Building Research Establishment Evidence - Monday 14th February 2022 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:29 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to start hearing evidence from dr sarah colwell of the building research establishment yes ms grange yes thank

00:00:40 establishment yes ms grange yes thank you could we call dr colwell please

00:00:51 good morning dr colwill good morning i guess they're going to take the oath yes well there should be a testament on the desk in front of you would you take the testament in your right hand please and read the words on the screen

00:01:02 read the words on the screen i swear by almighty god that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much now sit down make yourself comfortables

00:01:17 all right yes good thank you yes it's great yes thank you yes can i start by thanking you for attending this public inquiry today to give your evidence it is very much appreciated

00:01:28 is very much appreciated if you have any difficulty understanding any of the questions i'm going to ask you please just ask me to repeat the question or i'll put the point in a different way the other thing i'd ask you to do is try and keep your voice up because there's a

00:01:40 and keep your voice up because there's a lady transcribing your evidence sitting to your right and she's trying to take a clear note of your evidence so keep your voice up and try not to speak too fast okay

00:01:50 okay now you provided the inquiry with one witness statement which is that bre three zeros four seven five seven one there's that that witness statement

00:02:01 there's that that witness statement and if we go to page 109 we can see that it's dated the 22nd of october 2021 and is that your signature yes it is have you read that witness statement

00:02:12 have you read that witness statement recently yes i have and are the contents of that statement true they are thank you

00:02:18 you now you also gave a statement to the metropolitan police which we will come to in your evidence that statement appears at met 3080530

00:02:30 there's that statement we can see from the top right that it was a 10-page statement

00:02:35 statement and we can see towards the top of the page between the two lines that it's dated the 4th of august 2021 do you see that yes i do and we can also see that you've

00:02:46 and we can also see that you've electronically signed this is that correct that is correct yeah can you firm confirm that this statement to the metropolitan police is also true i can confirm yes thanks and have you discussed the evidence you're going to

00:02:57 discussed the evidence you're going to give today with anyone before coming here i've discussed it with my legal team yes

00:03:03 team yes but nobody else nobody else no thank you so i want to start by asking you some questions about your background and your qualifications if we could turn up your inquiry witness

00:03:14 if we could turn up your inquiry witness statement again and look at paragraph two on page one you tell us that you joined the fire research station at the bre in 1985 as

00:03:25 research station at the bre in 1985 as an assistant scientific officer is that correct yes that's correct and that was in the protection systems section is that right yes and is it right that your role was to assist in the collection and processing

00:03:38 assist in the collection and processing of thermal response data from fire sprinklers is that right yes that's correct

00:03:44 correct now staying on with paragraph two you uh describe that role as a a training role that's in the second line which you worked um for while studying

00:03:55 which you worked um for while studying for a higher national certificate in chemical engineering which you did go on to obtain in june 1987. is that correct

00:04:04 correct yes that is correct yeah so help us with this in 1985 when you joined the bre what level of qualification did you have a levels right thank you

00:04:16 right thank you and this role as an assistant scientific officer was that some kind of apprenticeship at the time effectively that would be described as an apprenticeship now yes yes thank you now if we go on to page two and look at

00:04:28 now if we go on to page two and look at paragraph three you tell us that in october 1986 you move within the bre to the explosion protection section and is it right that in that section

00:04:40 and is it right that in that section your work focused on undertaking testing to determine explosion characteristics of dust and powders is that right yes it was

00:04:49 was and then at paragraph four you tell us that you began studying towards your degree at south bank polytechnic in september 1987. yes and then you go on to explain that you

00:05:01 and then you go on to explain that you obtained your bachelor of engineering degree in chemical engineering at the south bank university in 1991 is that right yes that's correct

00:05:14 that right yes that's correct and we know you tell us that you continued to work at the bre throughout your degree course studying part-time yes i did

00:05:22 yes i did and then you tell us that in 2000 you were awarded a phd which was on the response of structures to vented dust explosions is that right yes that's correct yeah

00:05:34 correct yeah now i'm going to summarize but in terms of your progression at the bre you explain at paragraphs five six and also eight of this statement that having joined the bre in 1985

00:05:46 that having joined the bre in 1985 is this right in 1987 you were promoted to the role of scientific officer that's correct

00:05:52 correct in 1991 you were promoted to the role of hire scientific officer yes that's correct and then senior scientific officer in 1995. that's correct yes thank you

00:06:04 that's correct yes thank you in those roles so thinking back to 1987 to 1995 when you became a senior scientific officer to whom did you report within the bre

00:06:15 report within the bre so the

00:06:17 so the reporting chains varied during that period i initially when i initially joined i worked for mr theobald on the response of sprinkler data and once i moved into the explosion

00:06:28 once i moved into the explosion protection area i worked for dr david crowhurst right thank you now again i'm summarizing but you also explain in paragraphs five to seven that your work from 1986 centered on gas

00:06:41 that your work from 1986 centered on gas and dust explosions including blast protection systems and work on large-scale testing programs in response to explosion loads from gas and dust is that correct that's correct

00:06:53 and dust is that correct that's correct yes

00:06:55 yes and that was until 1996 and it was at that point that you became involved in large-scale fire testing programs is that right that's correct yes and if we look at paragraph nine

00:07:07 and if we look at paragraph nine uh at the bottom of this page on page two of your statement you tell us you say in 1996 i became involved in large-scale fire testing programmes including the external cladding programme

00:07:21 now what external cladding program are you referring to there during that period work was being undertaken on the uh what were the large-scale test rigs

00:07:33 uh what were the large-scale test rigs for the external uh cladding fires and i was asked to assist in the in the programmes that were being undertaken at the large scale test facility cardington in uh bethesda yeah did that include the

00:07:45 in uh bethesda yeah did that include the work of dr connolly in around 1994 uh i became involved with dr connolly's work in 96 i was part of the night and then from 94 i wasn't working with him at that time

00:07:56 wasn't working with him at that time right but you did become involved in his work in 96 yes yeah and did that work also inc encompass uh we'll come back to these fire note 3 and fine note 9. yes yeah

00:08:07 yeah and did you move to a new team within the bre in 1989 1996

00:08:12 1996 when the focus of your work changed to large-scale fire testing or did you remain in the same team

00:08:19 team during the period 96 to 97 my role was split between the two two groups right

00:08:30 and how did it come about that you moved from gas and dust explosions towards this large-scale fire testing program the work with the um

00:08:42 the work with the um offshore uh activities uh had uh ramped up because of the piper alpha um incident

00:08:49 incident and as that inquiry and the research around the systems had started to tail tail off and move

00:09:00 started to tail tail off and move to other testing larger facilities i was no longer required to work actively in that area so my skill set was being used to look for other areas of large

00:09:11 used to look for other areas of large scale testing yeah and did you actively seek out that area did you express an interest in it or were you simply told we're going to deploy you now onto large-scale fire testing

00:09:23 large-scale fire testing um

00:09:23 um [Music]

00:09:26 [Music] i think it was i think it was a a mutually agreed activity it was obvious that that area of work was tailing away and therefore new challenges and new opportunities uh

00:09:39 new challenges and new opportunities uh to to work in different areas of fire research yeah we're opening up so yes yeah

00:09:44 yeah and can you tell us a little bit about how you were inducted into that new area of work was there any kind of training was there an induction process with the large-scale testing activities

00:09:55 with the large-scale testing activities it's very much related around the individual's knowledge and experience so there'll be more senior members of the team who would mentor you in the areas that you needed additional support and and

00:10:06 needed additional support and and knowledge around so it's not a formal training process as such no yeah and were there particular individuals that were involved in your training around that time uh yeah that would have been um uh

00:10:20 tony morris um martin shipp uh ray connolly to some extent um but

00:10:29 but predominantly um based around the practical activities the the large-scale testing uh team were already actively working in

00:10:40 uh team were already actively working in that so it would have been uh tony and martin

00:10:45 martin yes

00:10:46 yes and is it right that in 1996 you were reporting to martinship was he was your line manager he was at that point yeah now if we go down to paragraph 40 of your statement on page eight um this is

00:10:59 your statement on page eight um this is a section where you're answering questions from the inquiry about a report into the fire at nosley heights and at paragraph 40 at the top of the page you say this

00:11:10 40 at the top of the page you say this you say i read this report as part of a briefing pack that i was given when i joined the external cladding project team that was looking at the development of a large-scale fire test to evaluate

00:11:21 of a large-scale fire test to evaluate the performance of external cladding systems

00:11:24 systems so you refer there to reading that noslee heights report as part of a briefing pack can you remember i know it was a long time ago but what else you were given in that kind of briefing pack what other

00:11:35 that kind of briefing pack what other reports might you have been given so um predominantly it was around this was

00:11:41 was the background so there was work that was being carried out

00:11:47 out in a number of different research organizations looking at the development of large-scale cladding testing so there would have been reports from those organizations and there would have

00:11:58 those organizations and there would have been um this particular report as as an incident of of interest and

00:12:05 and um

00:12:07 um data and information that was already available from the from the wider context yeah you refer there to the fact that there was work being carried out by a number of different research organizations looking at the development of

00:12:19 looking at the development of large-scale testing cladding testing what other organizations other than the bre were involved in that work at this time there was work being undertaken in germany and there was work being

00:12:30 germany and there was work being undertaken in the states and in canada

00:12:34 there was also an international standards um program that was was beginning to work in that area as well yeah

00:12:42 yeah so you were receiving information were you from germany from the u.s from canada as

00:12:48 canada as we were working they were working as independent uh research groups but as reports

00:12:53 reports were published in the in journals they were being shared with with the organizations around that yes i see can you remember did that briefing pack include dr connolly's work

00:13:04 include dr connolly's work which was titled the investigation of the behavior of external cladding systems in fire report on 10 full-scale tests from 1994. i'm not sure if that report had been

00:13:15 i'm not sure if that report had been published at that point but the work around that would have been um would have been available yes yeah what about the whether the briefing pack included the first edition of br135

00:13:28 included the first edition of br135 which had been published in 1988 would you have looked at that at that point

00:13:34 point i honestly can't remember fair enough

00:13:38 now paragraph 10 on page two going back to page two you explain that in 1998 you moved to the reaction to fire team working under dr debbie smith

00:13:49 working under dr debbie smith as a principal consultant is that right that's correct yes and you tell us that your role at that stage was to look at the fire performance characteristics of materials and that it included work on the

00:14:01 and that it included work on the external fire performance of cladding systems is that right that's correct yes

00:14:07 now what was the work that you carried out in relation to the external fire performance of cladding systems can you help us

00:14:18 in the period following the publication um

00:14:23 um or the completion of the um research program that led to fine notes three and nine there was

00:14:35 there was a pii program that was being completed for industry and there were additionally some follow-up tests that were being undertaken

00:14:47 tests that were being undertaken for

00:14:48 for additional knowledge and information and when you talk about a pii program can you explain to the panel what pii stands for um around the mid-90s uh government were

00:15:00 um around the mid-90s uh government were very keen to ensure that they um engaged with

00:15:04 with all the in all interested parties and stakeholders so they developed a program called partners in innovation pii so the idea was it was

00:15:15 so the idea was it was effectively a match funding type of research project so the government would put forward

00:15:22 forward a certain amount of funding towards that and that was matched in kind by industry who were also part of the development of that program to support its aims and

00:15:33 that program to support its aims and findings and that was done either through

00:15:35 through supply of materials or knowledge

00:15:39 knowledge yes thank you and you also said that there were some follow-up tests that were done for information now we may come back to this but just in very brief terms what kind of follow-up tests are you talking about

00:15:50 of follow-up tests are you talking about there

00:15:52 without going back in detail to record i have no i couldn't tell you directly exactly what they were but there were i recall

00:16:00 recall some additional tests that were completed i think through industry seeking additional knowledge of the performance of their products against the new draft test methods right and what time period are you

00:16:12 right and what time period are you talking about for those additional tests that would have been around 98 right yeah

00:16:20 and can you help us with what types of cladding systems that work involved there were two programs one looked at um high pressure laminate rain screens and the other was for

00:16:33 rain screens and the other was for external render systems and at that time external render systems were the more um predominant of interest yeah and in that in that early early phase yeah

00:16:45 early phase yeah now paragraph 11 on page two it's right at the bottom of that page you tell us that in 2002 you became the business group manager for the reaction to fire team is that right that's

00:16:56 to fire team is that right that's correct and in that role you were providing commercial testing services for external clients in relation to the fire performance characteristics of materials to publish standards

00:17:07 materials to publish standards is that correct yes it was a change in enroll moving towards the commercial testing

00:17:13 testing activities rather than the research driven activities yes and you say in that paragraph that you were also involved in the provision of experimental programs for commercial and government clients is that right that's

00:17:25 government clients is that right that's correct yes now just in practical day-to-day terms help us with what the role of a business group manager involved

00:17:35 i was responsible for the delivery of the testing programmes and using a team of staff to support that

00:17:47 but you also had this role in terms of experimental programs is that right that's correct and what was your role were you just overseeing those being done by others or were you actually carrying out those experimental programs

00:17:59 carrying out those experimental programs it would have been a combination right yeah

00:18:03 yeah and um in this role did that involve a combination of technical and business development or commercial work yes yeah

00:18:11 yes yeah and did that work include testing to bs 8414

00:18:18 in 2002 yes that would have just been the publication of 2000 of the first first part so yes that would have involved yes and what about testing to bs 476 part six and part seven

00:18:29 six and part seven were you involved in that as part of being business group manager yes

00:18:37 and what kind of experimental programmes were those for for government first you talk about experimental programs for commercial and government just focusing on the government what kind of external

00:18:48 on the government what kind of external experimental programs are you thinking of so if contracts were were left for um specific investigations then it would have been involving those type of of projects and activities

00:19:03 i see and can you help us as to what type of of specific investigations you're talking about there during that period there was work undertaken because of the

00:19:14 undertaken because of the launching of the european um classification system yeah the interpretation of the the um the data

00:19:23 the data there were programs going on radar programs looking at the

00:19:28 the um

00:19:30 um testing of a product against the different codes that were coming into place so being part of the the activities in that yes and what about experimental programs for commercial clients involved involving

00:19:43 commercial clients involved involving large-scale testing what what did those involve that again was where these were joined partners in innovation programs so

00:19:54 partners in innovation programs so again it would have been uh clients the commercial working with government to gain data and information right can you remember any specific projects that you were involved in it would have been

00:20:05 you were involved in it would have been the radar

00:20:06 the radar right radar program and then if we move on to page three um and paragraph 12 you explain in 2005 the 2005 the reaction to fire and the

00:20:19 the 2005 the reaction to fire and the fire resistance teams were combined and that you began to work with stephen howard to jointly manage the passive fire business area team undertaking standard testing and

00:20:30 undertaking standard testing and approvals for commercial clients is that correct that's correct yes can you just explain in very brief terms the difference between the reaction to fire team and the fire resistance teams

00:20:41 fire team and the fire resistance teams as they had been uh reaction to fire was um always sorry um predominantly around determining the performance characteristics in terms of

00:20:52 performance characteristics in terms of fire spread um and

00:20:55 um and fire resistance is predominantly around the ability of structures um to uh resist fire um

00:21:07 resist fire um yeah in that sense yes thank you and can you help us why were those teams merged into one in 2005.

00:21:17 operationally they tend to work quite closely

00:21:21 closely together in terms of the client base and the knowledge shared between the teams working in those areas yes i see

00:21:32 yes i see and once merged is it right that that team became known as the passive fire team that's correct yep and then in paragraph 12 again on page three you refer to the

00:21:45 again on page three you refer to the passive fire business area undertaking standard testing and approvals for commercial clients is that right that's correct yes does that mean that you had no involvement in government-sponsored work

00:21:57 involvement in government-sponsored work in that particular role or was it still a mixture of commercial and government-sponsored projects it would have been a mixture of both yes yeah and again just in practical day-to-day

00:22:08 and again just in practical day-to-day day-to-day terms what did your role in managing the passive fire business area involved

00:22:14 involved it was an extension of the role from i previously held with the reaction to fire team continuing to look after the technical

00:22:22 technical aspects

00:22:24 aspects and the uh commercial reporting aspects of the the activities in that group yes and to whom did you report in that role uh debbie smith

00:22:35 uh debbie smith yeah

00:22:36 yeah and moving on to paragraph 13 below that you tell us that in 2007 you became the technical development director for the passive fire team reporting to stephen howard is that

00:22:48 reporting to stephen howard is that right that's correct yes does that mean that you were no longer reporting to dr debbie smith at that point oh from a responsibility no i was

00:23:00 oh from a responsibility no i was response i was reporting to stephen um and

00:23:04 and he was taking the comm he took the commercial lead but in practical terms technical discussions were held with debbie not with stephen right yes

00:23:16 with stephen right yes and you go on to say that your role involved providing technical support to the team and that it was not an operational role can you just help us what do you mean by that i was no longer involved in the commercial

00:23:28 involved in the commercial reporting or development of the team at that time right and what kind of technical support did you offer to the team can you help us with that

00:23:38 with that so

00:23:39 so because i was actively involved with the stan with the committees and the standardization work it was basically looking at changes in technical provision and development of standards

00:23:50 provision and development of standards during this period we were facing the transition from the traditional british standards the 476 series into the european classification activities so there were a number of different

00:24:01 there were a number of different technical challenges that were being undertaken in that in that period yeah

00:24:08 and can you help us on what types of projects did you offer technical support can you give us a flavor of that as i say with the development of the new european standards we were

00:24:19 european standards we were implementing new test methodologies new reporting methodologies classification approaches so there were a number of technical

00:24:30 developments and uh training that needed to be taken place within the within the teams to to bring everyone up to speed right and you led that training yes yeah yeah

00:24:41 yeah then at paragraph 14 you tell us in 2009 you left the passive fire team and became the business group manager for the fire suppression team is that correct that's correct yes and what was

00:24:53 correct that's correct yes and what was the fire suppression team it was returning to the work that i had originally joined the organization looking at active fire suppression activities related to

00:25:06 activities related to fire sprinklers gaseous suppression systems

00:25:09 systems manual firefighting equipment so it was an area that i'd worked in previously and it was was returning to yes

00:25:18 yes but you tell us um on page six if we look at paragraph 31

00:25:26 you tell us that you um in your role as business group manager for the fire suppression team you did continue to provide technical support on

00:25:37 continue to provide technical support on building envelope fire topics to the passive fire team do you see that yes correct in the second and third lines so

00:25:47 so is this right because of your by this point lengthy experience in the area of um

00:25:53 um building envelope fire spread cladding etc

00:25:57 etc you nevertheless despite going back to suppression sprinklers etc you nevertheless were able to be called upon for technical support that's correct is that right yes and in reality

00:26:10 correct is that right yes and in reality what kind of technical support did you provide

00:26:14 provide uh

00:26:15 uh mainly updates on work in the standards areas because i was still actively supporting the standardization work um on

00:26:25 on both an external cladding and um external uh five performance surveys yeah so that that role continued

00:26:36 and again who was your line manager when you were in this role uh as

00:26:42 uh as for on the fire suppression team um uh was was debbie smith up until her changing role when julie bragula took took over

00:26:52 took over and what about when you were providing this technical support for the building envelope fire to the passive fire team who was your line manager for the purposes of that work or was it still

00:27:03 purposes of that work or was it still debbie smith it was still debbie it was all we were all still within that same um

00:27:07 um reporting unit right

00:27:10 right and is it right that then in 2016 you became the director of the fire suppression team yeah correct they the the role didn't that physically

00:27:21 the the role didn't that physically change it was there was a a re

00:27:24 a re um

00:27:26 um renaming of the the roles within the within the group yeah and how senior a role is that within the bre the director of the fire suppression team uh

00:27:35 uh held responsible for the activities within that within that group yeah how many other directors did they have across other different teams at that at that stage within the the fire area um

00:27:48 that stage within the the fire area um steve

00:27:49 steve steve was the director for the uh passive myself for suppression and um

00:27:57 um stephen manchester for the fire safety right and when you say steve the first do you mean stephen howard yes yeah

00:28:05 and you say in this role you were responsible for the operations of this group

00:28:10 group as director of fire suppression team yes yes um again what did your day-to-day work involved you're you're a director now did that involve a marked change in the the work you were involved in no i'd say it was it was a

00:28:23 involved in no i'd say it was it was a a title change rather than a role change it was the same technical responsibilities and the same reporting operational reporting responsibilities and thereafter were you still called upon to provide technical support on

00:28:35 upon to provide technical support on building envelopes as and when required yes yes

00:28:40 yes yes and are you still employed by the bre i am yes and in what role uh as director of suppression right so you've stayed in the same role yeah thank you now i want to move on to some questions

00:28:51 now i want to move on to some questions about some of your colleagues at the bre if we can look at page five of your statement

00:28:57 statement and paragraph 21 there you explain that you worked with a lady called penny morgan on various occasions providing technical support to fire investigation projects

00:29:08 support to fire investigation projects that she was leading on from the late 1980s through to her retirement from the team yes that's correct yes

00:29:16 now can you help us with this did penny morgan lead on fire investigations throughout that period so from the late 1980s until 2001

00:29:28 i would have to have to say my recollection of dates in that period is not great

00:29:37 i don't believe she led the group

00:29:40 the group um but she led on the day-to-day activities of of undertaking the fire rescue i'm not sure who she was reporting to directly at that time right

00:29:52 that time right but you think in practice she did lead on the day-to-day involvement in terms of fire investigation she if if there was a if it was a fire of interest she would generally be the person who contacted me

00:30:03 generally be the person who contacted me and said this fire is of interest or you know you um

00:30:09 you um there's something that may be of of interest to you to follow up right i see and what was your understanding of peggy moore penny morgan's qualifications

00:30:20 moore penny morgan's qualifications i wouldn't have i've no no experience with that comment yeah

00:30:25 yeah if we just go briefly to her witness statement this is at bre 30 43866

00:30:31 to the very top line on page one she says there i penny morgan

00:30:38 morgan formerly a fire investigation engineer at the building research establishment so she's describing herself as a fire investigation engineer can you help us with what what is a fire investigation

00:30:50 with what what is a fire investigation engineer

00:30:52 engineer um i'm sorry i can't i'm not qualified in that field so i don't know what that that would mean in practical terms okay and help us with this on what on which fire investigation projects did you

00:31:04 fire investigation projects did you provide technical support to penny morgan can you remember

00:31:10 i attended a fire in um

00:31:17 i believe it was the um

00:31:21 um dartford south end um area where there'd been unusual fire spread um

00:31:28 um on the external surface of the building and

00:31:34 the

00:31:43 with penny directly i i'm sorry i i struggle to to be able to identify anything formally on that that's okay so does that mean there weren't many oh no very very few very intermittent right

00:31:55 very very few very intermittent right and what would be the trigger for you to get involved with penny morgan in coming and investigating a fire it would be something that was unusual in that particular incident fired

00:32:07 in that particular incident fired felt to have traveled in a slightly unusual way and they were interested if i had any knowledge or experience from the work that i've been involved with as to to maybe

00:32:19 i've been involved with as to to maybe help help explain the mechanism that had been seen yeah and when you say something unusual do you mean something unusual about the external fire spread they were unsure whether it was an external fire spread or whether it was

00:32:30 external fire spread or whether it was an internal fire spread that had reappeared externally i think so it was a it was a fire a fire travel mechanism that was really the the interest they were seeking from you for me yes i see

00:32:45 and can you remember from the limited occasions when you were pulled in to assist with her investigations what kind of technical support that you did provide in relation to these fire investigations

00:32:56 to these fire investigations generally to attend site to have a look at the involvement and the fire spread patterns that have been seen

00:33:08 yeah now if we go within penny morgan's witness statement to page five and paragraph um 33 she has listed out there what her work

00:33:21 she has listed out there what her work on investigating fires in the period from 1988 to 2001 involved and in summary we can see in that the sub-paragraphs so we can see at 33a she

00:33:33 sub-paragraphs so we can see at 33a she said it involves liaising with fire brigades to gather information on fires and attending the sites of fires in person

00:33:41 person selecting fires of interest to investigate organizing laboratory work and experiments in support of fire investigations preparing the first drafts of reports on those fire investigations as well as

00:33:53 those fire investigations as well as annual summaries for government engaging with bre staff where the findings from the investigation of real fire project could support their own work and research and then where this was approved by

00:34:04 and then where this was approved by government engaging with external organizations and interested parties to disseminate information about fires which have been investigated now just thinking about that list

00:34:15 now just thinking about that list can you help us which of those activities would you provide technical support for

00:34:23 so if we go back maybe we'll go back a page and look at little a first so if there'd been a so would you ever liaise with fiber grades to gather

00:34:34 liaise with fiber grades to gather information on fires and attend the sites of fires in person

00:34:40 so i would i would attend if i was asked yes i would not liaise with the fire brigades no no and then over the page

00:34:49 if you look back to the list page six would you be involved in selecting files of interest to investigate no no what about organizing laboratory work and experiments in support of fire

00:35:00 and experiments in support of fire investigations would you ever get involved in that i

00:35:04 i i don't recall ever getting involved in that but that would have been um an expectation if there was something that she'd asked us to to to test that yeah she would have come to

00:35:14 to come and asked on that yes yes i see what about preparing first drafts of reports on uh fire and rescue services fire investigations as well as annual summaries for government would you ever get involved in that no no

00:35:26 get involved in that no no engaging with bere staff where findings could support their own work and research yes yeah and what about engaging with external organizations to disseminate information about the fires

00:35:38 disseminate information about the fires that have been investigated did you ever get involved in that um no although i would potentially have used her investigations to cite as examples in presentations right yeah i

00:35:49 examples in presentations right yeah i see

00:35:50 see and then at page 15 of penny morgan's witness statement um she tells us in paragraph 80 that she was involved in the investigation of more than 60 fires per year that's in

00:36:02 more than 60 fires per year that's in line four

00:36:03 line four of that part of her statement um i think you've already told us that it was very rare that you would get involved

00:36:12 involved does that help us to how many fire investigations you might assist on in any given year if she was doing 60. how many might you get involved in in any typical year less than one right

00:36:24 less than one right so very rare indeed very rare indeed yes now going back to page five of your own witness statement and paragraph 22 you tell us that in relation to peter field

00:36:35 tell us that in relation to peter field that you worked with him from september 1985 through to his retirement from the bre he was your section leader in the fire protection section when he joined the bre and he remained a senior manager

00:36:46 the bre and he remained a senior manager throughout that period yes that's correct and then at paragraph 23 below that

00:36:51 that you tell us that you work with brian martin

00:36:54 martin as a co-worker in the fire safety group at the bre during his employment at the bre yes yes and you go on in that paragraph to tell

00:37:06 and you go on in that paragraph to tell us

00:37:07 us that in the second line you say he and i work together on several fire safety projects for both commercial entities and government bodies including the second edition of br135 is that right

00:37:19 second edition of br135 is that right yes

00:37:21 yes during what which period did you work with brian martin in the fire safety group can you help us over what time period you were co-workers

00:37:34 well from the period he joined bre through the time that he left we would have been within the same fire safety group right so you worked with him pretty closely all the way through his time at the bre yes yes yes

00:37:46 time at the bre yes yes yes now putting aside the second edition of br135 we'll come on to later in your evidence

00:37:52 evidence can you help us with any other fire safety projects that you worked on specifically with brian martin are there any ones that stick in your mind as particular ones that you worked on together

00:38:05 and we did an investigation on a

00:38:09 roof fire um

00:38:14 a protection system for for a roof um

00:38:21 i don't my interaction with him was predominantly around 135

00:38:28 135 right i see and and we will come back to that um how would you describe your working relationship with brian martin uh during the time that he was at the bre

00:38:39 the time that he was at the bre um

00:38:40 um same as any of my working colleagues he was just a co-worker it was a co-worker yeah so it was a constructive and effective relationship absolutely and what about later when he uh began to

00:38:52 and what about later when he uh began to work for government what was your working relationship like with him then um

00:38:59 um i didn't have a huge amount of interaction on in with him once he he left biari right i see so it was fairly infrequently that you would see him very yeah if um only if

00:39:11 would see him very yeah if um only if there was a working project that was in combination yeah and when you did and you had to work together in combination was the working relationship one of

00:39:22 was the working relationship one of equals who'd worked together at the bre or did no

00:39:26 or did no no how was it between you um he was my client right so at that point what you had a very formal client it was a relationship it was a much more

00:39:38 it was a relationship it was a much more yes yeah i mean that it like any yes there was a knowledge of each other we knew we knew each other but he was my client at the end of the day yes right i see

00:39:49 right i see now if we go down to paragraph 24 um below that and uh there you refer to david crowder and you tell us that you work with david crowder on various occasions when you provide a technical

00:40:00 occasions when you provide a technical support to fire investigation projects that he was leading during his employment at the bre and you explained this included the grenfell tower fire investigation project for which he provided technical

00:40:11 project for which he provided technical support on understanding fire spread mechanism in external clouding systems and you say he led the bre team now putting outside any support you provided in relation to the fire at grenfell

00:40:22 in relation to the fire at grenfell tower can you help us with what other technical support you provided to david crowder on other fire investigations again are there particular instances of that that stick in the mind

00:40:37 i i can't i can't recall one ex i can't recall one that immediately comes to mind no

00:40:43 mind no so you can't recall any other specific fire investigation projects that you worked on with david crowder

00:40:56 i'm sorry no i can't i mean there may well be examples but there's nothing that comes to mind immediately no were you ever asked to get involved with the lack of house fire or an investigation of that fire no

00:41:10 now onto paragraph 26 there right at the bottom of the page dr raymond connolly you tell us that you worked with dr connolly as part of the cladding test development project team

00:41:22 development project team during his employment at the bre you explain that he was the technical lead on the team when you joined the project in 1996 until he left the bre yes now where where you describe the the

00:41:35 now where where you describe the the cladding test development project team can you just help us as to exactly what what that was so

00:41:43 so as we talked about earlier in that period um

00:41:46 period um 96 where i was transitioning across to the to work with the large-scale um testing

00:41:52 testing that's the project i'm referring to at that point yeah so that was dr connolly's project which had begun in 1994 yes i believe so yes yeah

00:42:04 and just help us with this which role were you in at that time was that in 1996 when you were in the role of senior scientific officer yes yes yes

00:42:15 yes yes we don't need to go to this but in his witness statement um for the transcript this is at bre 3047667

00:42:23 3047667 page 2 paragraph 3d dr connolly tells us that he was your line manager briefly towards the end of his time at the bre is that right

00:42:34 his time at the bre is that right i honestly can't remember okay sorry

00:42:38 sorry there was a lot of transition in that period 96 97 i was also out of the um [Music]

00:42:47 [Music] company for uh on maternity leave during 97. right so there was there was a lot of transition around that period yes i see yeah i mean he appears to suggest that he maybe briefly was your line manager um

00:42:59 manager um sometime leading up to 1996 in his statement so it's possible that's right absolutely yes yeah

00:43:06 and you've explained that um from 1996 martin's ship was your line manager is that correct that's correct i suspect that it may have been when i moved over to the group um dr connolly

00:43:19 moved over to the group um dr connolly was given my day-to-day line management and at some point that that moved across to martin when uh dr connolly left yeah now dealing with martin ship if we look

00:43:30 now dealing with martin ship if we look at page six of your statement we can see second paragraph down you say i work with martin ship when he was my line manager for a brief period in the late 1990s and then as part of various

00:43:42 late 1990s and then as part of various fire investigation projects when i was asked to provide technical support including in relation to the yarlswood immigration removal centre fire in february 2002 and the adderstone on star fire in

00:43:53 and the adderstone on star fire in november 2007 yes that's correct are those the only two fire investigations on which you provided support to martin ship

00:44:01 ship no there was a fire in

00:44:06 stevenage um involving a fatal fire and also um

00:44:14 um a fire in

00:44:16 a fire in glasgow

00:44:18 glasgow right

00:44:19 right thank you

00:44:22 thank you and can you remember what kind of support you provided what was your practical input into those fire investigations again it would have been questions around fire spread right

00:44:34 fire spread right yes

00:44:35 yes now we're going to come back at a later stage in your evidence the fire investigation uh to fire investigation and in particular to some aspects of the bre's investigation of real fires project under contract with the

00:44:46 project under contract with the government um but for now can you just help us more generally is it right in terms of fire investigations that you would be available to assist penny morgan from the late 1980s onwards

00:44:58 penny morgan from the late 1980s onwards yes correct then martin ship from we think between 2002 and 2007 does that sound about right yes

00:45:07 yes i think it it would be fair to say i i was in i was working in the organization whoever was taking those fire investigation roles if they needed support would ask i didn't have

00:45:18 support would ask i didn't have day-to-day working knowledge of of how fire investigation was being put together so who was leading who was actually developing that i wouldn't i can't speak to him unfortunately

00:45:30 unfortunately so i can't clarify that any further i understand thank you if we look at your witness statement page eight um paragraph 41 you say in the very final line there you

00:45:42 you say in the very final line there you say just the final words i am not a fire investigator is that right that's correct now that question was asked in the context of the nosley how it's how it's fire

00:45:51 it's fire now first can you tell us what would make someone a fire investigator in your view you very clearly said you're not one what would make a fire investigator

00:46:04 my understanding of fire investigation and what i've seen from my colleagues is there is a discipline and a methodology around work that they do that i'm not familiar with

00:46:15 that they do that i'm not familiar with and have no knowledge or experience of and wouldn't claim to be able to undertake right and did you understand that there were particular qualifications or training required for that role which you had not obtained

00:46:29 that role which you had not obtained yes i believe there are professional qualifications that that they hold yeah

00:46:39 and then if we can turn back to page six of your statement paragraph 32 right at the bottom of that page you tell us in relation to dr debbie smith you say i began working for dr smith who

00:46:51 you say i began working for dr smith who was my line manager in the reaction to fire team from around 1997 onwards i knew her before this time but we did not work together we continued to work together as our careers advanced with her as my senior manager until she left

00:47:03 her as my senior manager until she left the bre in april 2021 she had direct oversight of my activities since 1997.

00:47:11 and where you've referred to her having direct oversight of your activities from 1997 until she left in april 2021 what precisely do you mean there by direct oversight what did that mean in

00:47:23 direct oversight what did that mean in practical terms she was the technical resource that i spoke to right so if ever you had a question about um the technical issues something you wanted

00:47:35 something you wanted to consult somebody on you would go to her is that right that's correct yes and was she seen as the ultimate authority within the bre on the kind of technical questions that you were dealing with

00:47:47 if she wasn't she would direct me to to others in the group who were so she she had the the the wider knowledge and experience of the the expertise within the group yes i

00:47:58 the the expertise within the group yes i see yes but i mean normally would she be able to answer the question that you perhaps wanted to talk over with her in terms of her own technical expertise yes it would be a a conversation a technical

00:48:10 it would be a a conversation a technical discussion between us that would uh lead us to to reach a solution yeah and would you consult her on these kind of technical matters even when you were reporting to stephen howard as

00:48:21 were reporting to stephen howard as you've told as you did from 2007 to 2009 when you were the technical development director of the passive fire team i would yes yes

00:48:30 and in what way i mean how would debbie smith uh dr smith maintain direct oversight of your activities over that period were you physically located near one another did you have regular catch-up sessions

00:48:42 did you have regular catch-up sessions with her how did it work in practice

00:48:47 a lot of the work was shared um and a lot of the activities was we shared programs shared projects so um it would be a combination of um

00:48:58 it would be a combination of um conversation we weren't for part of the time we were physically um co-located but when i moved to the fire suppression team

00:49:09 fire suppression team then no we were i was in a different part of the site so we we'd catch up on a fairly regular basis but it wasn't a formal timetable as such no yeah and when you caught up would it be by

00:49:20 when you caught up would it be by telephone or would you meet in person mixture right yeah

00:49:26 and what was your working relationship like with dr smith over that period how would you describe it very effective [Music]

00:49:36 [Music] shared mutual knowledge and experience so it was a an easy flow of technical exchange and and knowledge yes thank you

00:49:47 and knowledge yes thank you now some questions about the privatization of the bre and um its wider consequences now the inquiry understands that the bre was privatized in 1997 yes and

00:49:58 and you had been at the bre since 1988 did the privatization of the bre have any impact on your role we know that you became involved in large-scale fire

00:50:09 became involved in large-scale fire testing in 1996

00:50:17 so in the period

00:50:22 i'd always had some degree of involvement in commercial testing programs from the time when i worked with the explosion activities so i was probably in in many senses less impacted in the cultural change around

00:50:35 in the cultural change around that than

00:50:36 that than than a number of colleagues i was used to working with a mixed portfolio

00:50:43 portfolio right

00:50:45 right what was the impact for your other colleagues of privatization what did you what did you witness during that time how would you describe it for some colleagues who had predominantly worked in

00:50:56 predominantly worked in uh government-funded programs it was a large change because the funding sources were ceasing for them um and

00:51:04 and that obviously has a has a direct impact and for others the changing emphasis from um [Music]

00:51:16 [Music] longer term programmes to shorter term um very focused programs was something that they had to learn to work with and develop yeah and did it affect the the culture within

00:51:27 and did it affect the the culture within the bre the atmosphere that that that change

00:51:30 change would you say i think it had been going on for some time because we'd obviously had the change in the um

00:51:39 um when i joined vre in 85 we were based in watford sorry we're based in bournemouth that site was moved to watford in 91 so

00:51:50 that site was moved to watford in 91 so again there was a culture change at that point so it was it was a period of ongoing change yeah in that in that sense and then during that period of the 90s there was obviously the change in government emphasis moving away from

00:52:01 government emphasis moving away from government research to agencies and the activities around that so that has an impact on the way that the contracts were developed and let there was a

00:52:13 and let there was a a feeling of increasing separation from government and that arm's length um approach so

00:52:23 so i think it wasn't a step change in that sense it was a much longer slower burn of change really and so colleagues who i joined with in the 80s

00:52:36 joined with in the 80s were moving through the organization and retiring and moving out and those coming in

00:52:41 in knew were obviously used to that change so i don't think it was quite as black and white to say yeah it changed in that sense yes thank you i want to look at the witness statement

00:52:52 i want to look at the witness statement of peter field if we go to bre three zeros four three seven one zero and if we look on page 11 at paragraph 55

00:53:02 55 he tells us this he says i recall that the reduction in funding from government had three key implications for bre a the need to seek a larger proportion of its income from commercial sources in

00:53:14 of its income from commercial sources in order to fully utilize staff whose capabilities had been developed and maintained and whose costs had previously been covered by government funding

00:53:22 funding b more limited financial resources which led to the loss of some staff and expertise

00:53:28 expertise and see a particular impact on the resources available to conduct bre's so-called blue skies research which was often undertaken to preempt future issues in terms of fire safety

00:53:40 future issues in terms of fire safety these activities could not easily be funded from commercial sources do you see that yes do you agree with what peter field has written there about the implications for the bre

00:53:51 the implications for the bre of the reduction in income from government yeah i think that summarizes the position very well yes thank you

00:54:00 were these matters that you ever uh discussed for example with peter field at the time

00:54:08 not not directly in those terms but they were discussed um every time we were seeking funding yes because they had an impact on the methodology by which um funding for for

00:54:21 methodology by which um funding for for programs could be taken forward yes and what about discussing these matters with debbie smith did you have conversations with her around these

00:54:30 these yes they

00:54:32 yes they they would have all been part of that because once tenders were received one would then have to work within the the constraints that were set within that commercial tender and therefore that would have a

00:54:46 direct impact on the type of programs that could could be uh presented yes was there an impact on the bre being compelled to seek a larger proportion of its income from commercial sources did

00:54:58 its income from commercial sources did that in your view place pressure on the bre in terms of relationships with commercial organizations

00:55:06 it was definitely a change relationship i don't know but pressure it as i say i my experience had been one of working with commercial for some time i saw i can't speak for

00:55:17 for some time i saw i can't speak for some of the other groups who are perhaps not so

00:55:19 not so experienced in that but there was definitely um a need to look at the services that bre could offer and the way that those could then be placed to

00:55:30 then be placed to uh

00:55:31 uh to wider funding opportunities yes yes were you ever conscious that there might be potential conflicts of interest with having to work more closely with commercial organizations

00:55:43 for for my areas of activity i

00:55:48 i because we were testing that we were under the constraints of um

00:55:54 um those environments so we were aware of those and

00:55:57 those and therefore they were built into our normal working operations don't

00:56:02 don't know how

00:56:03 know how or if that could be seen to impact in other parts of the of the business because again um i can't speak for their um

00:56:13 um no that their operational activities yes and when you say so we were aware of those so potential conflicts of interest and therefore they were built into our normal working operations what exactly

00:56:24 normal working operations what exactly do you mean by that because our commercial testing is um looked after by you within ucas and iso 17065 17025 there are constraints that

00:56:36 17065 17025 there are constraints that we have to operate too and they're they're clearly clearly defined and well understood i think it's a very different relationship a commercial for a commercial test to a

00:56:47 commercial test to a um a government research program yes

00:56:51 yes and and just focusing on item c in peter fields list um

00:56:56 um he talks about the fact that they're impacted on the resources available to conduct bre's so-called blue skies research

00:57:05 research what do you understand him to to mean by that you've said you agree with what he's saying there what what kind of research would that involve

00:57:15 so very often if you're undertaking a longer piece of research

00:57:21 one of the objectives is to look at the outcomes of that and to look at what the implications from that might be going forward so that leads you

00:57:31 leads you stepwise through a process if you're testing there's a set of con constrained activities you want to take those you report on that and you move on so it's a it's a very different

00:57:42 so it's a it's a very different um type of of mindsets in in terms of where the next steps of understand technical understanding and development go go forward yeah does that mean that for

00:57:55 forward yeah does that mean that for example in terms of external fire spread and the kind of testing you're involved with that

00:57:59 with that um sometimes you couldn't go to the next logical step of testing because the funding just wasn't available for that even though that was the next logical step if you were fully

00:58:11 the next logical step if you were fully investigating that particular area if you're testing no because testing is within the set parameters so those are the agreed act it's a very unfortunately um language sometimes

00:58:24 very unfortunately um language sometimes gets crossed and testing is a prescribed process this is what we agreed to do at the start this is what we do this is what we report and that is the the close of the

00:58:35 report and that is the the close of the project

00:58:37 project research experimentation is a much wider activity you can follow a pathway within within set parameters there's obviously no freedom to to move everywhere but you can investigate you

00:58:50 everywhere but you can investigate you can

00:58:51 can go further you can talk to your sponsor and say

00:58:54 and say we've got three years we'll actually thought we were going this way we've seen on this particular set of examples that isn't the path to go we need to change direction and go this way so that gives you the

00:59:06 so that gives you the um ability to understand and investigate a test is a test it is a statement of fact at a moment in time and those are the two

00:59:15 the two sides of the of the debate yes yes i understand that but but take this example imagine you've done some tests and we're going to come to some on some

00:59:25 some rain screen panels render surfaces but you didn't test composites for example um you might get to the end of a test a test process and say well we've tested

00:59:36 a test process and say well we've tested these kind of systems but actually the logical next step is to look at composite products yes is it that there was less of ability to to carry on activities like that so when

00:59:48 to carry on activities like that so when you say test if i've tested for a commercial client i'm i have no right to do anything more yeah they they will commission one particular piece of work i've undertaken a series of experiments

01:00:00 i've undertaken a series of experiments looking at a range of different materials for a client for the for the government clients then one of the comments at the end of that might have been actually perhaps

01:00:12 perhaps need to look in in more depth in a particular area alternatively um they may come back to us and say we're seeing some changes we would like you to look

01:00:22 look more fully at these and how in your experience i know this is a big question but how receptive was government if you ever did make those recommendations and said well the next set of experiments logically would be x

01:00:33 set of experiments logically would be x or y

01:00:34 or y how receptive uh was government to those kind of suggestions by the bre after privatization

01:00:42 i think we all recognize their financial constraints right

01:00:46 right so does that mean that they weren't very receptive i don't think there was a willingness to not listen i think there was just a understanding that we may not be able to do it immediately we might have to wait

01:00:58 do it immediately we might have to wait for

01:00:59 for the next round right

01:01:01 right and did that ever impact on the advice you gave

01:01:05 you gave because you knew that there can there were financial constraints did that ever impact the approach you took no because ultimately you did the piece of work you were asked to do and you put your

01:01:17 to do and you put your conclusions and your recommendations at that point and it was then for them to decide what they wish to do going forward with that we weren't in a position to to control or address their their funding or

01:01:29 their funding or whether they chose to take that work forward and and accept it or or not yeah help us with this was there ever a time when there was research which you or others within your team wanted to carry

01:01:40 others within your team wanted to carry out to explore or preempt future issues in terms of fire safety but were unable to do so on the basis of a lack of funding

01:01:50 i think the argument would always be that researcher will always want to research more um and therefore will always put forward a range of

01:01:58 range of different programs and projects that they can

01:02:01 they can um

01:02:02 um can look into and investigate and offer a reference point to that as to why they would want to to go down that route and that's the same be it government or

01:02:14 and that's the same be it government or any

01:02:15 any um funding activity but we can only put forward those views and then allow others to prioritize what they feel within that pot of ideas has been presented to them

01:02:26 been presented to them that they set those priorities because obviously we were one group within a much wider group that were putting forward ideas and and processes and plans as part of that yeah i see but can you ever think of any specific

01:02:38 but can you ever think of any specific examples of research you really wanted to do to impact on fire safety that you couldn't do because there was a lack of funding can you ever think of any specific examples of that

01:02:50 i think in reality there are always pieces of work that you could you could argue will always you would want to take them forward because they were things that were going to

01:03:00 to to add to your knowledge base so i don't think i could say there was ever one specific thing over over and above i think it's just as i said before as researchers that was part of our role was to look at where where we would go

01:03:13 was to look at where where we would go next and as peter said with blue skies that's part of the idea is to to look at the different options and and thoughts around that [Music]

01:03:23 [Music] and then then to say we think these are places that would be good to go for these particular reasons and then as say within the context of assessing how that

01:03:34 within the context of assessing how that that works and whether the priorities that are unknown to us in terms of the funding for that sit then how that would fit together as well yes i see

01:03:46 as well yes i see it in your experience was less work in support of fire safety research carried out across the board privatization yes now i just want to look at some evidence

01:03:57 now i just want to look at some evidence which we've received from martin shipp about the impact of privatization if we go to his second witness statement to the inquiry which is at bre three zeros

01:04:07 zeros four seven five nine four page twelve and we look at paragraph 69 on this page which is in the bottom half of the page he tells us this he says publications were in my view also affected by

01:04:18 were in my view also affected by privatization prior to privatization essentially all of the fire safety research we carried out was for government and most was quite quickly put into the public domain

01:04:29 public domain as i discussed further below fire investigation reports considered to be supporting the development of government policy were mostly not published then he goes on following privatisation the program of work for government

01:04:41 program of work for government diminished and also the process for putting findings into the public domain became more cumbersome since bre's legal interest had to be protected the research that was commissioned by

01:04:52 the research that was commissioned by non-government organizations either private sector was for their own commercial purposes and seldom entered the public domain do you see that yep now does that description accord

01:05:04 yep now does that description accord with your own experience at the bre yes very much so and so in particular following privatization was it your experience that the bre's fire safety research

01:05:15 that the bre's fire safety research was made publicly available less quickly and was subject to more cumbersome processes before publication i'm not quite sure what he means by less quickly

01:05:26 quickly [Music]

01:05:27 [Music] in that

01:05:30 any contracts that we were involved with where

01:05:35 where we we sought publication um

01:05:40 um had to be agreed by uh government and at fought for release and and within bre from its approval process as well so i i can't speak

01:05:51 can't speak for what he what he is his direct meaning on that that comment is i'm afraid but my experience was that yes um publication of of data and reports was

01:06:04 of data and reports was less

01:06:05 less um

01:06:06 um than it had been previously but again the type of work we were undertaking was changing as well so whereas pure research would have been peer review journal uh conference papers and and findings

01:06:21 uh conference papers and and findings moving into the post-privatization there was a lot more work around very direct single

01:06:28 single um project investigations which didn't lend themselves to that type of publication or wider knowledge and experiences as we were talking about in the previous

01:06:39 we were talking about in the previous point yeah it's a it's a different type of

01:06:43 of research environment it's a much more focused less blue sky type type approach yeah and what do you understand him to mean where he says that in part this was because bre's legal interests had to be

01:06:55 because bre's legal interests had to be protected what do you understand him to mean by that i don't know i'm that that's the point i'm when i'm where reading is back i i'm not quite sure what point he's making on that right were you ever conscious that the bre's

01:07:07 were you ever conscious that the bre's legal position might be some kind of um present some kind of difficulty in terms of publishing the work that you've been carrying out i can own

01:07:19 i can own i can only surmise and that this is purely my

01:07:22 purely my my reflection that being asked in this context that it would be a requirement that it was not asked to publish and therefore needed to be referred back to

01:07:32 to the the commercial owner to do that yes i see

01:07:37 yes i see now let's turn to some evidence by dr david crowder now if we go to his third witness statement at bre 30 47668 at page five paragraph 24

01:07:50 47668 at page five paragraph 24 and he says this he says the bre i joined in 2006 still had strong ties to government since most of the personnel had previously been civil servants working at the former agency all the research carried out by bre

01:08:02 all the research carried out by bre needed to be directly related to a commission from a client whether that client was a national or local government a private client or the bre trust this i believe created tensions

01:08:14 trust this i believe created tensions now do you agree with dr crowder's observations there

01:08:31 i i don't i don't recognize i don't recognize the the final sentence in relation to the previous part of the paragraph

01:08:42 paragraph right in the as as we've just already

01:08:47 already talked about the emphasis of work was changing um

01:08:53 um but i don't quite understand the phrase tensions right so you don't recognize that that there were tensions created by the fact that after privatization or work needed to be

01:09:04 privatization or work needed to be directly related to a commission even prior even prior to privatization we were not free to just

01:09:14 just do what we wanted to do the the work was within the context of frameworks within the context of at delivery we were under um contracts to deliver particular

01:09:25 under um contracts to deliver particular pieces of work we were not free to to undertake anything that we we chose to do right let's look at what he says uh there's a little bit more detail on page seven of

01:09:36 little bit more detail on page seven of his statement at paragraph 31 he says 2008 was the time of the financial crisis i recall a lot more focus being placed upon the financial health of the fire safety group

01:09:47 health of the fire safety group during the regular monthly meetings there were concerns raised by management that some staff apparently viewed the need to generate profit on projects as a problem

01:09:55 problem further there was a tendency for some staff to pursue areas of interest or pet projects that did not form part of the objectives set by the client this appeared to stem from the culture that had existed when bre was part of

01:10:07 had existed when bre was part of government and staff were therefore able to make their own cases for pursuing new areas of research where these pro where these occurred these projects either broke even or made

01:10:18 these projects either broke even or made a loss the reality was that it was necessary for fee earning projects to generate profit so that bre's overheads could be met and there would be funds remaining to pass to the bre trust

01:10:30 pass to the bre trust now

01:10:31 now do you agree that in 2008 there was a lot more focus placed on the financial health of the fire safety group

01:10:40 yes we were

01:10:44 we were our funding came from the work that we undertook

01:10:47 undertook and

01:10:48 and the group were very aware of that that position yes do you agree that there were concerns raised by management that some staff apparently reviewed the need to generate profit on projects as a

01:10:59 need to generate profit on projects as a problem

01:11:01 in the area i was working in it i can't comment on on david's um this was a different team yeah so my area of work was much more related to

01:11:13 area of work was much more related to the commercial testing activities and that was a a much more um commercial activity so i i don't have the direct experience to to be able to comment on david's views

01:11:25 to be able to comment on david's views of that

01:11:26 of that right

01:11:27 right was it your understanding that the bre was in financial difficulty in around 2008

01:11:36 i think difficulty we were aware that we needed to uh produce revenue that we needed to have

01:11:44 have fee earning programmes to to work too that there was no um backstop if we did not um generate income then we couldn't continue to

01:11:55 income then we couldn't continue to operate so yes how how significant that was i i wouldn't have had a direct direct awareness of right do you remember any particular steps

01:12:06 do you remember any particular steps being taken at the time to ensure that bre employees were aware that fee earning projects needed to generate a profit so dr crowder in his oral evidence last week gave the example of

01:12:17 evidence last week gave the example of monthly performance figures having been shown

01:12:20 shown at staff meetings as a way of encouraging groups to compete against one another financially do you remember that happening it was it was standard practice to

01:12:33 it was it was standard practice to to review the monthly we were an operational business we all have we would always produce our monthly um financial figures um

01:12:44 um financial figures um and

01:12:47 then there was feedback to the staff on

01:12:51 a more regular basis talking about the financial performance of the organization throughout throughout that period so yes there would be a

01:13:03 a recognition of the financial position of the organization yes right yes if we look at page nine uh within this statement of dr crowder's statement paragraph 35 he says this in my

01:13:15 paragraph 35 he says this in my experience there was a fractious relationship between large-scale cladding testing and research each belonged to a separate business unit one within standard testing and the other not

01:13:26 other not the various business units in bre were in my experience set up in indirect competition with one another we were seeking different types of work and clients but ultimately competing for the same resources such as laboratory

01:13:39 the same resources such as laboratory space now does that accord with your own experience um in terms of your your career at the bre

01:13:55 from the time of my my involvement in and when i left that activity on an operational basis in 2009 i don't recognize that because it was the same group undertaking the work

01:14:06 group undertaking the work if

01:14:08 do you have a context of when that that timeline that dr crowder's talking about i don't i'm afraid what we do have is in his oral evidence uh last week he said that the tensions manifested itself

01:14:20 that the tensions manifested itself between two groups between stephen howard in the large-scale testing team and stephen manchester who was the business group manager for fire safety he said there was tension between those two groups do you recall

01:14:32 between those two groups do you recall that i'm afraid i know i don't because i wasn't involved in that i that part of the business by that stage i wasn't involved in their operational activities so that's why i asked the question is

01:14:43 so that's why i asked the question is did you have a timeline to that are you saying that you think that might be because you moved over back to suppression by this point and i think by that stage it's it's entirely um

01:14:55 that stage it's it's entirely um logical given the the the makeup of the organization that stephen howard would have been dealing with the day-to-day commercial 8414 testing activities and if there were

01:15:08 activities and if there were research activities going on with the cladding

01:15:11 cladding then that would have been dealt with through stephen manchester's group by that team time so but as i said i can't speak to it from direct experience right another example he gave was that there was um

01:15:24 he gave was that there was um groups these two groups were competing for space in the burn hall that was one of the the ways in which those tensions manifested itself were you ever aware of that that there was a tension in terms of getting access to the burn hall for

01:15:36 of getting access to the burn hall for either carrying out the commercial testing or uh carrying out the the more research-based activity in relation to large-scale cladding i say i don't know i'm not i'm not working

01:15:47 say i don't know i'm not i'm not working on that that act those activities to be able to pass any comment i'm afraid okay now just a few brief questions about your membership of various committees and working groups you mentioned

01:15:59 and working groups you mentioned some of that involvement earlier in your evidence if we go back to your witness statement at page 3 paragraph 14. of your inquiry statement about halfway through the third line you

01:16:12 about halfway through the third line you say there i am actively involved in the development of fire suppression equipment standards and chairing national and european technical committees i've continued to provide technical

01:16:23 i've continued to provide technical support to european and national committees in relation to standardization of the external fire performance test methods yes yes now just help us what national and european technical technical committees

01:16:36 european technical technical committees in relation to the development of fire suppression equipment standards have you chaired

01:16:41 chaired so i look after the joint working group for fire protection um using for pumps for automatic sprinkler pumps

01:16:52 automatic sprinkler pumps right

01:16:56 and to which european and national committees have you provided technical support in relation to the standardization of the external fire performance test methods

01:17:06 so the headline committees at the european level are tc127 and the sub-working groups from that right

01:17:16 right what about at national level have you provided technical support in relation to the standardization of external fire performance test methods so that's the british standard committees in the group

01:17:27 british standard committees in the group fsh 21 and fsh22 yeah and you've provided technical support to both those committees yes i'm a member of committee a member of the committees in those areas yes yeah

01:17:38 areas yes yeah and you have been for a long time yes many many years yes many years yes if we go to paragraph 15 of your witness statement

01:17:48 statement there you tell us i've been also been a member of national and international standards committees working on external cladding fire performance both as a technical expert and in some cases as chair

01:17:59 chair specifically in the period from 2000 to 2017

01:18:02 2017 in relation to external cladding fire performance these have included and the first one a is fsh-21 the reaction to fire test standards

01:18:13 the reaction to fire test standards subcommittees and joint working groups yes yes

01:18:17 yes yes can you help us what does fsh stand for with ssh 21 and 22 i don't know we've not been able to work that one out i think it

01:18:28 i think it bsi can probably answer to to it directly um they they own the the structures of the committees and you you tell us that these subcommittees and joint working groups

01:18:39 subcommittees and joint working groups include the joint working group for the development of the 8414 series yes yes as a committee member you've been committee member from 2000 to 2002

01:18:50 committee member from 2000 to 2002 yes yes and you've been chair of is this chair of the fsh21 committee or chair of the joint working group the joint working groups

01:19:02 joint working groups from 2002 to 2017 yes so it was the oversight of the development of the 8414 series right yeah

01:19:13 um and in brief terms is it right that fsh 21 is the committee dealing with all standards which we create relate to reaction to fire that's correct

01:19:24 reaction to fire that's correct and did the work of that committee include testing to bs 476 part six and part seven yes

01:19:31 yes as well as the development of eight four one four

01:19:35 one four fsh 21 covers a wide area

01:19:39 area of

01:19:41 of methodologies it as a headline what we call a headline committee excuse me

01:19:48 sorry as a headline committee it um addresses the

01:19:53 the um

01:19:55 um as it says there the reaction to fire test standards so that would cover the bs476 series and also the european um series of tests as well

01:20:06 um series of tests as well and when 8414 was brought in um the

01:20:13 the sisters committed to fsh 21 is fsh 22 yeah and that's the fire resistance committee yes and because 20 because 8414 was felt to sit between the

01:20:24 because 8414 was felt to sit between the two activities that's why it was a joint working committee between the experts from 21 and 22 right and 21 took the lead on that and that was reported

01:20:35 lead on that and that was reported through

01:20:36 through 21-7 which is the um sub-group that deals with the reaction to fire tests yeah and as well as work in relation to this being a member and then chair of this

01:20:47 being a member and then chair of this joint working group um were you ever a member of fsh 21 in general

01:20:54 general either the committee the overarching committee

01:21:01 yes i believe i was right or i am can you help us with what time period you've been a general member of that committee would have been similar from about 2000 onwards right are you still a member of that committee

01:21:13 member of that committee yes right

01:21:15 yes right and can you help us how did you come to be chair of this joint working group for the development of the 8414 test series following the publication of part one

01:21:26 following the publication of part one um the chair stood down at that point and

01:21:30 and um

01:21:33 i was asked to to take that that role on yes and i think you've just explained that it sat between fsh 21 and 22 this work

01:21:45 it sat between fsh 21 and 22 this work um were there any other ways in which it was a joint working group on 8414 were there any other third parties involved or subcommittees involved no by sitting between the two uh

01:21:56 no by sitting between the two uh headline committees the out outcomes were fed back up and that to both of the committees for them for

01:22:03 them for for the widest dissemination yes i see and we can also see at paragraph 15b there that you say you were involved with

01:22:13 with we think that should read the european organization for technical assessment eota part four development of large-scale tests or testing is that right

01:22:24 tests or testing is that right yes you just say development of large scale committee member should it say large-scale testing large-scale test test yeah and again can you just briefly tell us

01:22:35 and again can you just briefly tell us what your main areas of work for that committee

01:22:38 committee so

01:22:40 so as i mentioned right a little while ago back at the opening there this work was not going on in isolation in the uk there were a number of other organizations um in europe working on

01:22:52 organizations um in europe working on this this activity and um

01:23:00 once please tell me if i go too far back in in telling explaining the context of this

01:23:09 this when the

01:23:12 when the reaction to fire and fire resistance tests were introduced following the european harmonization programmes they were introduced under a series of mandates from the european commission yeah

01:23:24 yeah and

01:23:25 and the protocol was always to create a test method and then a classification because classification came from the regulatory requirements it was a draft mandate for the

01:23:38 it was a draft mandate for the development of a large scale cladding test was

01:23:44 presented to the tc127 headline committee to begin work in that area because of a change within the european commission and the commissioners

01:23:55 commission and the commissioners involved that was never fully progressed and taken forward because of the need to uh or perceive me to see e-mark construction products going into the

01:24:07 construction products going into the marketplace where there is not a european harmonized standard available to do that then you have the iota the european technical approval route available to

01:24:18 technical approval route available to you to undertake that right and

01:24:22 and because the mandate had not gone forward within the european committee framework

01:24:29 framework there was this whole for one for a better description in terms of european level standardization there were a number of in individual national standards available

01:24:38 available and iota pulled everybody together and said can we from these collective individual methodologies form a european approach to enable the ce marking of

01:24:51 approach to enable the ce marking of these products this was driven from the external wall insulation so the the render activities not from the rain screen okay

01:25:03 activities not from the rain screen okay activities and so this committee was brought together to bring all of the varying european technical bodies who were working on large-scale testing together to share the knowledge to try

01:25:15 together to share the knowledge to try to develop a european level methodology for doing this under which a european technical approval

01:25:24 approval could be

01:25:25 could be issued yes i see thank you mr chairman i think that would be a good moment for our morning break yes very well thank you very much well dr caldwell you probably were told we'd have a break during the morning we're

01:25:36 have a break during the morning we're going to take it now please we'll come back at

01:25:39 back at 20 to 12

01:25:40 20 to 12 and

01:25:41 and now you've started giving your evidence i have to ask you on this and other occasions when you leave the room please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it while you're out all right thank you very much would you give the

01:25:53 thank you very much would you give the usher please thank you

01:26:06 thank you 20 to 12 days

01:41:06 would you ask dr colwell to come back in please

01:41:20 [Music]

01:41:24 all right dr colwell ready to carry on thank you yes it's great yes thank you yes just a couple of final questions about committees and committee membership were you ever involved either as a member or as a technical expert

01:41:36 as a member or as a technical expert on brac that's the building regulations advisory committee no no

01:41:43 no so you've never advised brac on any technical aspect and did you ever participate in any brac uh working groups no or technical groups no no thank you

01:41:55 no no thank you now some questions now about some particular definitions and fire classifications and i want to start by looking first at uh national class nord strange i'm sorry

01:42:06 uh national class nord strange i'm sorry to interrupt you my transcript's not running

01:42:09 running um is yours i'm just i'll just refresh it hang on no it's not running well

01:42:18 well perhaps we should just take a moment to see if we can get it running

01:43:01 okay would it make sense for us to rise for a moment all right thank you

01:43:54 do you think it's going to come through

01:44:03 i'm only concerned because other people will need

01:44:06 will need or may think they need to follow it yeah um

01:44:10 um maybe do you think it's going to take any

01:44:16 right i think what we'll do then we'll we'll rise until you've got it sorted out and it's not your fault obviously and we'll come back as soon as we get it running again all right now dr cole we

01:44:27 running again all right now dr cole we have these occasional problems um we're going to rise for a moment just to give the technical people a chance to sort it out so would you go with the usher please and we'll get you back in here as soon as we can

01:44:46 all right would you ask us to come and find us when you're ready thank you thank you very much

02:13:06 well i'm sorry to say everybody that the transcript has not been restored but i think it would be unwise just to wait until it is eventually restored we're losing

02:13:17 it is eventually restored we're losing quite a lot of time and so we've decided that we should go on without it it will be available at the end of the day in the ordinary way and everybody who wants to can

02:13:28 who wants to can watch and follow and hear the proceedings on the live stream so i'm going to ask dr colwell to come back in so that we can continue yes would you ask dr colwell to come back in please

02:13:50 dr colwell i'm sorry we've kept you out for quite a long time um and the bad news is that the transcript which caused us to leave the room it still isn't working but we decided that it's better to go on now

02:14:01 decided that it's better to go on now without it okay and it'll be available in due course at the end of the day okay all right yes absolutely ms grange when you're ready please yes thank you yes um we turn to the topic of fire classifications and definitions and i

02:14:13 classifications and definitions and i want to look first at the background to national class naught now when did you first become familiar with that classification

02:14:26 it would have been around um 95 96 i would imagine yeah so as you were transitioning over into large-scale fire testing yeah yeah and the classification this is right i

02:14:38 and the classification this is right i think is normally achieved by combining particular results from two british standard tests bs 476 part six and part seven yes

02:14:47 seven yes that's the as defined in the approved document yes yes those are both small scale tests yes yes now turning first to part seven can we agree that it's a surface spread of

02:14:58 agree that it's a surface spread of flame test yes yes that's that's its um definition and description yes and it tests the progression of a flame horizontally across the surface yes it does yes not

02:15:10 across the surface yes it does yes not vertically not vertically no what is your understanding about the origins of that test that 476 part 7 test

02:15:19 test it's a very long-standing british standard test its origins of development i i'm not familiar with it it has been

02:15:30 it has been the basis um and recognized test method for many years before i was involved in in any of its activities right so did you ever come to understand um what originally it was designed to be

02:15:43 um what originally it was designed to be testing for or what what type of test it was

02:15:49 when it was j when it was generally described and discussed it's talked about as a an internal lining test that's how i always understood it yes yeah a test in internal corridors yes

02:16:00 yeah a test in internal corridors yes in internal rooms in colorado's yes yes and can we agree that there have been no fundamental changes to the part seven tests since its initial development that's my understanding that's correct yes

02:16:11 that's correct yes and the reference scenario for that test is an internal fire yes that's how i've always understood it to be described yeah

02:16:18 yeah and turning to bs 476 part six that tests something called fire propagation yes

02:16:25 yes yes

02:16:26 yes how would you in very simple terms define fire propagation as tested by four seven six part six the rate of movement of of um the surface edge of a flame

02:16:38 the surface edge of a flame the rate of movement of a surface edge of a flame so that's the rate at which the flame

02:16:44 the flame uh spreads across the or propagates through the through the product right i see

02:16:50 see and what is your understanding about the origins of that test

02:16:55 similar it came from internal linings yeah it was intended to develop to look at fire propagation within a compartment can we agree yes on that

02:17:07 can we agree yes on that so both of these tests have an internal fire as their reference scenario yes yes neither were designed or intended for an external cladding fire scenario were they

02:17:18 they given the scopes of them no they were they were not designed on that basis in the light of that can you help us with this what is the relevance of these tests to assessing the risk of external fire spread in the event of a cladding

02:17:29 fire spread in the event of a cladding fire

02:17:32 that's a test method is a benchmark and if

02:17:39 if work had been undertaken to show that it was a suitable method to benchmark a product then it may well have been referenced and used in that way but it

02:17:50 referenced and used in that way but it was certainly

02:17:53 not something that i was involved in or have an understanding of any of these discussions around why or how that journey happened yes i understand that but you say it's a benchmark

02:18:03 benchmark can you help us with this to what extent did you consider when you became familiar with this regime to what extent did you consider that the results of those tests told you anything

02:18:15 results of those tests told you anything about the propensity of a of a fire to spread externally on a building in the context of the physical characteristic of that material to actually propagate flame

02:18:27 material to actually propagate flame that would be in the only context in which it would have provided any information right as as a benchmark as a reference against any other product i see but not not in the context of its end-use scenario no i see

02:18:40 context of its end-use scenario no i see so are you saying that it might help you compare one material with another in terms of broad performance yes but it doesn't really tell you anything about ultimate performance of that product is that fair

02:18:52 that fair absolutely yes yeah now in terms of the definition of class nor as you've already noted it it appears in appendix a paragraph 13 of approved document b

02:19:03 approved document b um

02:19:04 um are you aware of any other definition of class nor in any other guidance no let's turn to the third witness statement of dr crowder again uh bre 30 47668 at page 32

02:19:19 uh bre 30 47668 at page 32 here at paragraph 133 and 134 he's dealing with the definition of class naught

02:19:25 naught and in the first paragraph 133 he says the definition states and he set it out there for us and i'm going to come back to some words that he's underlined in the definition in a moment but he set out the

02:19:37 in a moment but he set out the definition there and he says this below that the underlying text above means in my opinion that an acm panel or indeed any composite product which has a surface

02:19:49 composite product which has a surface formed throughout of any of the material the metals which are deemed to be non-combustible including aluminium zinc copper and any alloys of these meet the definition for class

02:20:01 of these meet the definition for class naught without the need for testing provided they do not have a surface coating

02:20:07 coating so if we could go back to paragraph 133 where we see the definition

02:20:14 now do you agree with uh dr crowder about what he says in paragraph 134 that the effect of the definition is that in the case of any composite

02:20:26 that in the case of any composite product

02:20:27 product so long as the outer surface of that product is composed throughout of either limited combustibility or by definition non-combustible material it would achieve class naught without the need for testing

02:20:39 for testing no

02:20:40 no can you explain why you don't agree with him about that because it it is um

02:20:47 um not solely that material but it is the way that that material behaves in the context within the context of the actual test to which it's exposed so a very thin piece of material may not be

02:20:59 very thin piece of material may not be there

02:21:01 there or a very thick piece of material may be there in in terms of the way that one three

02:21:06 three four is is written it it's not fair to say that just because it has a non-combustible finish to it it it won't

02:21:15 won't in itself um not

02:21:18 not be involved quite but but can we agree that if you took these words just on their face and and without any qualification

02:21:30 without any qualification it appears to be suggesting that if the surface of the composite product is of limited combustibility that's enough do you see that from the definition i i can unders i can

02:21:42 from the definition i i can unders i can understand why that statement's been made but i i wouldn't i wouldn't accept it at face value because it it requires that qualification to understand what's actually being

02:21:53 actually being or the performance of that product yes but we don't see any qualification do we in that definition we don't see it saying if the surface of a composite product

02:22:04 product but not if that surface is very thin or not some other qualification do we it talks about compose throughout

02:22:12 how does that help

02:22:17 it says this is achieved if a material or

02:22:20 or the surface of a composite product is

02:22:24 is composed throughout of materials of limited combustibility doesn't that mean that the surface can be composed throughout of materials of limited combustibility and then you're okay

02:22:58 i understand what you make yes

02:23:02 yes did it ever occur to you uh in all the times when you were dealing with um fire testing of external war materials that

02:23:11 that that definition might be read in that way

02:23:15 way no

02:23:17 no so it didn't occur to you that you could have a very thin surface for example a foil facer surface that was a limited combustibility which meant that the the whole product a

02:23:29 which meant that the the whole product a composite product could have achieved class naught without more that didn't occur to you my experience was that they were tested when you say my experience was they were tested do you mean that

02:23:40 tested do you mean that in

02:23:41 in in the cases you came across chat class naught was achieved via route b i.e through testing 476 part six and part seven

02:23:51 seven it would have been because i wouldn't have been asked to comment on route a right

02:23:56 right did you ever discuss route a with anyone else within the bre to check what their understanding was of route a no

02:24:06 no did you ever discuss that route with the department with anyone like brian martin

02:24:12 martin no

02:24:14 no when did you first become aware that people were reading uh root a in the way that we've just discussed as potentially meaning you could have a very thin surface

02:24:25 could have a very thin surface backed by something combustible and it would still qualify in this discussion right so you've not come across that before no my understanding has always been that for classo you would test to determine

02:24:37 for classo you would test to determine that

02:24:39 that and

02:24:40 and so you don't remember any time when uh there are any concerns raised about the potential consequences of root a in terms of what it might mean for composite products

02:24:52 for composite products not

02:24:53 not not in the context of the conversation that you're having now now

02:25:03 now you are presume aware presumably that for many years until after and until after the fire at grenfell tower the guidance in approved document b in relation to the external services of buildings directed that the provisions

02:25:14 buildings directed that the provisions of diagram 40 were followed yes yes

02:25:19 yes and you're presumably familiar with the provisions of diagram 40 and that materials used on the external surfaces of buildings in any habitable story over 18 meters had to be national class

02:25:30 18 meters had to be national class naught or euro class b yes i'm aware of the diagrams but then they were not something i worked with on a on a on a regular basis right but did you have an awareness that

02:25:42 right but did you have an awareness that over 18 meters the external cladding had to be national class north for example yes yes

02:25:50 if we look at page 106 of your witness statement and paragraph 721 you were asked um a question um 173

02:26:03 at page 105 of the inquiry whether you on

02:26:07 on page 105 of this statement whether you had at any time any concerns about the fitness for purpose of bs 476 part 6 or part 7

02:26:16 part 7 and the paragraph 721 you say this i had no concerns about the testing methods themselves these are published protocols widely used to obtain

02:26:29 protocols widely used to obtain benchmarking data they represent a snapshot in time and do not address the provenance of the materials subject to the test any concerns about how the data from

02:26:40 any concerns about how the data from these tests is used would relate more specifically to the guidance and regulations which set out how the data could be used as referred to in my answer and then you refer to an answer

02:26:51 answer and then you refer to an answer above

02:26:52 above now help us with this what do you mean when you say that those tests i think you're referring to the 476 part 6 and part 7 tests yes yes

02:27:01 yes when you say those tests do not address the provenance of the materials subject to the test what exactly do you mean by that

02:27:11 when a product's supplied to a testing organization there is no chain of custody of that product in relation to

02:27:23 its production its

02:27:27 its relationship to the market it is a product that has been provided to the testing organization they undertake the testing within the parameters set out

02:27:38 testing within the parameters set out for that test protocol and they report on those

02:27:41 on those details how that relates to anything placed in the market or more widely is

02:27:51 unspecified yes i see

02:27:55 yes i see and then focusing on the last part of that answer where you say any concerns would relate more specifically to the guidance and regulations which set out how the data should be used when you use the word

02:28:07 should be used when you use the word would do you mean that you did have such concerns

02:28:10 concerns about how that data was used in in the regulations or in the guidance or that you did not have such concerns

02:28:23 sorry i apologize looking for any concerns about how the data from this test would so what i'm saying is

02:28:34 what i'm saying is the test data itself was the statement of fact yes and how that's then used and interpreted and and

02:28:42 and and addressed

02:28:45 sits within the wider context of of the regulatory or specification process into which it's being placed so in response to the question at 271 i'm saying i was happy with the data

02:28:58 i'm saying i was happy with the data the concerns raised about whether that was being used or interpreted was a wider conversation that because i'm

02:29:08 i'm not in that daily conversation was um and was being made aware that there were things being said around that as i said in 270 sorry in 720

02:29:20 in 270 sorry in 720 that was something that i understood mhclg would would deal with as it was their documents and their interpretation of it and not my place to do that all right i see well let's let's move to what you say at 7

02:29:31 let's let's move to what you say at 7 20.

02:29:32 20. um

02:29:33 um you're asked about the adequacy or otherwise of the guidance and approved document b with specific reference to external fire spread and you say this you say i was becoming increasingly concerned by 2016

02:29:46 concerned by 2016 that the guidance in approved document b in relation to external fire spread was causing discussion over interpretation and i have addressed this in my responses to the relevant questions above

02:29:57 above i felt that the matter was understood by mhclg

02:30:01 mhclg and that the revision of approved document b would address this yes

02:30:05 yes now can you help us with this whether or not you had any concerns about the appropriateness or otherwise of class naught as a metric for the fire performance of

02:30:16 as a metric for the fire performance of the external surfaces of high-rise buildings for example as it used in diagram 40 of adb did you have concerns about that

02:30:30 i was i was concerned that there were and were as i said a huge number of discussions starting to take place around how this was being interpreted and how it was being

02:30:44 picked up and my my concern was that mhclg needed to clarify that position because i

02:30:55 clarify that position because i i understood or i had an understanding but that was um

02:31:02 um as we've said um being discussed more widely

02:31:07 widely at that time so whether or not that was how it was understood that was what i was um understanding that mhclg would would

02:31:18 understanding that mhclg would would pick up and and work through yes i see but can we get more specific there are a number of um issues being um discussed about approved

02:31:29 issues being um discussed about approved document b by 2016 and what i want to understand is what your view was specifically of the reference to national class naught in diagram 40 ie as a a metric a measure

02:31:44 in diagram 40 ie as a a metric a measure of the performance of external fire spread for the external surfaces of walls did you have concerns about that i had concerns that it wasn't as clear

02:31:55 i had concerns that it wasn't as clear as it could be yes and what do you mean when you say it wasn't as clear as it could be did you have a concern that national class naught shouldn't be in there at all because it wasn't an appropriate measure

02:32:06 measure of the fire performance of external walls

02:32:10 walls i was yeah i was concerned that

02:32:14 diagram 40 and the requirements elsewhere within that were as i said being we're causing we're causing discussions

02:32:25 causing discussions and therefore it wasn't being interpreted um

02:32:30 um in

02:32:30 in a consistent manner dr coleman i think there are two different questions okay surprising here one is the existence of confusion over the meaning of um

02:32:41 um or the interpretation of approved document b and i think what you're telling us is you became aware that there were different views being expressed as to how it should be

02:32:52 being expressed as to how it should be understood is that right yes that's correct and those different opinions were

02:32:57 were sufficient to make you concerned that there was a need for the document to be clarified yes right the other question which i think ms grange is asking you to tell us is this

02:33:08 grange is asking you to tell us is this did you yourself think at the time that class naught was an appropriate measure of the suitability of materials for external walls

02:33:21 for external walls in in isolation no it wouldn't it wouldn't tell you what you needed to know that's why you needed the wider context of that whole section that talked about that talks about

02:33:33 that talks about requirements for the use of the the full-scale testing all right

02:33:38 all right all right thank you yes mrs green yes well we know that approved document b and again we'll come back to this um recommended alternative routes you either follow the guidance in approved

02:33:50 either follow the guidance in approved document b 12.6 to 12.9 sometimes referred to as the linear route yes i

02:33:56 i it wasn't a it wasn't a description i used because let's say

02:34:00 let's say my day-to-day interaction with the with the proof document b was not at that level right i see so in broad terms did you become aware that

02:34:11 in broad terms did you become aware that approved document b contained two potential routes one

02:34:16 one was a route which followed each paragraph in section 12 and another route was to do a large-scale fire test to bl-135bs8414

02:34:27 bl-135bs8414 were you aware of that much yes my understanding of of the document at that time was

02:34:34 time was if you were not limited combustibility you needed to test if what was not limited combustibility if if the um if the panel if the materials and the panels within that weren't limited

02:34:46 panels within that weren't limited combustible then you needed to test right i see but just getting back to class naught and the the reference to it in clause 12.6

02:34:57 12.6 um perhaps we should look at this

02:35:01 but we'll come on to it

02:35:05 when did you first become concerned that national class naught might not be an appropriate measure

02:35:13 measure for the fire performance of external walls

02:35:17 walls when did you first have that realization

02:35:28 in the context of

02:35:31 i i didn't understand i didn't have an understanding in the way that you describe it of class naught being the only measure

02:35:40 measure for the external fire spread of the wall i see

02:35:44 i see so i apologize that's perhaps why i'm not answering the question in the way that

02:35:48 that that you've you've framed it yeah my understanding was you required more than that to get to that position right so therefore as you say class naught

02:36:00 so therefore as you say class naught of its own measurement was not the only element of that process so can you help us what were the other elements which you um thought needed to

02:36:13 elements which you um thought needed to i i understood that it needed to be of limited combustibility and when you say it this is important what needed to be of limited combustibility the wall build up the

02:36:23 up the the external wall every single bit of it i

02:36:29 i as i say

02:36:31 as i say my my my understanding was that the surface was

02:36:36 was um for given applications and then the wall itself needed to be of limited combustibility

02:36:45 and when you say it was for surface applications do you mean for paints or coatings only yes and anything else so the external wall panel yes needed to be of limited combustibility the

02:36:57 of limited combustibility the insulation the the buildup needed to be of limited combustibility right and did you always understand that to be the case or was there a time when that became a new requirement or changed

02:37:13 i didn't it's very difficult because i didn't work with the ad documents in that way my involvement was to look at how these

02:37:23 how these products performed under large-scale testing to find a mechanism to assess

02:37:28 to assess what these wall structures were and

02:37:32 and the

02:37:33 the interpretation delivery of the the guidance and the documentation around that was

02:37:38 that was with mhclg i didn't have an interaction around how that was more widely used or more widely given right so

02:37:49 given right so my

02:37:50 my my understanding of the position was that we were talking about if it didn't meet that limited combustibility with the surface coat on it it needed to test that's how i'd interpreted it

02:38:02 interpreted it but had never been corrected or or sought further guidance because i wasn't in a position where i was giving that information to anybody can i just clarify this this is your

02:38:14 can i just clarify this this is your understanding based on the language of adb is that yes yes

02:38:21 yes yes okay

02:38:22 okay well we're going to come back and look at a number of iterations of adb in quite a lot of detail so we'll come back to this point just going back to what you said in paragraph 720 and looking at the final few lines you

02:38:33 and looking at the final few lines you say i felt that the matter was understood by mhclg and that the revision of approved document b would address this now can you just help us what exactly did you feel was understood

02:38:46 what exactly did you feel was understood by mhclg

02:38:48 by mhclg about the adequacy or otherwise of the guidance in approved document b i felt they understood that there was discussion on the interpretation so the under they understood there was a

02:38:59 so the under they understood there was a lack of clarity yes they understand that and when are you talking about here are you talking about 2016 or are you talking about any time earlier than that 2013 when

02:39:09 2013 when tony first contacted them when tony baker contacted them yes we'll come we'll come back to those emails

02:39:16 emails so

02:39:17 so what you're saying is from 2013 you felt that the department knew full well yes that there was a lack of clarity

02:39:25 clarity around the guidance in section 12 of approved document b yes absolutely yes

02:39:35 let's look at paragraph 722 of your witness statement further down that page you say this you say given that the industry and regulation were moving towards implementation of the euro

02:39:46 towards implementation of the euro classes in en 135 0 1 part 1 from around 2013 onwards it was becoming clear to me that the use of dual coding

02:39:58 of dual coding required review to ensure issues around applicable data could be simplified i fully expected this to happen as part of the revision to approve document b now we'll come to on to the euro classes

02:40:10 now we'll come to on to the euro classes in a moment i just want to break this down

02:40:13 down what do you mean when you say that industry and regulation were moving towards the implementation of those euro classes

02:40:20 classes from around 2013 onwards what do you mean by that

02:40:29 given the change in european legislation and the requirement to incorporate both the

02:40:39 the national and the european codes it was becoming clear that the

02:40:46 the data being presented was moving increasingly away from class

02:40:53 class naught towards the euro classes and

02:41:01 so there was an increasing amount of that data available to the marketplace and

02:41:06 and also having two routes to um

02:41:10 um addressing that would um

02:41:13 would um be simplified in the next revision of the approved document so that they would make a decision around that process and when you say the data was presenting away

02:41:25 data was presenting away from the national class yes is that is that what you just so basically the you could you there were two sets of there were two different approaches to the data presentation you could take you could either take the

02:41:36 could take you could either take the class

02:41:37 class naught or seven six and seven or you could take thirteen five oh one part one and what do you mean there were two sets of approaches to the data what are you describing here um

02:41:48 describing here um so if if you presented a product to um to me for tests yeah you were able to choose to either test the national standard or to test to the european

02:41:59 standard or to test to the european standard that legislation position changed when we moved from construction product directive to construction product regulation that if you were going to place the product on the market with the ce mark then it had to be done

02:42:11 with the ce mark then it had to be done under the european route yes

02:42:15 route yes now thinking specifically about the external surfaces of high-rise buildings it's right isn't it that the euro classes were first referred to within the relevant guidance approved document b diagram 40 in the 2002

02:42:29 document b diagram 40 in the 2002 edition of that document were you aware of that

02:42:34 2002 would have been around the time of that implementation yes when the work was done to determine the um

02:42:44 um appropriate classes yes and that was as a result of the european construction products directive yes yes now in 2013 which is the period you're

02:42:55 now in 2013 which is the period you're referring to here the way in which the euro classes were referred to in diagram 40 of the approved document remained unchanged from their introduction in 2002 yes

02:43:08 2002 yes without looking at the documents i couldn't tell you well you can take it from me that there was no change in terms of reference to the euro classes between 2002 and 2013.

02:43:19 classes between 2002 and 2013. so

02:43:20 so we're just interested in understanding exactly what you say was happening in 2013

02:43:26 2013 specifically around external fire spread and the external performance of walls

02:43:35 i'm not talking about external in this context i'm talking about the change in the products being taken to market moving from the national class to the european class when they're presenting

02:43:47 european class when they're presenting the

02:43:48 the when when they're being placed on the market and presenting the data to the market

02:43:52 market so this this change wasn't being driven in my opinion wasn't being driven by the

02:43:59 the um

02:44:01 um approved document it was being driven by what was happening within the market and the products being placed on the market i see are you saying that in 2013 the market was

02:44:13 the market was moving towards demanding the european classification testing more frequently than it was the national product classifications yes yes i see

02:44:24 i see now just looking again at that paragraph at 722 lines two to four you say it was becoming clear to me that the use of dual coding required review to ensure issues around

02:44:37 required review to ensure issues around applicable data could be simplified now just help us with that what do you mean that the use of dual coding what are you referring to there by dual coding

02:44:47 coding referencing the national standard and the european standard and when you say it required review to ensure issues around applicable data could be simplified what do you mean by

02:44:58 could be simplified what do you mean by that

02:44:59 that so again it refers back to the

02:45:02 the um question of

02:45:05 of if they were going to do a revision were they going to continue with both or were they going to to review that whole section and look at how that

02:45:15 how that the applicability of those references sat right

02:45:21 right and so when you say in the last line i fully expected this to happen as part of the revision to approve document b do you mean that you expected questions to be asked as part of that revision about whether the national

02:45:32 revision about whether the national classes were kept at all yes right

02:45:40 and were you aware at any time prior to that of serious questions being asked about whether or not the national classes should remain as performance metrics within approved document b

02:45:54 i was i was aware that there were discussions more generally about whether the national classes would be retained because

02:46:03 because of the issues around again

02:46:07 the requirements under construction product regulation for conflicting standards whether those standards would be withdrawn and therefore there would be no mechanism by which to use the national standards yes i see

02:46:19 national standards yes i see and when did you expect this revision of approved document b to address this when did you think that was going to happen

02:46:30 my understanding was that it was due to be happening from around 2014 onwards and what has led you to have that expectation there were

02:46:41 conversations that were being had within the group around pieces of work that were being commissioned by the department to support that activity

02:46:53 did you ever directly discuss with mr martin with brian martin when

02:46:59 when the the revision of a pre-document b would take place and the is involved with that no you didn't ever discuss that with him no it came it came up as part of the

02:47:11 it came it came up as part of the conversation in 2013 when we raised it

02:47:16 raised it uh the

02:47:17 uh the matter with him that they the

02:47:22 they the as as part of a of the expected review but the conversation never went any further than that and the main discussions were held internally with people like debbie smith who were

02:47:34 people like debbie smith who were talking to the department at that level about what the processes and programs would be and say my day-to-day interaction with the approved document was very arms length so

02:47:45 arms length so direct changes to it i wouldn't be directly involved with right did you ever have any other conversations after 2013 with anyone at the department about when the next revision of approved document b would be taking place

02:47:58 document b would be taking place no it didn't come up again until um 16 i think when i was in a meeting where it was was mentioned again right were you surprised between 2013 and 2016

02:48:11 were you surprised between 2013 and 2016 that there'd been no developments on that front yes

02:48:16 yes did you ever express that surprise to anybody

02:48:19 anybody i think

02:48:21 i think it

02:48:22 it internally it was it was something that was just a waiting um

02:48:27 um a waiting process we

02:48:30 we we'd all

02:48:31 we'd all worked with government long enough to know that these things take time to to develop and we had no um influence on that so we were just awaiting that that provision to take place right and did you know anything

02:48:43 place right and did you know anything about

02:48:44 about uh debbie smith's discussions with the department on this topic did she relay to you any discussions she'd had about whether a proved document b was going to be revised and if so when

02:48:57 be revised and if so when not in detail i was aware that those discussions were taking place but they were not projects i was directly involved with so it was a very general discussion to say that these conversations were were occurring right and when were you

02:49:09 were occurring right and when were you aware that those discussions were taking place

02:49:12 place that's probably from around 2013 onwards right and who was debbie smith having those discussions with the department it would have been as open at terms that she wouldn't neces i i don't know whether it was with brian

02:49:24 i don't know whether it was with brian specifically or with others in that right that engagement just thinking back to national class naught now before we leave that topic and let's put it in very simple terms do

02:49:35 and let's put it in very simple terms do you consider that class naught national class naught has been at any time an appropriate measure for the fire performance of external cladding on high-rise buildings

02:49:52 in isolation no it's not no

02:49:55 no okay

02:49:56 okay but as i've explained it it's in a context it's not as a a single point if if the if if the question was for over 18 meter application that is the

02:50:07 over 18 meter application that is the only measure in place then absolutely no it's not right is your evidence that the only circumstances in which it would be an appropriate measure is if it was simply measuring the outer coating

02:50:19 measuring the outer coating that the the paint or the surface coating

02:50:23 coating but that everything else was limited combustibility is that what you say would have been an appropriate measure

02:50:30 within the context of of the processes i understood it then yes that was that would have been my understanding that if it's just a finish it's not a route of fire propagation in

02:50:43 it's not a route of fire propagation in that context it was one method to take it to that point right so i think it follows from your answer that it wouldn't have been an appropriate measure of performance of for example the whole

02:50:54 for example the whole rain screen panel itself no no let's move on to the euro class system we know that these were introduced into diagram 40 of approved document b in

02:51:05 diagram 40 of approved document b in 2002 we've covered that the classification standard which explains how for example euro class b is derived is en13501 part 1 which we saw you've

02:51:17 en13501 part 1 which we saw you've referred to in your witness statement yes yes

02:51:19 yes yes and it's right isn't it that the various classes from a2 down to d uh well they all require testing to different tests don't they yeah and then you come up with an overall

02:51:30 you come up with an overall classification and the classes from a2 to d all require testing to en13823 yes

02:51:38 yes which is the single burning item test yes

02:51:41 yes yes

02:51:42 yes now can we agree that the single burning item test was in basic terms introduced to replace the room corner test and provided a method where where the results of that test could be inferred

02:51:54 results of that test could be inferred without incurring the same type time and money cost so yeah

02:52:02 so yeah the test was developed to

02:52:05 to to give you that um that correlation yes yes

02:52:09 yes and as with the national classification system we just looked at the reference scenario is a fire within a room yes yes do you consider this test the single burning item test to be useful for

02:52:22 burning item test to be useful for assessing the fire behavior in circumstances removed from that test scenario for example on the external face of a high-rise building it references back to

02:52:33 it references back to when we talked about the reference scenario of classo previously as a benchmark to give you a comparator it offers the same opportunity

02:52:44 opportunity so um

02:52:46 so um is this a fair summary that the euro classifications in terms of external wall performance allow you to look at comparative performance of products but what about the actual ultimate

02:52:58 but what about the actual ultimate overall performance are they a reliable indicator of how a product is going to perform in an external fire no it's it's it's the same comment from the

02:53:11 it's it's it's the same comment from the classo that that that there are two two steps

02:53:16 two steps or two approaches to to gaining that benchmarking information

02:53:22 sorry just explain what you mean by that two steps or two approaches to obtaining the benchmarking implications so class in the same way as class o gave you that um opportunity so did the

02:53:33 um opportunity so did the um sbi

02:53:36 um sbi oh the 13501 part one yes i see

02:53:40 yes i see now turning now to the context concept of combustibility you were asked about this in your witness statement if we can go to page 17 and paragraph 115 of your statement

02:53:52 17 and paragraph 115 of your statement you were asked about the definition of the word combustible and you say at the bottom of that page my understanding of the term combustible in 1999 was based on the classification

02:54:03 in 1999 was based on the classification set out in approved document b at the time

02:54:05 time something combustible was a product or material which did not meet the classification of non-combustible as given an approved document b

02:54:16 document b so you tell us that in your statement could you summarize your understanding of the term limited combustibility again limited combustibility was a term defined

02:54:27 defined within the approved document it was a set of it was a classification based on a set of

02:54:33 a set of parameters from test data yeah and what was your understanding of the difference between the concept of limited combustibility and the classification to national class naught

02:54:50 two two completely different uh performance characteristics yeah has there been any stage in your career where you were unsure or may have been confused about

02:55:01 or may have been confused about the definitions meaning or or relationship between national class naught and limited combustibility no if we can look at page 74 of your statement paragraph 484

02:55:15 statement paragraph 484 you are being asked here about a cwct fire group meeting on the 2nd of july 2014 which we'll come on to later in your evidence and in particular you're being asked whether you were aware of a degree of

02:55:27 whether you were aware of a degree of ignorance around the meanings of class naught and limited combustibility with people confusing the two concepts and your response is reads as follows prior to the meeting on the 2nd of july

02:55:38 prior to the meeting on the 2nd of july 2014 i was not aware of there being a degree of ignorance as class naught and limited combustibility are clearly defined material characteristics do you see that

02:55:50 do you see that yes

02:55:51 yes so

02:55:52 so can i ask you this was it your experience that before the 2nd of july 2014

02:55:58 2014 industry was clear on the difference between those concepts at all times

02:56:15 my my interaction and relationship with industry in in that term i was

02:56:24 i was and have always worked with the material manufacturers and therefore they

02:56:31 they they were and are aware of the performance of the products that they are

02:56:35 are testing placing on the market that degree of ignorance we that i've referred to in that paragraph was potentially i would guess that the end users the in in within that

02:56:48 the end users the in in within that within that meeting and because i don't and did not have a of regular contact with them that conversation would not have come up in in relation to

02:57:00 in relation to to that so i wasn't aware of there being a a degree of ignorance within their group as a professional engineers right i would expect them to understand what is written in the approved document

02:57:11 what is written in the approved document and therefore it's very clearly defined what those classes and characteristics are right what about within the bre did you ever come across any of your colleagues within the bre who were confused about

02:57:22 within the bre who were confused about the difference between national class naught and limited combustibility

02:57:31 no because again as the as a testing activity that would have been

02:57:40 providing the test evidence against those different performance characteristics so again it wouldn't have been uh ignorance or those that needed to know what classo were was

02:57:52 were was within that group would know what class o was and limited combustibility or non-combustibility right so you've never come across a time in your experience at the bre with anybody confusing the concept of

02:58:03 anybody confusing the concept of national class naught with the concept of either limited combustibility or even non-combustible you've never come across that

02:58:12 that within my teams no what about more widely within the bre i no because if the question was to be asked then they would have asked asked of me so i'm not aware of anybody

02:58:23 asked of me so i'm not aware of anybody having

02:58:24 having offered a confused approach to that right

02:58:28 right and what about after the 2nd of july 2014

02:58:31 2014 you say you attended this meeting and you became aware that within you talked about them being end users that they they had some confusion um about the difference between class

02:58:42 um about the difference between class norton limited combustibility after the 2nd of july 2014 did you become aware that that confusion was more widespread no

02:58:54 no at no stage after the 2nd of july did you become aware of that

02:59:00 that that was my introduction to this conversation and

02:59:05 and i was

02:59:08 i was confused by the confusion because it's very clearly defined what those um parameters are and

02:59:16 and that the manufacturers that we work with provided the evidence of what those those characteristics were with their products

02:59:26 products so

02:59:27 so i

02:59:29 i i wasn't

02:59:30 i wasn't uh in conversation with any sort of wider context to to experience any wider ignorance or um confusion right did you consider that the reference within the definition of

02:59:43 the reference within the definition of class naught to the concept of limited combustibility in route a as we saw it before

02:59:48 before did you consider that that might be the source of some confusion because national class nor itself is introducing the concept of limited combustibility as part of its definition

03:00:00 part of its definition did you consider whether that might have caused some confusion no because there was a clear definition of what limited combustibility was so the definition within a definition is not

03:00:11 not not in itself um uh

03:00:15 uh unusual right and did you take any steps after that meeting to um to ask a wider audience whether or not there might be this confusion between national classical and limited

03:00:26 between national classical and limited combustibility no so terminal is that an appropriate moment for the lunch break yes i think it is thank you very much i think it's time we all broke to have some lunch say we'll stop there dr coldwell we'll

03:00:37 we'll stop there dr coldwell we'll resume at two o'clock please and as i said to you before please don't discuss your evidence or anything relating to it there's anyone outside the room right of course thank you very much

03:00:58 thank you very much for screens two o'clock

03:01:11 you