as a regulator in the department
02:27:58 from my understanding they would move into the into the document and the body of technical guidance and they would use that as potentially an equivalence
02:28:10 potentially an equivalence if they are you know they feel in terms of a designer it's because it's their duty to show compliance or building control for them to check as to what has been provided is sufficient to meet the functional
02:28:22 sufficient to meet the functional requirement and the performance but i can i can understand the point you raise sir right thank you thank you yes thank you
02:28:34 i know it's two minutes to 4 30 but i just want to explore something a little bit with you yes if we perhaps we should just keep the 90 the 2000 version up on the screen uh and go back a page if we can
02:28:48 uh and go back a page if we can and just have the functional requirement there
02:28:56 no um the two the one on the right hand side i think is the 2000 edition if we can flick back please to that the word adequately there and it's adequately having regard to the
02:29:08 and it's adequately having regard to the height
02:29:09 height use and position of the building isn't it yes
02:29:13 it yes so does that tell us and i don't want you to embark on an exercise of of interpretation of the guidance but was the was the understanding in the department at the time that the word adequately was
02:29:25 time that the word adequately was adopted
02:29:26 adopted that that what was adequate would vary from building to building depending on the height use and position of the building
02:29:37 yes yes and then going to the performance requirement chasing this through next page please picking the chairman's point up a little bit and running with it a bit further
02:29:48 bit and running with it a bit further does that tell us that the uh low that the low rates of heat release the degree of tolerance tolerability of rates of heat release would also depend
02:29:59 rates of heat release would also depend upon the
02:30:00 upon the um height
02:30:02 um height use and position of the building i think that would be a fair assumption sir and if the reference to to rates of heat release
02:30:10 release was a reference to class naught and diagram 40 does that tell us that the appropriateness of class naught
02:30:21 the appropriateness of class naught in any given case would depend upon the height use and position of the building it would
02:30:29 it would and if again referring back to the section 13 guidance in terms of where there were concerns that
02:30:40 where there were concerns that actually the functional requirement might not be met just by following the provision of limit material installation of limiting combustibility within ventilated cavities
02:30:51 cavities you could look and think actually no you need to go above and beyond that so in addition to that provision
02:31:03 i mean if it helps and i don't wish to extend the discussion but the way the approved documents and the functional system has always worked is that
02:31:14 is that you look at the approved document and its applicability to the design that is being undertaken or being checked and if you think the common guidance doesn't really
02:31:25 doesn't really deal with that situation you revert back to the function requirement and then into the performance statement which does mean and i did it as a building control
02:31:36 and i did it as a building control officer you can ask for provisions that go above and beyond what's in the guidance for the more common building situations yes
02:31:48 now do you agree in the light of what you've just told us and this exercise we've been going through the adequate
02:31:59 adequate by reference to performance requirements which takes you into class naught
02:32:05 in the context of a building with a stay put policy there should mean no flame spread
02:32:14 not necessarily now so was there in the light of that answer some degree of tolerance even with a with a building with a stay put policy in place
02:32:25 in place that there could be some flame spread external flame spread having regard to the height use and use of the building yes and and examples of where that can happen is that you can
02:32:37 where that can happen is that you can get fire spreading up depending upon climatic condition fire rolling up the face of masonry buildings brick buildings what you're trying to do is
02:32:48 is limit the propensity for fire spread to afford more time for the brigade to arrive and deal with the situation and by controlling the propensity for
02:33:02 and by controlling the propensity for fast fire spread and the jumping from window into a fire compartment starting a fire jumping to an x window you can slow that entire process down
02:33:14 you can slow that entire process down now let's be careful to distinguish between
02:33:18 between fire spread from floor to floor upper masonry building as a result perhaps of the coanda effect yes yes with a cladding system on fire do you appreciate that there's a there's
02:33:30 do you appreciate that there's a there's a difference yeah now my question is in the light of the risk of flame spread from a cladding on fire
02:33:41 flame spread from a cladding on fire do you agree that adequate in the context in that context where there is a building with a stay put policy means no flame spread in other words no
02:33:52 means no flame spread in other words no cladding on fire at all no i believe there could still be the propensity for fire spread that could still be allowed albeit by
02:34:04 that could still be allowed albeit by depending upon the specification it is a controlled fire spread it is not a fast burn and what would tell the architect the designer or the
02:34:15 the architect the designer or the building control officer how much external flame spread in or through the cladding system was permissible to make such flame spread adequate
02:34:26 spread adequate if the building had a state put policy in place again i'd revert you back to the provisions in the actual approved documents itself in terms of the guidance in paragraph
02:34:38 the guidance in paragraph 13.6 that suggested where
02:34:43 where it is an issue to have would it be possible to see 13.6 again yes of course and thank you let's go back
02:34:51 back on the right hand side please pay one page page 86
02:34:56 i know i've got that wrong and that's the requirement uh yes i think you need to go to page
02:35:08 89. yes page 89
02:35:13 thank you sir
02:35:18 the external envelope of a building should not provide a medium for fire risk if it is likely to be a risk to health or safety the use of combustible materials for cladding framework or similar or combustible thermal
02:35:30 similar or combustible thermal insulation as an over cladding or in ventilated cavities may present such a risk in tall buildings even though the provisions for external surfaces in diagram 40 may have been
02:35:41 surfaces in diagram 40 may have been satisfied
02:35:42 satisfied so by virtue of that provision that where it is felt and that would be a discussion quite often between a designer and a building control body
02:35:53 and a building control body that by
02:35:54 that by just following the guidance that follows in diagram 40 and the second paragraph here
02:36:00 here actually more might need to be done in terms of affording greater provision to the cladding system in its entirety now
02:36:12 entirety now what you've just told us very helpfully just now in the last 10 minutes was that something that was that your understanding of approved document b in
02:36:21 in in terms of the ability to look at a situation and decide that
02:36:26 that because i've got something that might not be a typical situation i have some concerns about some of the materials being used could i then revert back to the function
02:36:37 could i then revert back to the function requirement and the performance statement then the answer is yeah now given
02:36:43 now given and help me with this given that the assumption in any state put strategy is that flame will not spread beyond the compartment of origin do you agree that any vertical flame spread across or
02:36:56 that any vertical flame spread across or through the facade would fundamentally undermine
02:36:59 undermine all the other design assumptions forming the basis of that stay put strategy that's not my understanding sir if we if we look at br135 and the guidance that that
02:37:10 br135 and the guidance that that definitively offered as a recommendation that it needed to be updated from the select committee that recognizes the potential effect of fire spread
02:37:21 spread but by controlling the degree of fire spread over time affords greater time to operational firefighters in search and rescue and that is mbr135 part two
02:37:33 rescue and that is mbr135 part two so does it come to this therefore that as a result perhaps of five note nine in two thousand and um eight four one four later
02:37:46 um eight four one four later a degree of fire spread in a cladding system was entirely possible without undermining the design assumptions fundamental to the staple strategy and
02:37:56 and which would keep it within the meaning of the word adequate yes mr chairman i think mid top mid-document but probably not mid-topic now yeah which i think we've now covered
02:38:07 now yeah which i think we've now covered but um i'm going to ask for the break at that stage we'll come back to this document on monday morning if we make yes of course well mr bird we've gone slightly longer than usual this afternoon but it's an
02:38:18 than usual this afternoon but it's an interesting topic to explore um we'll break at that stage i'm going to have to ask you to come back i'm afraid on monday and we'll resume at 10 o'clock on monday and again i was asking not to talk to
02:38:30 and again i was asking not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it over the break all right thank you sir thank you very much
02:38:48 thank you very much 10 o'clock on monday please
02:38:59 you