Building Research Establishment Evidence - Monday 21st February 2022 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:28 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing

00:00:31 hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from dr smith formerly of the building research establishment so would you ask dr swiss to come in please

00:00:49 [Music] good morning dr striz good morning i'm ready to carry on yes thank you thank you very much yes mr minute yes mr chairman good morning good morning to

00:01:00 chairman good morning good morning to you good morning to members of the panel dr smith good morning to you now on thursday evening when we broke we were looking at the literature review at bre 401

00:01:13 at bre 401 if we can please have that back up you'll recall we were in this document i think yes yes can we please look at page at 14

00:01:22 at 14 in fact start at the bottom of page 13 where you see external surface and that says provisions are made in adb to restrict the combustibility of external walls of buildings that are

00:01:34 external walls of buildings that are less than 1 000 meters millimeters from the relevant boundary this is in order to reduce the surface's susceptibility to ignition from an external source eg and adjacent building

00:01:45 and adjacent building and then if you go over the page in the first paragraph there it says this irrespective of boundary distance diagram 40 provisions for external surfaces of walls in adb restricts the

00:01:56 surfaces of walls in adb restricts the combustibility of external walls of high buildings where the top floor is at least 18 meters above ground level and those of the assembly and recreation purpose group to reduce the danger from fire spread up the external face of the

00:02:08 fire spread up the external face of the building

00:02:09 building now you'll note the word combustibility there

00:02:12 there do you consider that paragraph to be an accurate statement

00:02:18 well my interpretation of this has always been as i think we spoke about on thursday

00:02:24 thursday in the sense that combustibility is something that's binary so a material and whatever is either non-combustible or if it isn't non-combustible it is

00:02:35 or if it isn't non-combustible it is combustible yes

00:02:37 yes indeed so you hadn't finished though had you

00:02:40 you well why do you yes yes i'm sorry yes sorry

00:02:44 sorry indeed and so what do you make of the phrase diagram 40 restricts the combustibility of external walls of high buildings um i guess well my interpretation of that is that

00:02:57 well my interpretation of that is that it is referring to the different classifications that relate to predominantly bs 476 part 7 and the surface spread of flame test obviously class 0

00:03:09 test obviously class 0 includes the fire propagation test as well

00:03:13 well but there is a hierarchy associated with flame spread ranging from the class 3 up to the class 0 being the best performing

00:03:26 0 being the best performing within that context how does diagram 40 of approved document b at least at 2 000 in that edition restrict the combustibility

00:03:37 combustibility of the external surfaces of water i mean perhaps i mean i i wouldn't necessarily describe it in that way now

00:03:51 in the sense that it is

00:03:56 but what it is trying to do is to say that you know the closer you are to the boundary etc then you have to have a better classification in terms of the

00:04:07 better classification in terms of the surface spread of flame so it's it's a it's a graduation in terms of you know the performance but accepting that all of the materials

00:04:18 that all of the materials that are class o and above or worse are in effect combustible can i i'm sorry to interrupt you so early mr miller can i just ask you this is there some confusion in at this point and

00:04:30 confusion in at this point and maybe in some other documents between the combustibility of as it's put here external walls and combustibility of the external surfaces of the walls

00:04:46 do you mean in terms of the entire wall maybe well that's the point because as i understand class naught it is actually a measure of the combustibility of the

00:04:58 a measure of the combustibility of the surface

00:05:00 surface not necessarily of what's under the surface yes although of course if you've got a product that has got a surface coating on it or whatever

00:05:10 whatever then

00:05:12 then the performance of that surface is dependent upon what is behind it as well exactly but what's what's written here is that the diagram restricts the combustibility of

00:05:23 diagram restricts the combustibility of external walls as if that relates to the whole of the substance of the external walls whereas class

00:05:31 class naught

00:05:32 naught only speaks to the surface doesn't it and that's a confusion which if it exists as it seems to me at the moment it does is potentially rather dangerous yes and

00:05:43 is potentially rather dangerous yes and i suppose that part of the issue that you're referring to there in this context would be the definition of external wall which a lot could be solved by you know a proper definition of external wall and

00:05:55 a proper definition of external wall and what that actually means if it means the the whole wall makeup or you know just the external

00:06:03 external so element of it if we go back to my where i started i mean would you accept that there is a degree of confusion here between the surface and the substance um

00:06:15 um well that certainly seems to be the way that it has been interpreted i mean i think um

00:06:21 think um yes yes

00:06:22 yes yes all right thank you very much yes i'm sorry

00:06:27 and and in addition to the

00:06:31 to the the answers to the questions that the chairman has just asked you there's another confusion isn't there i would suggest which is that in fact diagram 40 doesn't address

00:06:42 diagram 40 doesn't address combustibility in its sense defined in adb at all does it

00:06:49 it um

00:06:50 um well i say i go back to what i said before in in it being a binary um

00:06:56 um definition in that something is either non-combustible or it isn't and if it's not non-combustible it's combustible and you know the the you would not typically

00:07:08 you would not typically carry out

00:07:10 carry out bs476 part six and seven test on something that you knew to be non-combustible and in fact this state wouldn't do that i'm sorry yes sorry i'm sorry i thought

00:07:22 i'm sorry yes sorry i'm sorry i thought you'd finished your no that's fine this statement is i would is it right that looking at it now this statement is actually fundamentally erroneous for two separate reasons first

00:07:34 erroneous for two separate reasons first because diagram 40 doesn't restrict combustibility strictly so called and secondly because it purports to restrict the combustibility well the report says that

00:07:46 combustibility well the report says that it restricts the combustibility of the entire external wall whereas in fact diagram 40 only relates to the surface well that depends as i said as we've just said on the definition of external

00:07:58 just said on the definition of external wall

00:07:59 wall and

00:08:00 and my reading of this is that

00:08:04 is that insofar as it is restricting and giving a graduation in terms of performance in relation to the surface spread of flame then

00:08:15 then it is in some way contributing to restricting the combustibility it is saying that you must use you know better performing products

00:08:25 products the closer you are to the boundary mr williams i'm sorry to interrupt you yet again but yes i understand that in some cases there's a transcript problem can i ask first of all is your

00:08:36 problem can i ask first of all is your transcript working my transcript is working well i've seen the note right on the subject but yes it is

00:08:44 i'm going to ask council who here for bre whether their transcript is working

00:08:52 just come back all right

00:08:54 all right should we press on public transcripts running as well good sounds to me as though we may be back out of trouble too let's continue um dr smith you'll recall and maybe you

00:09:05 dr smith you'll recall and maybe you won't but i'll give it to i'll give you the reference anyway that you signed this report off uh

00:09:13 uh and it's page four it's your signature bearing the date of the 30th of march 2000

00:09:19 2000 um can we assume that you read this report carefully before you signed it off yes i would have done so can you explain going back to page 14 how the um the error or the confusion crept in

00:09:31 um the error or the confusion crept in why did you not correct it at the time to make it clear um in terms of the way that we were interpreting that at the time and the fact that diagram 40 is headed

00:09:42 fact that diagram 40 is headed provisions of external surfaces of walls

00:09:47 our interpretation well we weren't aware that there was particular confusion around this point but just as a matter of the way this is set out on the page it isn't right that diagram 40 restricts the combustibility

00:09:59 diagram 40 restricts the combustibility of external walls of high buildings it's it's much more refined than that isn't it

00:10:06 isn't it um

00:10:07 um i don't entirely agree because of the reasons that i've just

00:10:13 [Applause]

00:10:16 explained now sarah colwell told us in her evidence that this wording would have been written by brian martin as she put it the expert

00:10:27 as she put it the expert on that area does that accord with your recollection in relation to the division of work between you in production of this document um that would be my expectation right today yes i'm going to read into

00:10:39 right today yes i'm going to read into the record the reference it's day 232 at page 36 line 17 that's just for our purposes for later when you signed this off was there some misunderstanding in your own mind at the

00:10:50 misunderstanding in your own mind at the time between class naught and combustibility no

00:10:57 did you ever detect that there was confusion in mr martin's mind or miss or dr colwell's mind about the differences between what diagram 40 did and the concept of

00:11:08 what diagram 40 did and the concept of combustibility as defined not that i was aware of no and yet

00:11:15 and yet in answers to the chairman this morning and to me

00:11:18 and to me i think you accept that diagram the phrase diagram 40 restricts the combustibility of external walls of high buildings is not accurate

00:11:29 accurate um

00:11:32 not entirely no no i don't but i don't entirely accept that it it doesn't reflect um

00:11:43 um the fact that you know uh the combustibility issue which i say we just discussed but just tell me then but maybe i've misunderstood your evidence what is it in diagram 40 that restricts the combustibility of external walls

00:11:56 the combustibility of external walls so

00:11:57 so basically

00:11:59 basically my understanding has always been that you would not be carrying out bs 476 part 6 and or 7 tests on any product

00:12:10 7 tests on any product or material that is non-combustible therefore

00:12:16 therefore clearly they are combustible and then you have a ranking system in terms of their reaction to fire characteristics which is built into

00:12:27 characteristics which is built into diagram 40.

00:12:32 you'll see you know in diagram 40 you've got different classes depending upon the location on the building or where the building is actually located in proximity to adjacent buildings those classes are not combustibility tests are

00:12:45 classes are not combustibility tests are they um

00:12:46 they um yes to some degree i think they are you think they are well 476 part six the more combustible sorry the more combustible a material is or product is um

00:12:57 um you know the the worse the spread of flame characteristics will be

00:13:05 four seven six part six is that a combustibility test four seven six part six um insofar as it is measuring the amount of heat that's produced on exposure to

00:13:17 of heat that's produced on exposure to an external radiant panel within the box then

00:13:23 then it is measuring the amount of energy that's being released from the surface but it's not exposed it's not a test is it for combustibility as opposed to non-combustibility let alone the test for limited

00:13:34 let alone the test for limited combustibility is it it's a test for propagation of fire but there are very there are a number of characteristics

00:13:45 characteristics that you need to understand when you start talking about combustibility and

00:13:51 and really what you're looking at is the contribution that a material or product can make to the fire growth behavior similarly part seven isn't a

00:14:02 similarly part seven isn't a combustibility test is it it's a surface spread of flame test but then the amount of energy that a product or material will contribute to a fire over a period of time is dependent upon the rate at

00:14:15 of time is dependent upon the rate at which the fire can spread over the surface

00:14:18 surface so if you can if it spreads very very quickly

00:14:22 quickly then the energy that's contained within that product or material will be produced and released much more quickly clearly if a product doesn't spread flame or you know just sits there in in

00:14:34 flame or you know just sits there in in the exposed zone then the amount of energy and so on that's released will be much much slower so these things are all interdependent and are

00:14:47 are all interdependent and are you know key factors in assessing the overall combustibility of a product or material mr chairman i'm getting a note again from those behind me that the transcript issue is yes it's continuing

00:14:59 transcript issue is yes it's continuing i don't know whether it is i think you and i can probably see the same note which suggests that the problem may be limited to the display screens in this room um which are not working

00:15:10 um which are not working at the moment but those who are logged on to opus i think are getting the fees i hope that's right um

00:15:19 i'm just going to check with council who's sitting over there can i ask are you are you getting the transcript feed so i'm not logged at the moment

00:15:31 oh right

00:15:34 well i think all we can do actually is to mention it to those who are in control of the technology and ask that they should try and restore the transcript to

00:15:46 try and restore the transcript to the hearing room but i think those who have using a transcript um through opus are probably still all right and i think we ought to carry on right you have to do that

00:15:59 yeah all right very well mr chairman yes i'm sorry about that dr smith it's a technical problem um but

00:16:07 but i think i've understood your evidence on the word combustibility did you understand it in this report when you signed it off as as combustibility in as it were the loose sense in other words capability of burning as opposed to the

00:16:19 burning as opposed to the any technical sense um defined or indicated in approved document b correct yes right i see now

00:16:28 now can we go back to page 12 then please in the

00:16:32 the literature review there's a heading facade costs and there you'll see table 1

00:16:39 1 in fact there are three tables and what are described as types and costs of claddings quoted in aj february 1998 for overcladding

00:16:50 1998 for overcladding and

00:16:51 and if you um

00:16:53 if you um go please down down the page you'll see that there's a table two types and costs of curtain wall and then over the page to page 13 and look at table three you'll see that

00:17:05 and look at table three you'll see that the heading of that table types and costs of infill panels as quoted in aj february 1998 infill panel systems and then the fourth entry down says composite panel of 0.5 millimeters

00:17:17 says composite panel of 0.5 millimeters stove lacquered aluminium three millimeters polyethylene core 0.5 millimeters milfinish aluminium with insulation and vapor barrier bonded to rear face and then there's a cost

00:17:29 rear face and then there's a cost 160 to 210 you see that yes now that's that's acm with a polyethylene core isn't it um as we know it now yes did you not know it then no

00:17:41 know it then no uh why is that um

00:17:43 um i was not aware of that description of those particular products i mean this was the actual description that we had in relation to those products we didn't know them as

00:17:55 products we didn't know them as acms

00:17:57 acms right

00:17:58 right you could see you could see nonetheless they that it had three millimeters of polyethylene as the core yes correct yeah that's it from the description here no and um can i ask you i mean what assumptions did you make

00:18:09 i mean what assumptions did you make about its mineral content um what in in the core but what in relation to table three at the time yeah what assumptions did you make i would not have made any

00:18:20 make i would not have made any assumptions in relation to the mineral core content of the three millimeters polyethylene yeah no i would not have made any assumptions about it so can we proceed on the basis that

00:18:32 proceed on the basis that you um

00:18:33 you um might have known that it was 100 polyethylene i would have based any thoughts around the description as provided right were you aware before you approved this

00:18:44 were you aware before you approved this report

00:18:45 report that acm panels with a fully polyethylene core were used in the external wall arrangements of uk buildings

00:18:54 buildings no you weren't aware no did you become aware when you read this table um

00:19:01 um this would have been the only information that i had yes it may be but on the basis that that was the only information you had did you become aware

00:19:12 you had did you become aware that this product as described here was in

00:19:16 was in use

00:19:17 use in the uk built environment

00:19:21 in the same way that all of the other products are listed that that would have been my only source of reference what was written here is that a yes then to the question um well yes if these products are the ones

00:19:33 well yes if these products are the ones that were in use did you ask yourself at the time why it was that composite panels with a three millimeter let it be

00:19:44 with a three millimeter let it be assumed 100 polyethylene core were in use on the external walls of buildings um

00:19:53 um no i wouldn't have done at that point why is that um

00:19:59 um in some ways you know a lot of these products that are listed here would be potentially products that um

00:20:09 um [Music]

00:20:10 [Music] you might you might want to further investigate in terms of their fire performance i mean i would not personally have had any knowledge about how any of these products would have performed in a fire situation

00:20:23 performed in a fire situation no um

00:20:25 no um but looking at the box and the title in this report did not did you not ask yourself did you not wonder i wonder why these panels

00:20:36 these panels as quoted in the architect's journal at that time

00:20:39 that time are in use perhaps even common use on tall buildings in the uk built environment i don't recall i don't recall that at all

00:20:50 recall that at all right

00:20:51 right so

00:20:52 so therefore it wasn't a surprise to you is that right to discover that such panels were in use um well as i say i wouldn't have had any knowledge about what was in use at all

00:21:03 knowledge about what was in use at all until i had until i saw this report i had no preconceived notion i i was not you know out there in the real world looking and surveying buildings so i had

00:21:15 looking and surveying buildings so i had no no knowledge as to what what was in use no that doesn't before it doesn't quite answer my question my question was really when you saw this for the first time did you not react by thinking or asking yourself i

00:21:27 react by thinking or asking yourself i wonder why it is that there are out there these composite panels with three millimeters of polyethylene i don't recall that specifically in relation to this right so you weren't concerned to discover it

00:21:39 so you weren't concerned to discover it for the first time um i don't recall i i don't know what did you know at the time about the properties the fire reaction properties of polyethylene

00:21:51 of polyethylene um that it's basically a thermoplastic

00:21:56 and i mean one of the performances of thermoplastics is they have a tendency to to melt um on exposure to heat and in some some cases that actually

00:22:08 cases that actually um

00:22:09 um means that the the the the thermoplastic itself

00:22:14 itself um runs away from from the fire um

00:22:19 um but apart from that you know we wouldn't have known i wouldn't have known how this product as it was constituted there would perform in a fire scenario

00:22:31 you say it has a tendency to melt and run away from the fire yes did you not also know that it would burn as it dripped and ran yes yes i mean it will burn it's the

00:22:42 yes yes i mean it will burn it's the extent to which it um and where it accumulates in effect when when it's melting and dripping yes can we agree this much at least that you knew at the time whatever else you might not have known about

00:22:54 else you might not have known about polyethylene's reaction to fire characteristics that it was combustible in all senses yes yes in relation to compliance with the guidance as it then stood in a proof

00:23:06 guidance as it then stood in a proof document b would there have been any particular reason for concern in discovering that acm panels were being used to cloud high-rise buildings where they had a polyethylene core

00:23:22 that did not i i don't recall what the discussion would have been around that i say it wasn't specific to um to that particular product at that time

00:23:32 time it was taken in the context of all of the other tables that are presented here as well and the other products

00:23:40 products which equally you could look at and see from a fire situation you might want to investigate further because in principle you know you there were some some others as well that

00:23:52 there were some some others as well that you might look at and think well i'm not sure quite how that might perform in a fire either no did you have any thoughts along the lines of

00:24:03 lines of how it would be that such panels could comply with then standing approved document b

00:24:11 i don't recall having had that consideration or discussion i mean brian martin would have led on on that sort of area of um of discussion right you say he would

00:24:23 of discussion right you say he would have led on it does that mean that you would

00:24:26 would in some senses reliant on his expertise um yes right yes was he more of an expert in the field of fire science than you would you say no

00:24:38 fire science than you would you say no so why were you no br brian's area of expertise um i think as we we spoke about before it was on the approved document and the interpretation and so

00:24:49 document and the interpretation and so on of the approved documents right

00:24:53 right do you know from your own knowledge at the time

00:24:56 the time whether brian martin had any concerns of his own about how it could be that the panels identified in this table with a three millimeter polyethylene cord were compliant with the proved document

00:25:08 were compliant with the proved document be as it then stood i don't know did it occur to you at the time before any experimental testing took place as we know it did not long after this that

00:25:19 we know it did not long after this that the use of polyethylene in the external wall at height might present a serious danger in the event of fire i don't recall that one being considered

00:25:30 considered um

00:25:32 as a as a special case right so can we take it that you don't recall any discussion either within the bre or with the department about this issue at the time not at that time not at that time

00:25:48 did you consider looking at this doc this document

00:25:53 document and this product in the table at this time how it could be that the use of polyethylene in the external wall of a high-rise building could comply with the functional requirement

00:26:04 with the functional requirement in b4 of the building regulations uh not at that time

00:26:15 did you consider at the time whether acmp panels could achieve class naught whether or not it was an appropriate classification um

00:26:29 i don't recall whether we would have had that discussion or not just trying that slightly differently yeah

00:26:38 on the assumption that these panels would

00:26:41 would be said to have met class nor did you simply assume that a class naught material or product would always meet the functional requirement or did you think that some class products

00:26:53 think that some class products or materials might not um

00:26:56 um i don't recall at that particular time i think you know that we were on a the whole point of the research project was to

00:27:05 was to investigate these things and this obviously was the first step in the research project and that was to be followed by the experimental program did you consider at this time or did you

00:27:17 did you consider at this time or did you come to consider whether given the functional requirement in b4 class naught was an appropriate classification for a composite product at all

00:27:26 at all um i don't recall at the time at the time did you ever later come to consider that question um

00:27:35 i can't remember whether we've had that discussion or not

00:27:43 and therefore it would follow that particularly with a combustible core

00:27:49 core a panel with a combustible core with something you never asked yourself about or never asked the question how is class naught appropriate

00:28:00 um probably not within that context i mean the the context for this um for me

00:28:09 um for me was always around this research project what it was seeking to achieve and then beyond that obviously later on the adoption of bs8414

00:28:20 bs8414 and the criteria and the introduction of that into the approved document um and then you know so from the outcomes of this research project and the classification

00:28:32 research project and the classification criteria that were then derived in br135 it was my um sort of absolute understanding from there on in that the door was closed in the use of these

00:28:43 door was closed in the use of these types of products and materials in the future [Music]

00:28:50 [Music] well that would be so i think is this right if bs 8414 and the ber-135 criteria were adopted as the sole route to compliance but not if you left class naught

00:29:01 but not if you left class naught in adb well i mean our understanding interpretation was and this is where the confusion around the term filler which is now apparent but wasn't apparent to us at the time um obviously hadn't had

00:29:13 us at the time um obviously hadn't had an impact

00:29:16 an impact right

00:29:17 right but picking up on your um your point about the revisions can we go to page 27 of this document and find the conclusions of the literature review there

00:29:28 literature review there and you'll see dr smith at the top of your screen the word conclusions the main findings from this review have been and then there are some numbers and if you look at number two it says this the 2000 revision of adb goes some

00:29:40 this the 2000 revision of adb goes some way to addressing the issues of fire performance of external cladding systems the review of br135 will help to clarify any remaining issues as identified now is that a reference i'm just bearing

00:29:51 now is that a reference i'm just bearing in mind the date of this which is march 2000

00:29:54 2000 is that a reference to the version of the approved document which came into force in the july of that year july 2000 i would imagine so yes yes

00:30:06 the previous version was the 1992 second edition which ran from june 92 to july 2000 so that that must be right yes yeah had the bre played any role in drafting

00:30:17 had the bre played any role in drafting or advising on or assisting with the 2000 amendments to the approved document um

00:30:24 um i don't know you don't know no can we take it that you were familiar at the time with the provisions of the guidance in approved document b um to some extent not entirely i mean

00:30:35 um to some extent not entirely i mean that wasn't the area that i was working in until really this this project but as a result of working on this project did you come then to be fully familiar with at least the 2000 version

00:30:47 familiar with at least the 2000 version if not its predecessor in part yes i mean i wouldn't have an extensive oversight of every element of the approved document i mean it wasn't my job and role to be interpreting that on

00:30:59 job and role to be interpreting that on a daily basis so it would only be on the you know on a need to

00:31:05 need to know basis you say in part did one of those parts include section 12 what what became section 12 later uh i think section 13 in the 2000 version namely external wall

00:31:18 version namely external wall yes i would have um i would have familiarized myself with it but i would not be asked to interpret it in the real world if you if you get my meaning it's slightly different i would not be

00:31:29 slightly different i would not be applying that to any projects or whatever in the external world now looking at the text of paragraph two under the conclusions here um where it says that the revision goes

00:31:40 um where it says that the revision goes some way to addressing the issues of fire performance of external claddings cladding systems the review of br135 will help to clarify any remaining issues as identified um what

00:31:52 issues as identified um what specifically were the issues in relation to the far performance of external cladding systems had the 2000 revision of approved document being as it says had gone some way to

00:32:03 as it says had gone some way to addressing yeah i mean i can't be definitive on that

00:32:07 that i wasn't involved in the revisions and so on but

00:32:10 so on but um

00:32:11 um my guess is that this was all related to the

00:32:15 the parliamentary select committee and

00:32:21 and the work that they had undertaken and that's really what then led to the need to

00:32:27 to embody the classification criteria into br 135

00:32:32 br 135 but in order to sort of validate that this research project was commissioned by the department to to enable that data and information to be collected right

00:32:44 collected right let's um let's look at the revision um

00:32:50 can you remember though before we do how it was that the 2000 revision of approved document b had addressed these issues or gone some way to doing so um i can't remember no let's look at it then

00:33:03 can't remember no let's look at it then to help you um can we put up uh approved document b2000 against the original um i'd like to have both up on the screen clg one

00:33:15 both up on the screen clg one five zero sorry six one four zeroes twelve

00:33:23 twelve sorry 150 is 12 page 89 um the documents provider has done an excellent job in getting there before me now um what we have

00:33:35 uh uh on

00:33:38 uh on the

00:33:39 the left-hand side

00:33:43 uh is the previous edition which is the 1992

00:33:47 1992 uh approved document b and on the right-hand side what has become section 12 in the 2000 edition and you can see there that the requirements for external surfaces in

00:33:58 requirements for external surfaces in both versions are that the external walls of a building over a certain height should meet the provisions of diagram 40. you see that yes there's 12.5 in the 1990

00:34:11 12.5 in the 1992 edition on the right hand side

00:34:17 and

00:34:21 13.5 in the 2000 edition [Music]

00:34:25 [Music] now um

00:34:27 now um both diagrams stipulate class naught don't they let me show you that um page 75 and page 90. so right hand side if we go forward a page and left hand side if we go

00:34:39 a page and left hand side if we go forward a page both versions there

00:34:44 um we need to go that's it thank you it's diagram 36 and diagram 40. both versions there stipulate uh class naught don't they yes and the only difference

00:34:55 and the only difference uh was uh was the height on the right-hand side which is the 1992 version it was 20 meters and on the left-hand side 2000 amendment 18 meters yes yes both say class naught yes yes

00:35:11 yes yes both say class naught yes yes uh and in addition i think it's right that the 2000 edition of the approved document added and if we get back to it at 13.5 we go back on the

00:35:23 on the left-hand side two pages

00:35:26 to paragraph 13.5 as you'll see

00:35:32 oh sorry page 89 we know we want there 13.5

00:35:37 13.5 there we are

00:35:42 under the note one alternative to meeting the provisions in diagram called 40 could be bre fire note 9 yes correct yes uh now that that's that was new wasn't it

00:35:55 that that's that was new wasn't it um

00:35:56 um yes i believe so uh and

00:36:01 was that one of the amendments that would go some way to addressing the issues

00:36:05 issues that was referred to in the conclusions to the literature review i would assume so yes right now it's right to think isn't it the fire note 9 was not conceived with the spread of fire over the over the external surface

00:36:17 fire over the over the external surface of the walls in mind was it

00:36:22 um well clearly that's one of the things that it's measuring

00:36:29 well

00:36:33 let me try it differently external surface fire spread a cladding system on fire is another way of putting it was not the problem which fire note 9 was seeking to solve was it

00:36:47 my understanding was that yes it was looking at the fire performance of external cladding systems in the in the in the round and therefore that is one of the

00:36:58 of the aspects that it would be looking at there's not very much nbr 135 as it then turned into in 2003 about external fast bread is there in

00:37:09 about external fast bread is there in br135 yes as it turned into

00:37:14 we i i'm not following you sorry we'll come to version yes we'll come to it but um

00:37:20 um in fact far note 9 was

00:37:25 a full system test wasn't it correct it wasn't measuring or quantifying the external spread of flame

00:37:36 the external spread of flame not in isolation no

00:37:42 and in fact on this and later amend amendments to approve document b an external wall product like a panel

00:37:54 an external wall product like a panel did not have to meet the requirements of br135 through a bs8414 test it simply needed to satisfy class naught

00:38:05 class naught um well

00:38:06 um well that's that was not my interpretation of what was in there but i guess we'll come to that later yeah

00:38:14 yeah well then if that wasn't could you just explain 13.5 to us 13.5 which is the amendment made in 2000

00:38:25 13.5 which is the amendment made in 2000 says the external surfaces of wolves should meet the provisions in diagram 40. note one alternative to meeting the provisions in diagram courte 40 could be

00:38:37 provisions in diagram courte 40 could be bre far note 9. so you didn't have to satisfy no i no i accept that in this context yes yes and there were always alternatives weren't they that never changed not until 2018

00:38:51 they that never changed not until 2018 um

00:38:53 um the 2006 version also has some text in there about the performance of the insulation yes well we're not talking about insulation there are we we're talking about the external surfaces of walls

00:39:06 about the external surfaces of walls which is what diagram 40 is about but it also i mean this is where the paragraph in the 2006 version also refers to

00:39:16 refers to filler material and

00:39:19 and you know that so within that context it's not as simple as what's written here in the 2000 version that may be so it may have become

00:39:30 that may be so it may have become complicated and we'll come to that in due course dr smith forgive me for taking a long historical run-up to this but

00:39:36 but but at this point in time it's right a thing that you and that the the partial cure to the issues that industry was seeing in which your literature

00:39:47 was seeing in which your literature review was addressing was met by the introduction of

00:39:53 of what became bre 135 but far note 9 as an alternative to meeting diagram 40. correct yes

00:40:02 now turning to insulation if we look uh please at the right hand side and go back a page to page 74 which is the 1992 version of approved

00:40:14 which is the 1992 version of approved document b that required insulation in the external wall construction as you can see in 12 12.5

00:40:25 as you can see in 12 12.5 sorry 12.7 external wall construction you see

00:40:32 it says in the second sentence there

00:40:38 oh the second paragraph in a building with astoria more than 20 meters above ground level insulation material used in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility see appendix a

00:40:50 appendix a and then you have the exception for masonry cavity wall constructions you see that yes now if you look uh to

00:40:59 to page 90 on the left-hand side

00:41:05 in the 2000 version of the approved document b if you look at what is what became 13.7

00:41:14 uh i'm sorry we have to give back a page page 89.

00:41:20 89 yes that's it external wall construction 13.7 you can see that the second paragraph has been amended and it now says and you can compare the two in a building with a story 18 meters or more above ground

00:41:31 story 18 meters or more above ground level insulation material used in ventilated cavities in the external wall construction should be of limited combustibility can you explain the rationale for the introduction of

00:41:43 rationale for the introduction of the words

00:41:44 the words in ventilated cavities no i can't it it's a narrowing isn't it of the circumstances in which the guidance asked for insulation to be of limited combustibility it certainly appears so

00:41:56 combustibility it certainly appears so yes you don't know why that was no i don't did you ever notice it at the time um no i don't believe i did do you know you didn't notice it at the time so that would tell us that there was no discussion within the bre to your

00:42:07 was no discussion within the bre to your knowledge of that narrowing well not that i was involved in i mean can you tell us from your own knowledge who how who suggested it or how it came about no i wouldn't know that right but i mean the people that were working in

00:42:18 i mean the people that were working in that area it was as we spoke about on friday

00:42:21 friday thursday sorry would have been um tony morris and potentially um a colleague of his richard reed who were in who was involved in this area right and what about brian martin who i think

00:42:33 and what about brian martin who i think you told us um yeah i can't remember when brian joined so i don't know how much involvement he would have had in the 2000 version of the approved document

00:42:42 document but um i mean he will be able to answer those questions can you recall when you became aware for the first time that the 2000 version had amended and narrowed

00:42:55 amended and narrowed the

00:42:57 the restriction in relation to insulation material in the external wall construction no i don't remember right

00:43:08 now the let's look at the functional requirement can we please have up on the screen at page 72 of the document on the right

00:43:24 and page 7 and page 86 in the document on the left

00:43:32 now um the the one on the left is a little bit fuzzy because of the copying but we'll do our best with it i hope you can see it

00:43:40 it on the right which is the 1992 version of the functional requirement it says the external walls of the building this is b41 the external walls of the

00:43:51 this is b41 the external walls of the building shall resist the spread of fire over the walls and from one building to another having regard to the height use and build position of the building and then in 2000 that's amended as you

00:44:03 and then in 2000 that's amended as you can see

00:44:04 can see to the words the external walls of the building shall adequately resist the spread of fire over the walls etc so you can see that the word adequately

00:44:15 so you can see that the word adequately has now been inserted into the functional requirement in two thousand yes yes

00:44:24 yes yes so we've moved from resisting external fire spread all together to resisting it adequately yes yes

00:44:32 yes yes do you have any recollection yourself of that amendment no

00:44:40 no do you have any recollection of any discussion about the reasons for that amendment

00:44:45 amendment not that i was involved in at all no do you know anything about the background to that amendment no when did you first learn if you ever did of that amendment

00:44:58 learn if you ever did of that amendment um

00:44:59 um yeah i'm not sure i learned of it being a difference um obviously the 2000 version would have been the

00:45:07 been the first version that i would have looked at in the context of this particular project

00:45:12 project so

00:45:13 so yes i don't know why that was put in there or where it came from yeah but you don't remember when you discovered that the word adequately had been inserted into the 2000 edition no was this not something that you were

00:45:25 was this not something that you were looking at as part of your literature review and the amendments leading up to the july 2000 amendment well obviously i wasn't involved in the detailed work on the literature review i was the approver of the report

00:45:39 so unless it was brought to my attention at that point i wouldn't necessarily have been aware of it did anybody give you a briefing before you signed off as the approver of the conclusions which include conclusion

00:45:52 the conclusions which include conclusion 2

00:45:53 2 of the proposed amendments to approve document b in terms of what what time frame what do you mean the proposed environment um you signed off let's take

00:46:05 environment um you signed off let's take it in stages you signed off as approved the literature review with its conclusions on the 30th of march 2000 yes before you did that did anybody give you a briefing

00:46:17 you a briefing on the proposed amendments of approved document b or indeed the finance the functional requirement not that i can recall

00:46:25 recall right

00:46:29 so when you signed it off what was the state of your knowledge about what those proposed amendments were

00:46:36 were um i don't recall i mean i would have signed the report off based upon the content of the report as provided to me so the text that would have been

00:46:48 the text that would have been you know included within the report but if you didn't know what the proposed amendments were how could you sign off a report that said that they went some way to satisfying the issues

00:47:00 well in the content of the report it explains what um

00:47:07 well if it doesn't explain that then somebody would obviously have told me must have told me what um that they were going to refer to 509 i guess anything else

00:47:19 but i don't recall first hand i'm just

00:47:22 i'm just trying to um unpick the context and roll roll my mind back but

00:47:29 back but it's it's a long time ago right now um i don't want to ask you about the meaning of words in a statutory piece of guidance but did there come a time when you had your own understanding

00:47:41 own understanding about what the word adequately connoted

00:47:46 no it was always a point that was a point of debate amongst the industry as well you know as to who who defines what what is adequate now

00:47:57 who defines what what is adequate now you say it was always a point of debate when did that debate begin um well i became aware of it probably um

00:48:07 um in the 2000s at some point right

00:48:10 right you know attending conferences and seminars and so on just picking up those sorts of discussions that would have generally happened there did come a point then

00:48:22 there did come a point then that you learned about the insertion of the word adequately into the functional requirement well i'm not sure it would have been in the context of this has just suddenly appeared it would have been within the context of this exists

00:48:34 been within the context of this exists who defines what is adequate and

00:48:42 in the early you say in the 2000s at some point

00:48:48 the debate began about what the word adequately meant

00:48:52 what was the answer well sorry and start again did the bre itself ever give an answer or suggest an answer to that question to your knowledge not to my knowledge no

00:49:03 your knowledge not to my knowledge no that would not have been my view is that would not have been our role to have done so that is a matter for because it exists in the statutory

00:49:14 because it exists in the statutory requirements it would be a matter for government to define what is adequate and what is suitable

00:49:21 suitable [Music]

00:49:23 [Music] do you recall an occasion in which government on which government was ever asked that question i don't personally you don't personally i'm not aware of

00:49:34 you don't personally i'm not aware of when you know if industry asked for clarification around what adequate meant i i don't know did it ever occur to you as the points person at the bre

00:49:45 as the points person at the bre to ask government anthony bird or brian martin perhaps about why it was that the word adequate was inserted and what was meant so that you could tell your clients

00:49:56 could tell your clients again i mean if anybody had asked us to define adequate then we would have referred them to the department for that discussion we would not provide

00:50:07 for that discussion we would not provide that advice and we would not um

00:50:11 um you know discuss that particularly with our clients

00:50:17 because there's clearly different ways to to um define and and to demonstrate adequacy

00:50:23 adequacy i mean certainly it's a point that um the department were very well aware of because you know they sat in some of the workshops and conferences and so on and

00:50:34 workshops and conferences and so on and would have heard the same the same questions so i mean but only they can answer to if they were ever asked and then how they responded to that can we

00:50:45 they responded to that can we just understand that despite the debate as you say which started sometime in the 2000s

00:50:50 2000s the bre to your knowledge never took that up with government and said look you need to clarify this because there's a debate

00:50:57 a debate we would have raised it with them and said

00:50:59 said you know

00:51:00 you know there's an issue around adequacy you did and and they were fully aware of that anyway because you know they sat in some of the same discussions that that i was personally sat in or other

00:51:12 that i was personally sat in or other people from bre was sat in okay let's just break that down do you recall sitting in discussions do you with people from government and discussing the meaning of or the intended meaning of the word adequately

00:51:24 intended meaning of the word adequately well not not necessarily discussing the meaning of it but where the issues around well what does adequate mean yes well that's that's yes but not necessarily providing an answer to the question

00:51:36 question and what did government say during those discussions i don't recall i mean you would need to i suspect that people wouldn't have given an answer there and

00:51:47 wouldn't have given an answer there and then

00:51:48 then they would have to take that back and it would have to be an agreed response to something like that it's not something that one individual would be able to sit there and

00:52:00 define no

00:52:02 no i'm not asking really about whether somebody could define it i'm just i'm just really getting your recollection of the discussions who said what and when about the word adequately yeah i can't give you chapter

00:52:13 adequately yeah i can't give you chapter and verse in in that respect can you give us the gist well i think it's it's as i've already described i mean people would say well who

00:52:24 people would say well who what does adequate mean within this context and who

00:52:29 who who defines it but you're talking to government who was it you were discussing it with i would have um discussed it with anthony bird yeah anybody else and potentially brian

00:52:40 anybody else and potentially brian martin right and do you remember what they said about

00:52:48 about the word adequately um

00:52:53 i mean they will need to answer to that themselves i mean my my view is and my recollection is that initially anyway they their view was well yes it's a little bit

00:53:05 well yes it's a little bit vague isn't it right it's not definitive but then there's a lot of you know other regulation that

00:53:17 regulation that i guess you could argue not necessarily in the fire context as well that is similar

00:53:22 similar it's a little bit vague were you not interested to know why a word which introduced vagueness into

00:53:33 a word which introduced vagueness into an otherwise absolute provision had been inserted

00:53:41 um i mean it really wasn't for me to question what

00:53:47 what the government had decided to do in terms of their own legal framework

00:53:56 i wonder about that let me try it differently

00:54:01 can you help with this when bre second edition 2003 was in production so between the date of the

00:54:12 date of the literature review and sometime in 2003

00:54:17 and therefore after the word adequately had been inserted into the functional requirement to your knowledge dr smith did anybody at the bre ever consider whether

00:54:30 br135

00:54:33 meeting the criteria in br135 would

00:54:38 would satisfy the word adequately so that you knew that if you'd passed br 135 the performance of your external wall would be adequate for the

00:54:51 external wall would be adequate for the purposes of the functional requirement

00:54:55 my understanding is that that would have been

00:54:59 been discussed

00:55:01 discussed and

00:55:03 and it would have the fact that it was um accepted and the research as it was carried out was all presented that that then was accepted as a demonstration of

00:55:14 then was accepted as a demonstration of adequacy

00:55:16 adequacy but if nobody well if adequately was vague how did they know how did anybody know how did the bre know that the outputs from a bs 18414 test meeting br 135

00:55:29 from a bs 18414 test meeting br 135 criteria

00:55:31 criteria would

00:55:32 would satisfy um

00:55:36 well in terms of the support for the um

00:55:40 um the outputs from the project and also the

00:55:46 um the the the commitment from the parliamentary select committee to

00:55:54 to acceptance that the what was then i think fire note 9 was

00:56:00 was suitable and needed to be adopted within the guidance but if there were no criteria objective criteria by which to measure the word adequacy

00:56:10 adequacy how did you know whether the outputs from a vs8414 test meeting br135 would satisfy

00:56:18 satisfy the word adequate well i think it was implicit in the fact that the standard and

00:56:24 and the um

00:56:25 the um document br 135 were accepted

00:56:41 [Applause] let's go back to the third conclusion then of the literature review

00:56:49 page 27. uh that's bre one bre 40 1353 page 27 conclusion three the work to date suggests that a large-scale test method

00:57:00 suggests that a large-scale test method is necessary to assess the performance of the complete system now now that was not a new discovery was it as at spring 2000 um

00:57:10 um no no only i think you agree with me it had been noted in fire note 3 and far note 9. correct yes how do you or sarah colwell or brian martin for that matter previously

00:57:21 martin for that matter previously considered that small-scale testing of individual components of a cladding system to the bs 476 standards could quote assess the performance of the complete system on quotes

00:57:32 quotes um

00:57:33 um yes i believe people had considered that so probably sarah had in her earlier involvement um in the

00:57:42 um in the um was it fire notes uh i don't know if she was involved in fine note 3 but certainly fine 9.

00:57:51 9. [Music]

00:57:52 [Music] um and yes i discussed it and i would have discussed it with sarah at the time and during the course of this project was any consideration given either within the bre or in discussions with

00:58:03 within the bre or in discussions with the department to limiting all elements of the external wall construction or at least all significant elements of the external wall construction to materials or products of limited

00:58:15 materials or products of limited combustibility or non-combustible um

00:58:22 i don't know

00:58:25 you don't know one way or the other no does that mean you can't remember or i don't know one way or the other i don't know if any any discussion took place between other people and the department around that

00:58:36 people and the department around that particular right issue

00:58:43 other than your own knowledge of the 2000 amendments to approve document b such as it was which i think except for me did not implement the recommendation of the select committee

00:58:56 recommendation of the select committee to have bs 8414 in place of class naught what was your own state of knowledge at the time

00:59:03 the time of of whether the department would follow the select committee's recommendation that all external cladding systems should be required to be entirely non-combustible or tested to full scale um i think in 2000 when this project was

00:59:16 um i think in 2000 when this project was initiated

00:59:18 initiated the view was that obviously a number of things needed to be put in place um obviously we didn't have bs8414 at that particular time it was

00:59:29 bs8414 at that particular time it was still fine nine so that then had to be developed and published and so on and the classifications published so it was almost like a journey in terms of the implementation of the recommendations

00:59:41 implementation of the recommendations from the select committee yes and that was my expectation that that was where this was all yes or all heading did you ever have any discussions with anthony bird or anybody

00:59:52 discussions with anthony bird or anybody else from the department about whether class naught should be dropped

00:59:59 um well not at that time because there was nothing to replace it with well you had the uh uh arriving fire note 9 which then became bs8414 yes but it hadn't arrived in 2000 so you know we

01:00:11 it hadn't arrived in 2000 so you know we were on that journey if you like so right yes

01:00:16 right yes you say you were on a journey did you and anthony bird or anybody else in the department ever discuss at what point that journey would end and class naught would be dropped um i mean obviously we understood and bre

01:00:28 i mean obviously we understood and bre understood that

01:00:33 the changes would be made at a revision point within the cycle for the approved document um

01:00:44 um and that because that's typically how it how it works um [Music]

01:00:49 [Music] so once the british standards were ready and published and so on then at the relevant point in the cycle those would then be adopted and that was the expectation at that time i see and when

01:01:02 expectation at that time i see and when was the next um revolution of the cycle um well we understood obviously that emerged to to be 2006

01:01:11 be 2006 i think it was like a five or six year revision cycle typically around around that time and what was it about fire note 9 that

01:01:22 and what was it about fire note 9 that meant that it couldn't be adopted straight away as the full-scale test in place of class north i i think it was mainly the fact that in the approved document it predominantly

01:01:33 the approved document it predominantly refers to either national or european or international standards and clearly fire note 9 was none of those it was if you like a bre in-house

01:01:45 it was if you like a bre in-house standard so it was felt that it then needed to go through the standards-making process and be opened up to full discussion and consultation with the

01:01:56 with the industry and all the stakeholders at large to

01:02:00 large to improve the the the standard in in the way that you would expect for a british standard there's a you know a different um a different process is gone through

01:02:14 a different process is gone through was it your expectation that class naught would be dropped then come the next iteration of approved document b um i don't recall exactly what the expectation would have been

01:02:26 what the expectation would have been around that because this was all also

01:02:29 also complicated by the introduction of the

01:02:33 the european

01:02:34 european test standards as well during this period yes which came in a 2002 amendment uh yes i believe so yes mr chairman i'm going to turn to a new topic

01:02:46 topic vaguely new topic but i won't finish it before the break but i do think i should make a start on it i do yes yeah well we started a little late time for it so yes that's perfectly right right thank you

01:02:57 that's perfectly right right thank you um can we then uh look at bre three zeros four one eight three six please this is a new uh a new area of enquiries it's a

01:03:06 it's a it's a continuing but semi new area of inquiry in that case can i just raise a question which i don't think you answered already and if you have i apologize for asking it again

01:03:17 apologize for asking it again it concerns how finite three and five note 9

01:03:21 note 9 came into existence the intention was as i understand it to produce a test which would demonstrate

01:03:32 produce a test which would demonstrate compliance with b4 functional requirement b4 is that right that's my understanding um since functional requirement b4 either did at one stage not include the word adequately so it

01:03:44 not include the word adequately so it just said

01:03:46 just said resist fire without providing any numbers

01:03:51 numbers [Music]

01:03:52 [Music] someone must have taken a view when formulating fire note 9 let's say as to what the criteria should be

01:04:06 the criteria should be do you know how that was done and who did it i'm afraid i don't i mean it would have been tony morris and his co-workers at the time because he was leading on on all of that

01:04:17 because he was leading on on all of that work

01:04:18 work so it sounds as far as you know that we can assume that uh those who were doing that work took a certain view of

01:04:30 certain view of the extent to which fire resistance was required

01:04:34 required whatever the wording at the time and built that in to find note 9 which became vsa 414. that would be my understanding yes

01:04:45 that would be my understanding yes all right yes thank you very much okay

01:04:50 yes thank you mr ludwig yes thank you now um can we then turn to the document which i want to look at which is the bid document

01:04:58 document uh

01:04:59 uh if we just have a look at page one just to refresh all of our memories about this document this is the bid by bre to undertake work for detr

01:05:08 for detr under the framework agreements and this was the title

01:05:15 the title review of fire performance of external cladding systems and revision of bre report br135 which at that stage was a 1988 edition um if we go to page three you can see that on that page there was

01:05:26 you can see that on that page there was a proposal that the bre should undertake a survey of current stock in relation to the cladding of high-rise buildings in the uk and you'll see that under the specific

01:05:38 and you'll see that under the specific objectives yes first bullet point um that was that was accomplished by compiling a six-page questionnaire for completion by a selected number of relevant local authorities wasn't it uh i believe so yes let's look let's go

01:05:51 uh i believe so yes let's look let's go to the questionnaire that's a bre 3041885 please and it's entitled bre cladding survey and you can see that there are some numbers down the left-hand side

01:06:03 numbers down the left-hand side ages of buildings you see that did you approve that survey um i don't recall in

01:06:11 in possibly i did right um it would also have had to have been approved by the department before it went out

01:06:19 went out yes

01:06:21 yes because they they had to approve anything where you were surveyed surveying industry now we can scroll through it to see the nature of the questions

01:06:29 questions uh you've got the number of units above 18 meters the age group of the buildings refurbishment types of cladding and if you um turn the page to take page

01:06:40 and if you um turn the page to take page two you can see rendered systems or rain screen systems and then going down to page three please you can see infill or built ups and then you've got

01:06:51 and then you've got kinds of fiber underneath paragraph eight

01:06:54 eight insulation mineral or polymeric and then if you go over the page of the polymerics under 8.2 you're asked whether they're eps pur pir or phenolics

01:07:06 whether they're eps pur pir or phenolics you see that yes and if we go to page four lower down you can see the respondents are asked about fire stopping and whether they are aware of the use of cavity barriers yes

01:07:18 aware of the use of cavity barriers yes correct yes and at phase five at question 11 you can see it says have you had any incidents involving fire spread due to external cladding systems any details would be appreciated

01:07:30 systems any details would be appreciated yes yes um now for that i think it's right that the bre then created an excel spreadsheet to record the responses to this survey let's look at that it's a bre three zeros one sorry three zeroes four one eight eight

01:07:43 sorry three zeroes four one eight eight six

01:07:44 six it's the next document on actually in the series and that is an excel spreadsheet so we'll need the native version of that please

01:08:01 now these take some time to pull up because of the nature of the document so just bear with us dr smith please

01:08:13 it's bre 3041886 [Music]

01:08:47 yes here it comes

01:08:50 um right thank you now that is um

01:08:54 um [Music]

01:08:56 [Music] the excel spreadsheet if we can go to the first tab introduction which i think we're on you can see um that it records just over halfway down the text inside the box which

01:09:07 down the text inside the box which starts to date

01:09:10 you've got 45 surveys that have been distributed 17 responses have been received and of those three were ill returns one is still trying to provide the data and 13 full returns were provided

01:09:23 and 13 full returns were provided do you know why only 45 questionnaires were sent out no i don't you don't know who took that decision no do you know who chose the list of recipients um typically in these sorts of

01:09:36 um typically in these sorts of instances it would be discussed between our project team our project manager and the department i see were you parted to those discussions um no i wouldn't have been

01:09:48 discussions um no i wouldn't have been do you know on what basis these organizations were selected no i don't um now you can see that one of the organizations was ws atkins

01:10:00 atkins and

01:10:01 and if you go please to bre 3041886

01:10:07 3041886 to the sheet entitled survey responses uh

01:10:13 uh you can see uh if you

01:10:17 if you go to column c

01:10:22 ws atkins and they are um type one and type one taken from me as a specifier do you know what kind of organization ws atkins was

01:10:35 organization ws atkins was um

01:10:35 um [Music]

01:10:37 [Music] in this context so presumably then they were specifying what went on to buildings

01:10:42 buildings if we go down then to row 54 in column c we scroll down to 54 question 11 there's a yes

01:10:49 a yes and there's a note that's added to the cell if we can just open up the note

01:11:00 i think you may have to enable editing to do it

01:11:05 that's it if we can open the cell we have some of the text but not all of it which i will have to ask you to take from me

01:11:13 from me it says bre spread of flames generally rapid due to loss of integrity of and then the words that follow take from me are composite aluminium panels using combustible cores

01:11:26 aluminium panels using combustible cores [Music]

01:11:27 [Music] now

01:11:28 now can you help us is that a note of what was recorded on ws atkins's survey response particularly question 11 i don't know i would assume probably yes

01:11:40 i don't know i would assume probably yes but i i don't i can't be definitive about that right did you or to your knowledge anybody else either at the bre or in government contact ws atkin to find out what the

01:11:51 contact ws atkin to find out what the composite aluminium panels using combustible cores were

01:11:57 were i don't know were they acn with a pe core or a sandwich panel or infill panel or the like i don't know

01:12:09 did you see this spreadsheet at the time um i would have probably seen it [Music]

01:12:15 [Music] as part of the pack that comes to you for approval of the report did you open up the cell that i've just opened up i don't recall i don't recall you recall any discussion at the time

01:12:26 at the time about w s atkins discovery um i don't recall that um but clearly you know the responses to the questionnaire etc were then used to help

01:12:38 questionnaire etc were then used to help formulate the experimental program right yes i see that um was this spreadsheet sent to the department or is it an internal or did it remain an internal bre document i don't know i would imagine it probably did get sent

01:12:51 would imagine it probably did get sent but i i don't know others others would know that right let's look then as another document bre 3041887

01:13:07 and now this is the project report dated 24th of july 2000 it was issued to anthony bird outlining the results of the bre's cladding survey and it provided various options for large-scale experimental studies

01:13:20 large-scale experimental studies and let's go to page two you can see that the report was prepared by sarah colwell and approved by you yes correct and then at page six if we go to that you can see survey responses and the report says there um

01:13:32 and the report says there um underneath 45 questionnaires were issued of these 17 responses were received figure one summarizes the categories and responses received the number of responses received was less than expected

01:13:44 expected in fact it's right isn't it that there were only 13 full responses um based on what you showed earlier that yes yes do you know why the bre didn't issue further surveys to other organizations when it became apparent

01:13:55 organizations when it became apparent that the response rate was so low i don't i mean i'm i'm pretty sure that this would have been discussed with the department at the time and there would have been some follow-up to those where

01:14:06 have been some follow-up to those where there had been no no response received at all

01:14:10 at all with only about a third of the organizations actually responding to the bre survey do you know how the bre or government could gain a proper and comprehensive understanding of the current industry

01:14:21 understanding of the current industry practice in relation to the overcladding of

01:14:25 of building stock in the united kingdom i'm sure this would have been discussed between the project team and the department at the time and then the decision would have been taken

01:14:36 decision would have been taken um jointly jointly right so it was a joint decision was it to proceed without issuing further surveys to other organizations to get a better data set well we would have sought the view of the department

01:14:48 have sought the view of the department as to whether they felt that it was adequate or not did anybody from the department suggest to you that perhaps more data than 17 or even 13 responses was needed and more surveys should be set up i don't know

01:15:03 if we look at page 10 of this document

01:15:09 there's a heading summary and options report

01:15:12 report survey conclusions you see survey conclusions it it concludes as follows first bullet point based on this survey it would appear that although the number of responses have been limited they provide

01:15:23 have been limited they provide sufficient data to form a consistent view of the types of external clouding systems used in the public housing sector

01:15:30 sector on what basis was that conclusion reached do you know

01:15:35 no i mean i would anticipate reading this now that it would have looked at the types of responses that we were getting back and if there was a consistency in the responses that we had

01:15:46 consistency in the responses that we had had that would have been what would have

01:15:50 you know dictated that conclusion did you yourself have a view at the time about whether this was a sufficient data set on which to form an opinion i don't recall at the time um

01:16:02 an opinion i don't recall at the time um i'm sure we would have had some some discussion around that um clearly one of the things that would have been looked at as well would have been who you know which

01:16:13 which areas or which local authorities or so on and what would have

01:16:18 responded if we go to figure one on page seven

01:16:25 which is back three pages in the report you can see there that

01:16:30 uh and we need to expand the table please if we can do that figure one question is returned by respondent type uh you can see there that

01:16:41 uh you can see there that it looks as though the number of surveys actually returned by local authorities in england was five yes

01:16:48 yes uh it's the little purple or burgundy colored yes i see yeah and three in scotland one of which was a nil return yes and one in wales yes yes so a total

01:17:00 yes and one in wales yes yes so a total of eight yes yeah and i think it's also acknowledged if you

01:17:06 you look at the final paragraph on the same page if you scroll down to that please

01:17:12 that and i like under the heading specifiers and suppliers the suppliers and specifiers identified a total of 193 units

01:17:21 units but it has not been possible to quantify how many of these units are duplicates of those already provided by the local authorities now just pausing on that

01:17:32 on that sentence

01:17:33 sentence and taken together with the table do you agree that this is really quite a long way from the comprehensive survey of the uk building stock that would that was proposed in the bid for this contract

01:17:45 the bid for this contract um

01:17:47 well the results i mean that that the issue with a lot of these types of surveys is indeed in getting the responses back i mean it's very difficult to get

01:17:59 difficult to get busy people to to respond and to see the need to respond

01:18:05 respond and it also probably points to the fact that a lot of the local authorities didn't actually know the answer to a lot of the questions well

01:18:15 well let's just see if we if we just go back please to bre 3041836

01:18:24 we looked at this earlier but i just want to revisit it in the light of the answer that you've just given us go to page five in that this is bre 30 41836

01:18:43 and this is the bid document we saw and the heading program of work and method statement and under the title or heading preferred approach at

01:18:54 title or heading preferred approach at the start of the page it says the approach adopted in this proposal is to provide

01:18:59 provide the department with information relevant to actual construction practice this information will be derived from a comprehensive survey of the uk building stock which will form the basis for detr

01:19:10 stock which will form the basis for detr to specify generic external cladding systems for experimental investigation so it's clear that you were bidding for a contract in which there would be a comprehensive survey of the uk building

01:19:21 comprehensive survey of the uk building stock that's right looking at the responses we've seen that at that stage you hadn't done a comprehensive survey had you um well as i said earlier i mean it would have been discussed at all stages

01:19:33 would have been discussed at all stages with the department with the fact that we were getting a lot of no responses i guess or nil returns

01:19:43 returns and

01:19:46 and the department in discussion with us would have decided if that was adequate or not

01:19:52 or not presumably they did did they well yes the fact that the project continued

01:19:58 continued that must have been the conclusion

01:20:02 mr chairman i've got three questions left on this line before turning to a slightly different line of questions but on the same document if you go please to page 10 of the server of the survey

01:20:14 page 10 of the server of the survey that's back at bre 3041887

01:20:19 on page 10 at the second bullet point in the middle of your screen it says whilst no one clear system was identified the majority of systems

01:20:30 was identified the majority of systems used by local authorities appears to be the render-sys-based systems with rain screen systems representing around 12 percent of the market did you yourself

01:20:41 did you yourself genuinely consider that conclusions based on such a limited data set 13 responses from local authorities and nearly 12 percent of the market for rain screen some of which was

01:20:53 for rain screen some of which was duplicated could truly have been considered to be representative or reliable

01:20:57 reliable um well this conclusion is obviously based upon the information that we had and the survey returns that we'd had and as i say i think part of the discussion would have been um which authorities had actually

01:21:09 um which authorities had actually responded as well because obviously some have

01:21:12 have you know much bigger areas of um responsibility and many more buildings than others did you yourself consider at the time that such a limited data set

01:21:24 the time that such a limited data set was appropriate as the basis for a government-funded experimental testing program of such importance to fire safety i'm sure we would have discussed this as i said at the time yes yes you said you said that

01:21:36 the time yes yes you said you said that i just want to know whether you yourself in your own head thought that this limited data set was safe and sufficient um

01:21:46 i would have been guided by the discussions that had happened and whether

01:21:53 whether as i say i think a key a key element of that would be who had responded in terms of the local authorities etc um as well which and if the department had considered that this was adequate to

01:22:06 had considered that this was adequate to move forwards then that's what we would have done i'm not quite answering my question i'd like to know your own view at the time did you think that this data set was sufficient and safe or did you not i

01:22:18 sufficient and safe or did you not i must have been convinced that it was okay to continue who convinced you well i'd have been convinced by the information that was being presented to me and um you know the fact that we were going

01:22:30 um you know the fact that we were going to proceed to the experimental program were you convinced by the nature of the data or were you convinced by

01:22:39 a person being persuasive i don't recall i mean it would have been a bit of both i think

01:22:46 i think and can you explain if you

01:22:48 if you considered it yourself why it was that such a limited data set

01:22:55 was adequate for this purpose

01:22:59 um well i guess as well factored into all of this would have been that there was some degree of time imperative in proceeding

01:23:10 in proceeding based upon the pressure that the department was probably under from the select committee and you know you could in an ideal world say well we're going to spend you know a

01:23:21 say well we're going to spend you know a considerable length of time to try to

01:23:26 get more responses back and i'm sure a lot of effort would have been put into chasing up questionnaires and responses anyway um but you reach a point where you have

01:23:37 um but you reach a point where you have to decide whether you have enough information and you're going to progress or

01:23:42 or you're not yes thank you mr chairman is that a convenient moment i think it is yes it's time we had a break isn't it uh dr smith we'll stop now we'll resume a quarter to 12 please

01:23:52 12 please and again please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room

01:24:05 please

01:39:11 would you ask dr smith to come back in please

01:39:24 all right dr smith yes thank you all right let's keep going yes mr miller thank you mr chairman um dr smith if we can please carry on with the document we were on bre-3041887

01:39:34 and let's go to page 10 please you can see there there's a heading fire breaks and in the second sentence of that paragraph underneath it it says

01:39:46 paragraph underneath it it says uh the use of fire barriers appears to be very sporadic and typical responses included only fitted when asked or unknown just focusing on that sentence did that cause you concern at the time

01:40:00 cause you concern at the time um

01:40:03 i suppose the fact that it's mentioned there is a flag that yes there are issues around the use of fire barriers i mean it's right isn't it that at this point

01:40:14 point cavity barriers have been recommended for more than a decade by approved documents yeah do you know whether any action was taken in response to this um uh finding um i don't know if any action was taken at

01:40:26 i don't know if any action was taken at that particular time no no i don't know you didn't no follow up or seek to find out whether action was being taken no why is that um this was a finding of the research

01:40:37 um this was a finding of the research and the research obviously was um only part way through did you have any discussions that you can recall about that topic but with anthony bird or brian martin um

01:40:51 anthony bird or brian martin um i don't recall you don't recall do you know whether sarah colwell was involved in any such discussions with them or with you about this topic i don't know whether sarah would have discussed it with them or not

01:41:03 i mean the fact sorry just just say i mean brian obviously was part of this research anyway so brian would have been aware of this right yes yes can we then go to page 12

01:41:15 can we then go to page 12 and look uh under the heading procurement at the second paragraph there it says this it is evident that the insulation industry has a number of highly active

01:41:27 industry has a number of highly active lobbying groups the approach taken by the two main factions the mineral wool manufacturers and the polymeric core suppliers has been one of the highly aggressive marketing has been one of

01:41:38 aggressive marketing has been one of highly aggressive marketing against their opposition this has led to several articles in the construction press what was the basis for those observations

01:41:49 um i can't recall the specifics but um i mean i guess we were aware of some activity in in the construction press as this says

01:42:00 this says do you know to which manufacturers this report was referring there um

01:42:06 um it was more likely to refer to um the trade associations associated you know the different uh generic types of manufacturing right

01:42:18 of manufacturing right the factions that are identified are manufacturers on the one hand and suppliers on the other not trade associations do you know who the manufacturers there and the suppliers there

01:42:31 and the suppliers there not at this point in time no i don't later

01:42:36 later no i mean sat here today i i can't recall sorry do you know whether the department was given the identity or knew the identity of the companies this report was referring to here i would imagine they probably were yes did you

01:42:48 imagine they probably were yes did you you didn't have any discussion about this

01:42:50 this was factionalization um not me personally uh who then at the bre can you help um well again it could very well have been um

01:43:01 um brian martin and or sarah colwell right now let's look at uh the next paragraph on that same page it says this should the department choose to partner these companies for the supply and installation of their products for this

01:43:13 installation of their products for this project they should be aware of this background experience suggests that the industry sector will wish to ensure the maximum publicity from this work to the detriment of their opposition and this may prove difficult to manage in

01:43:24 may prove difficult to manage in addition it is important to ensure that the work is independent and free from undue commercial influence which is difficult to control when partnering with industry whilst we are happy to work with these organizations it may be more politically

01:43:36 organizations it may be more politically expedient to purchase the materials and services on the open market in order to ensure that a level playing field is maintained in the marketplace now the companies of course

01:43:48 now the companies of course manufacturers and

01:43:50 and suppliers are not named in the report was it your understanding that the department would need to know who they were in order to be informed properly when making decisions on partnering with industry

01:44:01 decisions on partnering with industry for the supply of products for the project

01:44:04 project um

01:44:05 um yes and i'm sure those discussions would have taken place why are you so sure because they would want to understand what the background to this would be were you

01:44:15 were you coming back to the point where you parted today's discussion not that i can recall right

01:44:22 what was the experience that suggested that industry would seek to ensure maximum publicity from any partnership to the detriment of their opposition as it says here

01:44:33 here um well that's not terribly unusual really

01:44:37 really [Music]

01:44:39 [Music] with the industry at large it's not just i think the insulation industry you get the same sort of tendencies in in other sectors as well

01:44:51 tendencies in in other sectors as well if they see a result that is particularly favorable in their view to their particular type of products then they will seek to

01:45:03 they will seek to gain marketing advantage from that so you know and especially if it is done under a government contract you know as shown in government

01:45:16 contract you know as shown in government research

01:45:18 research carried out by whoever bre or whoever else it might be

01:45:25 because you know they regard that with a higher degree of kudos was it your own experience that it was difficult to control the independence of work and keep it free from undue commercial influence when partnering

01:45:36 commercial influence when partnering with industry it's more difficult if you're partnering with them where you're relying on them to basically supply products and materials

01:45:45 materials whereas i mean as proposed here if you go to the open market and use an independent third party to procure directly from suppliers

01:45:55 and building suppliers then you you've got product that is actually take taken out of the market yeah i see that in the supply chain do you know

01:46:07 whether uh

01:46:10 uh products for this program were actually purchased on the open market i believe they were

01:46:17 they were yes

01:46:19 yes and that's probably as a consequence of these observations right looking at this paragraph and hearing your answers just now dr smith can we take it from that that as early

01:46:31 can we take it from that that as early as 2000

01:46:33 as 2000 you or the bre certainly had a good reason to be skeptical of the manufacturers in the insulation industry um well and other factions within the construction

01:46:45 other factions within the construction industry in general to the extent that youth saw fit to warn government that those manufacturers and perhaps others may try to influence research for their own financial benefit in a way which might be difficult to control

01:46:58 might be difficult to control um

01:46:59 um yes especially at this particular time because i say i think there was a lot going on at that time as evidenced by articles in the construction press at the time

01:47:10 and what was just give us a hint of what that was what was going on that might aggravate or exacerbate the attempts by manufacturers and suppliers to influence the research in that way

01:47:21 that way um not necessarily to influence the research but in terms of you know the the aggressive marketing that

01:47:28 that that was evident at the time now sticking with this document i want to ask you some questions about the experimental testing program if we stick with page 12 you can see

01:47:39 if we stick with page 12 you can see lower down the page if you scroll down there's option one fire note 9

01:47:46 and that says from the information provided in the survey and in order to address the trend towards increasing thermal and acoustic performance in the residential housing market the following experimental program is proposed this option does not provide

01:47:58 proposed this option does not provide any indication of the performance of built up systems or pre-formed insulation panels the tests would be carried out in accordance with bre far note 9

01:48:07 note 9 using the existing test facility at bre cardington you see that yes and then if we just read down you can see the system type 1

01:48:15 type 1 with u values and that has set one rendered systems uh under which and there's no fire barrier standard fixing no

01:48:23 no no fire barriers standard fixings tests one two and three mineral fiber expanded polystyrene and phenolic respectively and then you repeat that again with fire barriers and then if we turn the page

01:48:35 barriers and then if we turn the page system type 2 equivalent u value for system type 1 ventilated range screen no fire barriers test 1 metal face panel or metal rail

01:48:46 test 1 metal face panel or metal rail test two non-combustible panel on wooden battens mineral fiber insulation test three class naught panel metal rails mineral fiber insulation test four class naught panel on wooden batten mineral

01:48:57 naught panel on wooden batten mineral fiber insulation and then you repeat the set test three and four with five barriers and i've taken that quite quickly

01:49:03 quickly um

01:49:08 and then there are some costings at the bottom of each of those options who designed that testing program do you remember

01:49:14 remember um

01:49:15 um i don't recall but i i would anticipate that that was done by the project team which would have obviously been sarah

01:49:26 obviously been sarah colwell

01:49:27 colwell brian martin and others involved in you know the project on a day-to-day basis right and what was your own involvement um

01:49:35 um i wouldn't have had any involvement in the design of the the experimental program and the options right other than [Music]

01:49:44 [Music] being asked i guess at some point to approve the report do you know how the various components were chosen um no i don't do you know what the technical or practical rationale for choosing these products and in

01:49:55 choosing these products and in particular the particular cladding configurations was um no i don't i mean i guess it would have been guided in principle by the responses to the questionnaire and so on

01:50:06 responses to the questionnaire and so on as well right can we look at page 13 please

01:50:09 please which is option two modified fire note nine

01:50:13 nine uh as you can see there there's a long text underneath that and it says at the start during discussions and then there's an endnote eight i'm going to come to during discussions it has become

01:50:25 during discussions it has become increasingly obvious that there are several issues relating to the use of built up systems and pre-formed insulation panels that should be addressed as part of this project it should also be noted that the joint british standards committee working on

01:50:36 british standards committee working on the fire note 9 test method is recommended that a part two of the standard be developed to address the testing of built up preformed insulation where no masonry wall is present and curtain wall systems we currently

01:50:48 and curtain wall systems we currently have no experience of their fire behavior in this scenario now according to endnote 8 if you go please to page 15 the discussions that are identified

01:50:59 the discussions that are identified there in that first line of that paragraph

01:51:01 paragraph are said if you look at eight to have taken place at a meeting at detr on the 24th of july 2000.

01:51:12 at detr on the 24th of july 2000. do you recall that meeting i don't you can't tell us who attended or what was discussed no do you know whether it was minuted by the bre

01:51:21 the bre i don't know you haven't seen a minute no i haven't i mean at that time when the framework management contractors were in place it would be normal if they

01:51:33 it would be normal if they if they were present for them to basically take some notes actions at least

01:51:38 least it may help you but the meeting of the 24th of july 2000 is the same day that this document gets signed off do you remember having a meeting very very close

01:51:49 very close no it probably indicates that i was not involved in in that meeting do you know what the issues were relating to the use of built up systems and pre-formed insulation panels that should be addressed as part of that

01:52:00 should be addressed as part of that project as it says no i don't now it's right to think that the joint british standards committee which is referred to was working on the conversion of

01:52:11 was working on the conversion of fire note 9 into what eventually became bsa414 part one and then part two yes yes i'm going back if we can please to page 13

01:52:23 13 there are two paragraphs i want to read to you next um the the second and the third paragraphs on that page under option two the second paragraph says the major change between the existing test method

01:52:34 change between the existing test method and the second scenario discussed above is the influence of an internal masonry wall the existing test facility is designed with this internal wall in place this is an inappropriate test scenario for the built up and pre-formed

01:52:45 scenario for the built up and pre-formed insulation systems that are installed in practice without an internal masonry wall in order to address this issue the test facility will need to be redesigned from the work undertaken in the 1997 pit

01:52:57 from the work undertaken in the 1997 pit project we have some limited knowledge of the behavior of proprietary ventilated rain screen systems and we are aware of some work under a doe contract 39 9 370 cc

01:53:09 contract 39 9 370 cc 972

01:53:11 972 but we do not have access to this data so no comment can be made on its suitability for use in this study now pit that's partners in technology isn't it um yes if we go back to page 15 if we can please we can see endnote 11

01:53:24 can please we can see endnote 11 which is what's uh signified by the reference to the that project and it says there under note 11 that that was um

01:53:33 um it says colwell s schmidt d andrews a connolly r fire note 3 test method to assess the fire performance of external cladding systems bre 1996.

01:53:44 cladding systems bre 1996. um that's finite three isn't it uh yes it appears so do you know what specific work undertaken in the 1997 pit project's being referred to here no i don't

01:53:55 don't do you know who carried out that work um

01:53:59 um the authors as listed would have all been involved in that project and that would have all been headed up by

01:54:06 by tony morris as a result of that project the 1997 pit project what was your knowledge about the behavior of proprietary ventilated rain screen systems at that time in 1996 i would

01:54:18 systems at that time in 1996 i would have had no knowledge at all what about by 2000 and the time of this documentary um my knowledge in 2000 would have been based upon the work that was being undertaken under this contract right

01:54:31 this contract right i see and what about the evidence given to the sedec committee are you involved in that at all do you know in what way the knowledge was limited as i said

01:54:45 um i guess they're referring to the possibility that they hadn't tested any of those types of systems and therefore had no knowledge as to how they would perform in this kind of

01:54:56 they would perform in this kind of scenario

01:54:58 scenario i see and was doe contract 393 370 the contract which led to 503 i don't know you don't know after this report um did you obtain access to the data under that contract

01:55:10 access to the data under that contract just to see for yourself what it said no i wouldn't have done i would have expected the project team to have been utilizing that if it was available but i think maybe said in this report that it

01:55:21 think maybe said in this report that it wasn't available didn't they on that previous page going back please if we can to page 13 it says except at the foot of the page accepting the budgetary constraints

01:55:32 accepting the budgetary constraints associated with this project the large-scale experimental program may be better served by considering a modification to fire note 9 to allow

01:55:41 to allow built up systems and pre-formed insulation panels to be tested in order to undertake this change and test scenario a new test facility would be required the construction of such a facility would reduce the budget available for the purchase and supply of

01:55:53 available for the purchase and supply of full-scale systems but would provide a good basis on which to expand the scope of the existing guidance given br br135 to cover the emerging market trends for which we currently have no data this

01:56:05 for which we currently have no data this data could also be used to support the british standards activity it is not possible to offer fixed budgetary figures for this option but should this proposal be considered worthy of further consideration the costing could be

01:56:16 consideration the costing could be obtained

01:56:18 obtained now given the lack of data on emerging market trends as we saw from the survey and given that the data could also support the conversion of fire note 9 into a british standard running in

01:56:29 into a british standard running in parallel with this work so i think you told us

01:56:32 told us did you yourself recommend to the department that they should proceed with option 2

01:56:36 option 2 i don't recall you don't recall what which was the option that you would have preferred the department to take um

01:56:45 um i mean from our perspective i think it was just important to outline what the options were so that they had the information to make their decision i mean it would not

01:56:56 i mean it would not you know we we were just using the information that we had

01:57:01 we had to say well this is what you can what you can do you can go this route or you can go this route and it's it's up to you whether you want to expand the scope

01:57:11 the scope um along the lines that's being proposed in option two or not i mean i i don't think i would have particularly had a um

01:57:20 um a preference as you as you suggest was option two for the testing program given consideration or further consideration by the department

01:57:32 by the department i'm sure it would have been given consideration was it ever costed by the bre um i don't recall

01:57:40 recall now it's right to think isn't it that the testing program which was eventually undertaken and then reported as part of this project was different both from option one and from option two are set out in the report we've been

01:57:51 are set out in the report we've been looking at um i don't recall all the details but if that's um if that's what you're telling me yes well we'll look at we'll look at the details very shortly but d do you remember

01:58:02 remember that fact that the the testing program eventually undertaken the previo the following year was different from what was proposed i don't recall it specifically but right

01:58:13 don't recall it specifically but right yeah do you record very well be the case i'm so sorry you yes do you recall that a

01:58:19 a full total of 14 full-scale tests was carried out with a third set of tests on composite panel systems included

01:58:28 in broad terms yes yes

01:58:32 do you know how the testing program was eventually carried out decided upon um well it would have been a discussion with the project team and the department

01:58:47 yes um clearly but what were the factors that led to the the led to the decision to carry out the testing program in the form in which it was

01:58:59 i don't know the details i don't know the detailed discussion that took place by whom was the decision ultimately taken to carry out the test program in the form that it was

01:59:10 program in the form that it was um

01:59:11 um well ultimately would have been signed off by the department do you know who no

01:59:21 do you know when it happened by which i mean was the ultimate program decided before the tests began or did it change did it evolve as the tests happened over the months between may and november 2001 i don't

01:59:33 between may and november 2001 i don't recall

01:59:40 let's just look at a document if we can can we go to bre 406285

01:59:48 this is an email uh from sarah colwell to anthony bird of the 10th of august 2001 and you'll see that you are copied in on it as is peter field this is um during the course of what became

02:00:00 um during the course of what became known as the cc 1924 testing program and just looking at the text i'm not going to read it all out to you um it it it essentially says that um

02:00:13 it it it essentially says that um this is a proposal for changes to the testing program sometime after it had begun

02:00:19 begun okay do you remember that not specifically but yes i can see this yeah and if we look at the final three paragraphs on page two of this email if we go to that i think you can see that

02:00:30 we go to that i think you can see that sarah colwell is proposing changes to the testing program at this point august 2001 yes yes yes um now in terms of the suggested options

02:00:41 now in terms of the suggested options for the full-scale testing which we'll come back to the rendered systems which was set one test two and three weren't all repeated with fire barriers take that from me okay um do you know why that is um

02:00:54 okay um do you know why that is um specifically no i don't

02:00:57 i don't it may have been a case of there was a fixed budget that the department had to spend on this work and that in order to undertake some different types of tests

02:01:10 undertake some different types of tests they needed to you know reduce the amount of tests they did elsewhere but i i don't specifically know you don't know and take it from me also that the ventilated rain screen system tests in set two

02:01:21 rain screen system tests in set two tests three and four were also both not repeated with fire barriers was was that for the same reason so far as you can yeah again i don't know specifically in fact

02:01:33 in fact we'll come back to it in in detail shortly but it it's right isn't it the the of the full scale tests undertaken all 14 of them only two

02:01:43 only two one render and one rain screen system actually contained fire barriers um that could very well be true and is the reason for that financial

02:01:53 financial um to the best of your recollection probably

02:01:56 probably probably

02:01:57 probably let's then go to the test program analysis report this is bre three 3041882

02:02:07 and if we go to page one of that document

02:02:15 it's a client report prepared for mr a bird in the odpm and you can see the date at the bottom 19th of september 2002

02:02:27 19th of september 2002 yes

02:02:28 yes that's an important date and i'll call this the analysis report okay that's the 19th of september and if we go to page two we can see that it was prepared by

02:02:40 it was prepared by sarah colwell and approved by you dr smith correct yes if we go to page five we see the introduction section

02:02:56 and if you look at the second paragraph and the five bullet points under it it tells us that 14 full-scale fire tests were undertaken using the far note 9 test methodology the results from this work are presented

02:03:08 the results from this work are presented in bre report 209 169 revision 1 the systems identified and tested at full scale were also assessed at intermediate and bench scale using the following test methods

02:03:19 the following test methods and then you've got uh the bs 476 part six and seven tests uh and

02:03:25 uh and three

02:03:27 three of the um european norm tests the en tests

02:03:31 tests you see that yes

02:03:34 uh now before before we go through these um the

02:03:40 the intermediate and bench scale tests what are those um

02:03:45 um the single burning item test right the um

02:03:50 the um bscn iso 11925 um

02:03:55 um part two and the bs476 part six and seven right so all of those except for the iso 9705 yeah

02:04:07 now just for clarity if we turn to page 10 in table 1 we see a summary of the systems tested at intermediate and bench scale page 10

02:04:17 page 10 and it refers to 13 systems

02:04:23 now there's a there may be a reason for that and i just want to see if you can help me with it um if we go to page 23 and look at table 8.

02:04:41 um the only difference between tests three and four under set two render systems see those

02:04:49 see those is the provisional otherwise of fire barriers yes yes yes and is it right fire barriers of course can't be incorporated into intermediate and bench scale tests can they correct

02:05:01 and bench scale tests can they correct and does that explain why there are only 13 systems in table 1 on page 10 which summarizes the intermediate and bench scale results yes that will be the case yes thank you

02:05:12 that will be the case yes thank you now do you remember when did this testing program begin i can't recall that we have it at about june 2001 possibly may but does that does that ring a bell with you

02:05:23 does that ring a bell with you um

02:05:24 um [Music]

02:05:26 [Music] yeah i i don't know right what was your role in the testing program

02:05:31 program um

02:05:31 um [Music]

02:05:33 [Music] as far as i can recollect i i mean no role

02:05:36 role i wasn't carrying out the tests if that's what you mean were you supervising sarah colwell's work

02:05:43 work um

02:05:44 um in so far as she might want to come and discuss issues with me flag things up but

02:05:53 but um the actual tests would have been carried out by the testing teams in in the laboratories that are expert and competent to do so yeah

02:06:04 yeah did you supervise any aspect of that um

02:06:08 um no

02:06:09 no did you supervise any aspect of the production of the results from the tests or their collation or their analysis only in so far as i would have reviewed

02:06:20 only in so far as i would have reviewed this when i reviewed the report

02:06:26 does that tell us that your only involvement in this was approving this document

02:06:31 document that would have predominantly been my involvement unless we'd have had some you know discussions leading up to this when you sat down and applied your name as approver to this document what did you have in front of you other

02:06:43 what did you have in front of you other than the report itself um

02:06:46 um i don't recall but

02:06:48 but yeah i don't recall did you no not specifically let me ask it differently did you have anything else on your desk when you were approving this document other than this document

02:06:59 other than this document yeah i i don't recall i don't know would it have been your usual practice to examine the underlying test data for each of these 14 tests

02:07:10 for each of these 14 tests and check the conclusions that sarah colwell

02:07:13 colwell had reached um no not necessarily not not to have gone through every single

02:07:20 single you know bs 476 test report for example what did the role of approver then of this report involve well because and the reason i wouldn't do that is because

02:07:32 reason i wouldn't do that is because in producing a bs 476 part 7 test report for example then that would go through its own approvals process before it was delivered to

02:07:44 delivered to the end client and if that even if that's an internal client within bre so sarah would have received approved test reports

02:07:55 test reports and you know the role there would be no need for me to go back and reapprove something that had already gone through an approvals process

02:08:06 an approvals process so what did your what did you actually do with this document i would have reviewed

02:08:11 reviewed this document as submitted to me so you read it and signed it and query anything past comments i mean as i said earlier that the whole role of

02:08:24 that the whole role of the approver is basically to to read the document

02:08:28 document to check for spelling mistakes check for paragraphs make sure it all reads and makes sense if anything doesn't make sense or isn't

02:08:40 if anything doesn't make sense or isn't clear then that might lead to what comments being fed back or a discussion or if any of the the conclusions didn't appear to

02:08:49 appear to stack up or be supported by the evidence as presented so your review as approver was limited to the four corners of this of this document

02:09:00 of this document predominantly it would have been unless something you know had cropped up that had prompted me to go and look at other other information do you remember

02:09:11 do you remember whether there was anything that cropped up that prompted you to go and look at other information i don't recall that not now

02:09:20 wasn't your role on this project to

02:09:25 to ensure quality and sure the technical detail of the outputs and the timeliness of the delivery on this project yes yes as director of center for reaction to fire yes

02:09:39 i'd like to look then at the 14 full-scale tests on the assumption from the evidence you've just given us that you would have read or did read this document carefully yes yes

02:09:50 document carefully yes yes now

02:09:52 now as i say from the documents we've got it looks as if the tests were carried out at various times in the months between the end of may beginning of june 2001 and the 14th of november 2001

02:10:04 and the 14th of november 2001 but on occasions more than one test was carried out within a single day does that sound about right to you um [Music]

02:10:11 [Music] it could be yes right um were you actually present at any of the large-scale tests i don't recall being present now right do you know who were present

02:10:22 do you know who were present well clearly the project team would have been and the technicians that would have been

02:10:27 been running

02:10:28 running running those tests right

02:10:33 sarah colwell told us state 232 page 82 line 20 that um although she couldn't tell us which tests you attended you and brian martin would have been

02:10:45 you and brian martin would have been present at some of the or all of the large-scale tests what do you say about that i don't recall being present to any of the large-scale tests personally

02:10:56 personally and i would have no no reason to be particularly i would have no no role to play in conducting those tests and i think it's also important

02:11:08 and i think it's also important to

02:11:09 to point out that you know you can't just because of the proximity of cardington to

02:11:16 to um to bre

02:11:17 um to bre it was at least a half day to get there and get back so it would have to be you know a planned visit you couldn't just sort of walk out of your office and pop down to the lab

02:11:30 of your office and pop down to the lab to see a test and return so um

02:11:33 um [Music]

02:11:35 [Music] you know and given that the project team would be would have been in attendance i would have added very little value to um

02:11:46 to um to the project team at that time well as director of the center for reaction to fire at the time and given that this was a government project for which you had bid and successfully so

02:11:57 successfully so did it not did you not think it appropriate on one or two occasions just to attend at cartington for the the half day

02:12:05 day in in a supervisory role just to see what was going on and making making sure that everything was working properly well

02:12:14 well i would have attended if i'd been asked to for a specific problem but if reassured that everything was on track and was going well then i would have no

02:12:25 have no no reason to um to deviate from that but i say i do not recall i cannot recall whether i i saw any of the tests or not but i don't recall actually going up

02:12:36 but i don't recall actually going up there and and witnessing them does that tell us that your role as supervisor of this project was essentially a a a reactive one you would respond to negative reporting but you didn't

02:12:47 negative reporting but you didn't positively go out and see for yourself what was happening um i mean we would meet on a

02:12:56 on a reasonably regular basis to review progress

02:13:00 progress but that would have been in the context of you know are we on track how are we um how are we doing do we need additional resources to deliver this and and so on and so forth

02:13:11 and so on and so forth now i'd like to show you a different document

02:13:15 document of three days before this document which is the bre's closing report dated the 16th of september 2002. that is at bre 3041895

02:13:32 uh again it's prepared for mr a bird of the odpm and you can see the date there 16th of september 2002 at the bottom of your screen if we go to page

02:13:43 bottom of your screen if we go to page nine please we can see a list of the 14 full-scale tests which were carried out with a description of the main components of the systems in each test do you know why the specific products

02:13:54 do you know why the specific products aren't identified by reference to the product name and manufacturer um

02:13:59 um i think this relates to the standard practice with pretty much all of the government projects that actually i've ever been involved in

02:14:13 actually i've ever been involved in it's always been a requirement to describe the products in a very generic way

02:14:23 rather than using specific trade names and

02:14:30 manufacturers descriptions

02:14:34 and i think the the possibly the reasoning behind that is to try to give the most widely applicable scope

02:14:44 scope where possible and to prevent the um

02:14:48 um the industry being able to use the data in the way that we discussed earlier

02:14:58 do you actually know or did the bre actually know the identity of the specific product of manufacturers leaving aside the absence of identification in this document

02:15:09 document um i don't recall but i'll be very surprised if we didn't well i ask you that because the inquiry has asked both bre and the department for their records and have

02:15:20 department for their records and have been told there aren't any and dr colwell couldn't help when she was asked about it

02:15:26 about it but can you confirm that at the time that information was known to the bre as i say i would be surprised if it wasn't

02:15:35 wasn't but i can't say definitively one way or the other no of course do you know how and where

02:15:41 and where that information was recorded um

02:15:46 um from my recollection i think this project as we discussed earlier was the systems were procured through an independent third-party contractor

02:15:58 so there would have been specifications generated by him or them sorry in indeed but

02:16:09 in indeed but my question was slightly different do you know how and where the information was recorded in the bre's files all right

02:16:18 right no i don't for sure now we looked earlier at the advice given by the bre to the department in the survey summary and options report particularly about the dangers of

02:16:29 particularly about the dangers of partnering with industry do you know whether by this time the department had decided to follow that advice or not

02:16:38 or not um

02:16:40 um yes insofar as this project i i don't think we were partnering with industry as i say i think all the procurement was done through an independent third-party contractor and who funded

02:16:52 third-party contractor and who funded the full-scale testing um

02:16:54 um the government department right odpm all of it

02:16:58 of it yes

02:17:00 yes so can you confirm that no manufacturers or industry organizations were involved in funding any of these tests as far as i'm aware right

02:17:16 did you yourself have any involvement in the process of purchasing or obtaining any of the products to be tested um i don't recall but it's likely that i would have signed off the requisitions

02:17:27 would have signed off the requisitions because we had a you know limits in terms of how much you could uh you know sign off a requisition for and indeed some of those may have been above my sign off limit as well so they

02:17:39 above my sign off limit as well so they may have then gone up to peter field to sign right and do you remember whether in requisitioning you would identify a particular product or just a particular performance standard um it would have related to

02:17:51 um it would have related to at least a generic description of the system and then there would have been a discussion because we'd have we'd have known in order to issue a requisition you would know how much it was going to cost roughly

02:18:03 and

02:18:06 if we go please then to bre 406370

02:18:12 this is an email between sarah colwell

02:18:18 you uh

02:18:21 uh wait till it comes up on the screen

02:18:26 this is an email from sarah colwell to you on the 15th of march 2002 so this looks like it's after the tests for

02:18:35 for asking you about the drafted text to mike payne do you know who mike payne was yes mike payne was the um [Music]

02:18:44 [Music] one of the people that were working for aea technology at the time who were the

02:18:50 the approved the appointed third-party contractor that ran the management of the frameworks on behalf of odpm and if you look at the text below it

02:19:01 and if you look at the text below it there's a telephone conversation in the first paragraph and in the second paragraph it says the provision of material for this project lies outside the framework agreement and from the outset we have undertaken to procure and supply the materials for this project on

02:19:13 supply the materials for this project on an at cost basis the initial materials estimate supplied to you as the best estimate available at the time when the project was being developed as the project has gone on we've

02:19:24 as the project has gone on we've continued to procure the materials and services required to complete this project whilst passing all invoices to yourselves directly to date the invoice is received and forwarded to you total it's 117

02:19:37 forwarded to you total it's 117 575 70 pounds 25 p ex vat this covers all materials supplied installed and tested to date to meet the requirements of this contract this covers all full-scale tests but

02:19:49 this covers all full-scale tests but only the rain screen and composite panel systems at small scale and i say room now is it right looking at that at least that it was the bre who bought the product for the testing but pass the

02:20:01 the product for the testing but pass the bills back to aet um

02:20:05 um yes it does look like that so it would be the bre who then actually chose the specific products to be tested yes but that would have been agreed as i

02:20:16 yes but that would have been agreed as i say up front as in terms of the programme of work to be undertaken and do you know who it was who identified the precise specific project to be acquired

02:20:28 to be acquired um

02:20:31 um no i don't it says projects in the question and that is what i said i meant product yes no um can you help on what level of oversight and decision making you had

02:20:42 oversight and decision making you had about the components of each school failed full scale test um very little sarah colwell tells us which is why i ask you that the procurement of the components of the systems to be tested

02:20:53 components of the systems to be tested would have gone through you that was day 232 page 88 line one is she right about that um only in so far as

02:21:02 far as in terms of signing them off um

02:21:05 um the invoice is off as described here in terms of the procurement so i say there would have been discussions i'm sure with the contractor who was procuring these

02:21:17 contractor who was procuring these within the scope of what was set out in the reports to the department where it had been discussed which systems in generic terms they wanted to test

02:21:29 generic terms they wanted to test and then we would have gone to the contractor to provide us with a price for those which would have then been agreed and signed off and that's where i would have signed off

02:21:40 and that's where i would have signed off to say yes we can buy that um and then that would have been sent back um to the department and i hadn't um

02:21:48 um remembered but the actual external expenditure part of this project then sat outside of the framework agreement so the framework agreement and the project

02:21:59 the framework agreement and the project within that then only covered our staff time in carrying out the works rather than the purchase of all of the materials did the department have any role to play in the

02:22:10 in the selection of the individual components making up each of the full-scale tests um

02:22:18 um i don't know to what extent i mean they would have done in a general sense what do you mean in a general sense well when you talk about specific components

02:22:29 when you talk about specific components i mean they wouldn't and i guess we didn't either have a particular role in saying that you need to use you know these batons and fixed at these centers and so on and so forth but in terms of

02:22:40 and so on and so forth but in terms of the makeup in terms of the insulation and

02:22:44 and the render system or the rain screen system or whatever then they would have seen that and would have agreed to that do you know who designed the test rigs for each of these 14 tests

02:22:55 for each of these 14 tests the systems to actually go on to the rig in terms of securing it onto the rig it would have been the contractor being the the third party that procured the the materials

02:23:10 just just help me then a is this aet no so who was the contractor no so we we appointed an independent third-party contractor to undertake the procurement and the

02:23:22 undertake the procurement and the installation of the systems onto the rig aea technology were the contractor used by

02:23:28 by odpm and appointed by odpm as their i think he was they were called their research management contractor and they acted as the interface the people

02:23:39 they acted as the interface the people that basically agreed and accepted reports

02:23:42 reports um let the contracts they had a portal a database where all of the reports and so on had to be delivered through

02:23:52 through so they dealt with the day-to-day running of the projects from the department's end who was your contractor our external contractor who built the who designed the room yeah i don't know right

02:24:03 right i'm sure there must be something in there or i would have thought there'd be something in the documents that we've provided to you

02:24:12 now the full-scale tests were designed and carried out according to the methodology in finite nine as we understand it is that right that's my understanding can we go to bre three zeros four one

02:24:23 can we go to bre three zeros four one eight eight two please

02:24:27 on the screen but we need to go in that to page 23 and this is the 19th of september report the analysis report and here we see a table

02:24:37 table at page 23 summary of full-scale test results table 8. uh and if you look at the table it's uh it contains the 14 tested systems

02:24:48 uh it contains the 14 tested systems listed and the results are in the far right hand column yes uh yes

02:24:53 uh yes nine pass fail yes and you can see from that final column that

02:25:00 that three of the fourteen tests resulted in a pass you see that yes there are there are render tests four and five and composite panels test four yes uh yes and all the others failed

02:25:12 yes uh yes and all the others failed yes

02:25:13 yes so two of the systems which passed were in set two as as initially proposed render systems yes uh yes and only one pass from set three the composite panels uh yes and only one and no no passes in

02:25:26 uh yes and only one and no no passes in set one the rain screen panels they all failed didn't they uh yes i want to ask you briefly about something in the documents keeping page 23 up on the screen if we

02:25:38 keeping page 23 up on the screen if we can i wonder if you can help us with this can we please have up bre

02:25:43 bre 30 is 41912

02:25:49 now this is going to have to be in the native and may take a little bit of time to pull up it's an excel spreadsheet which shows the same or more or less the same data as in table eight

02:26:11 and if we open it

02:26:28 but if we can open it up please and

02:26:35 keep it on the left hand side i think that'll do um

02:26:39 um it's right i think can you help us this is an excel spreadsheet showing the same data as in table eight on the right-hand side of your screen um it appears so i can only see two columns but yes so i can't see the

02:26:51 columns but yes so i can't see the product descriptions no that's sheet eight but let's um let's go to

02:26:57 to um

02:26:58 um if you look at table eight um

02:27:02 um you can see uh there are two render passes but in the spreadsheet on the left you can see

02:27:13 you can see that there are three you see that three passes on the render spreadsheet that's the group at the top

02:27:25 so i'm assuming that's the group at the top yes yes it's in a different order too it is and let's look at row six which is identified as a pass

02:27:34 yes now that's a test on a render system which incorporates phenolic and we can see that that same test is recorded

02:27:43 recorded in

02:27:44 in on this in the table on the right hand of your screen as you see as a fail you see that

02:27:52 uh that's line one is it on me it's row six

02:28:01 but on in table 8 it's row 1 is it in table 8 yes it is

02:28:07 it is yes

02:28:09 yes specimen 1 under render systems yes

02:28:14 yes phenolic insulation with acrylic render coat no fire barriers yes do you know can you explain why can you explain the discrepancy uh no not sat here right now are you able to

02:28:26 not sat here right now are you able to confirm that the particular test rendered with phenolic was in fact a fail

02:28:31 fail um i would presume so yes and why would you presume so um

02:28:38 because that's the way it's been reported

02:28:40 reported right

02:28:42 right and did somebody therefore look at the spreadsheet and correct the result say that what went to government in the uh analysis report is can be

02:28:53 in the uh analysis report is can be taken as the correct version i would have expected so yes but i don't recall now thank you now let's go back then to the uh the closing report

02:29:05 closing report at bre three zeros four eight is 41895 page nine

02:29:10 page nine you could take both of those documents off the screen and go back to that document please bre three zeros four one eight nine five page nine

02:29:20 here we have the um

02:29:24 uh the initial experimental program under table one and you can see under the heading rain screen systems you see that yes um you've got uh which is set two you've got item five

02:29:36 uh which is set two you've got item five aluminium sheets yes yes do you know the name of the aluminium sheet product no i don't or the manufacturer presumably not no no is it the case that these panels were in

02:29:48 is it the case that these panels were in fact aluminium panels with a polyethylene core um i believe they were from the earlier document that you presented yeah

02:29:59 presented yeah indeed they were one of the types of panels referred to in the literature review we've looked at taken from the architectural journal yes yes

02:30:08 good so let me let's go to the analysis reporter three days later then bre three zeros four one eight eight two i'll just trace this through if we go to that document

02:30:21 if we go to that document this is only three days later as i say and go to page 10 and table 1 in that and look

02:30:30 down uh at um the results there are the systems there table one item five under the heading range screen you can see a bit more detail and it says aluminium straight

02:30:42 detail and it says aluminium straight polyethylene core sheets yes yes

02:30:47 yes yes and then tracing it through to bre

02:30:51 3041909

02:30:56 we find

02:30:59 a blank tabulated summary

02:31:04 for all the testing results and that in the final row under heading under the heading rain screen you see the description aluminium polyethylene core sheets on aluminium railing now dr colwell said that that product was acm

02:31:16 colwell said that that product was acm with a polyethylene core and i think you would agree with that yes yes that was day 232 90 21 and day 232 91 at 19. do you remember being present at that

02:31:28 do you remember being present at that test the test which incorporated aluminium polyethylene core sheets on an aluminium railing no i don't now um

02:31:37 now um the data that tested according to the inquiry's records was the 18th of july 2001.

02:31:44 2001. does that trigger a recollection no no it doesn't now

02:31:50 now this test was was notable in terms of its fire performance and in particular the early manual termination before six minutes was up do you recall that no

02:32:01 that no did you not hear about that from others um

02:32:05 um i'm sure i would have um heard about all of the tests in in summary during various discussions you know in

02:32:17 during various discussions you know in in in broad terms can we go to beyond access right now sorry right can we go to bre three zeros four one nine one two please

02:32:38 sorry sorry and this will take a bit of time um easier and quicker to go back to table eight in in the 19th of september analysis report if we can do that

02:32:49 which is a bre three zeros well we're here now all right leave it as it is um if you open that up uh uh at row 15 column r

02:33:05 column r in ray 15 you can see

02:33:12 the termination time at 5.75 minutes yes yes

02:33:16 yes so you see that was one which was terminated very early on yes

02:33:23 yes and if you look to the left of that you can see some other results time to external under column l three minutes

02:33:30 minutes and um and the maximum temperatures also receive recorded yes those are strikingly poor weren't they the times are

02:33:46 yes we'll come back to that in a moment but just to some further questions about the selection of this these products do you know why an acm polyethylene cord product was chosen as one of the

02:33:58 product was chosen as one of the products to be tested in this program i don't recall but looking back at the earlier report that we looked at earlier this morning

02:34:09 in terms of the

02:34:13 survey responses etc my guess is that it followed through the the planning and the program from from there right does that tell us that

02:34:24 from there right does that tell us that however good or bad the survey was in in relation to its reliability as a data set you knew enough

02:34:32 to include acm panels with a polyethylene core in your full-scale tests

02:34:38 tests yes because this is a research project so you're looking to basically include a range of different products and materials to basically um

02:34:50 um well

02:34:51 well test their performance because a lot of these as we also spoke about we had no knowledge of how they would perform in these types of scenarios and that was particularly true of the composite and rain screen systems

02:35:05 and and therefore you want to sort of include

02:35:10 include an

02:35:11 an range of

02:35:12 range of systems that that you can obtain data on so that you can then look at how the test is performing against these types of products and it gives a basis upon which

02:35:25 products and it gives a basis upon which to benchmark performance and whether they're adequate or not you know if the test gave passes for everything you would take the view while the test isn't severe enough

02:35:39 right do you know who decided on the inclusion of acm panels with a polyethylene core in this test program no i don't can we take it the the the reason or one of the reasons it was

02:35:50 the reason or one of the reasons it was included in this test program is that um acm panels with a polyethylene core was in

02:35:56 was in common use or at least common enough use to warrant inclusion um i don't know whether we would have had that information other than it had been flagged up i think in the um

02:36:07 been flagged up i think in the um in the literature um this building survey sorry not the literature review well that was included in there and based on the architecture architects journals

02:36:15 journals postings yes and obviously there was a vast number of different products that came out of the architect's journal details and obviously all of those

02:36:27 details and obviously all of those products could not be tested anyway so it was a case of selecting a few but i don't know who actually made that was acm with a polyethylene core or indeed acm with different kinds of

02:36:39 or indeed acm with different kinds of core a cladding product that you'd come across before um no no

02:36:44 um no no can we take it from that you had no knowledge one way or the other of its particular reaction to fire performance correct

02:36:51 now you said you don't recall being present at the test um i'd just like to go back please if we can to we could probably use this document um but maybe better to use the report that was

02:37:03 maybe better to use the report that was actually sent to government can we go please to the analysis report of the 19th of september at bre 3014882 page 23

02:37:13 which is the results table at table 8.

02:37:23 let's set bre 3041882 page 23.

02:37:36 there it is now um if you go please to row five under the heading rain screen systems that shows as i've shown you already that that failed at seven 5.75 minutes

02:37:50 that that failed at seven 5.75 minutes uh that's

02:37:52 uh that's a a strikingly rapid time to failure isn't it yes do you remember what the reaction was by the bre at the time to that result

02:38:04 result um

02:38:04 um [Music]

02:38:07 [Music] i don't recall no

02:38:09 no do you remember what you were told by those who witnessed this test um probably that it was a rapid failure um and they would have presumably had

02:38:20 um and they would have presumably had the same view about the render system that failed and also the um composite panel system that failed

02:38:29 failed we can see the other results on the screen

02:38:33 time to external failure three minutes and to internal failure 3.4.34 minutes yes

02:38:42 do you know why the test was terminated at 5.75 minutes no

02:38:48 no did nobody tell you that it was terminated because it would have been dangerous to continue um

02:38:55 um i mean that's that's no i don't know did anybody tell you that they were shocked by what they'd seen and shocked by the results i don't recall that

02:39:06 i don't recall that no

02:39:07 no that was sarah colwell's reaction as she told us in her evidence on day 232 at page 96 916 did do you not recall her reporting to you

02:39:18 reporting to you that this particular test had had a shocking

02:39:21 shocking outcome

02:39:23 outcome and had been terminated don't recall it in those terms no you don't

02:39:29 but you know you can clearly see that it is it has failed so

02:39:34 so yeah well there are failures and there are failures yes yeah but it's part of the um the research then to make sure that you know the lines and the criteria that then follow in terms of the

02:39:45 that then follow in terms of the classification are

02:39:48 are such that

02:39:50 such that these types of products can never pass the test

02:39:54 the test whatever you do to them they can never pass this test

02:40:00 this test but as you say this was a research product and this was a product you'd never come across before when you saw the results or heard about the test did it not

02:40:11 did it not strike you did it not stick in your mind that th this of all the products tested had a

02:40:16 had a particularly noteworthy result

02:40:22 yes i mean i would have noted that it had failed and it fell that failed early um

02:40:29 um yes

02:40:30 yes now

02:40:31 now this was a class naught product wasn't it

02:40:34 it um

02:40:36 um yes i guess it was it was and we have that elsewhere in this document for our records it's a page 11. let's go to page let's go to bre three zeros four one nine one one please

02:40:53 uh and let's go to page three in it which i think you've got rain screen three aluminium and iso wool on metal and you've got the observations the detailed observations

02:41:05 observations the detailed observations from the pe called aluminium rain screen cladding test and they're there starting at time zero ignition of crib and ending at seven minutes front and wing faces

02:41:16 seven minutes front and wing faces extinguished and you could see at five minutes flame approximately twice height of rig 20 meters

02:41:26 do you remember seeing these results at the time

02:41:29 the time i don't recall it no do you know who recorded these observations no i don't

02:41:36 looking up it says that three minutes and five seconds molten aluminium drops off front face do you remember reading that particular observation um i don't recall it no

02:41:47 um i don't recall it no um

02:41:48 um and the person that would have recorded the

02:41:51 the observations would have been part of the project team undertaking the

02:41:56 test when you learned about this result did you yourself consider that this was a significant a significant form of behavior for a panel because of the potential for downward fire spread

02:42:09 the potential for downward fire spread the fire following the molten dripping polyethylene yes and you know as i said earlier i mean the whole point of this research project was to get to the point where

02:42:20 where we could ensure that products that performed

02:42:23 performed badly

02:42:24 badly would never ever be able to pass the test

02:42:29 looking at the results i've shown you in the chronology that i've shown you here particularly at five minutes the flames being approximately twice the height of the rig at 20 meters did you conclude at the time that this

02:42:40 did you conclude at the time that this was a catastrophic escalation

02:42:46 um well yes clearly it was not performing well in the in the test scenario that we were using well that's 509 yes that's something of an understatement isn't it i mean it's an

02:42:57 understatement isn't it i mean it's an outlier if you look at the other failures to a very considerable degree

02:43:05 sorry you want me to do you agree with me that what you've just told us is something of an understatement not performing well it's an outlier if you look at the other

02:43:16 it's an outlier if you look at the other failures to a very considerable degree dr smith well there were only three products that actually failed and passed sorry um

02:43:27 so an outlier yes it was very rapid in terms of its behavior

02:43:35 behavior but i say it just and

02:43:38 and it was part of the project to ensure that these products could never ever be used yes and

02:43:46 yes and on that answer is that does that sorry girl no

02:43:50 girl no let me lead up to it do you remember there being a sense of alarm at the bre in the wake of this test about this product which would lead to the conclusion you've just given us that they should never ever be used

02:44:03 they should never ever be used um i don't i don't regard it as a sense of alarm i mean our role of course is to present the data and the results and the

02:44:15 the data and the results and the technical evidence um i mean

02:44:19 um i mean yes we you know you you don't sort of react in in quite the way that you're you're suggesting i don't think what others did in the bre sarah colwell told

02:44:30 others did in the bre sarah colwell told us she was sean okay well that wasn't conveyed to me um i mean i would have looked at this report i would have looked at the facts and i would have looked at the way the facts were reported

02:44:42 facts were reported and would have ensured that what was reported was you know factually correct and supported

02:44:52 did you report to the department not just the facts the scientific objective data

02:44:58 data but the human reaction that your scientists conducting these tests had had

02:45:04 had i would not have had that discussion with the department necessarily i mean that would have been had through the project team i mean sarah and or um brian martin

02:45:15 i mean sarah and or um brian martin would have had those discussions you say they would have do you know whether they did i don't know definitively no but i'd be very surprised if they didn't especially if they were there and witnessed it

02:45:28 if they were there and witnessed it wasn't it important to you as the scientist to drive home to the department to anthony byrne not just the data on a page

02:45:40 just the data on a page but what it might signify in human terms so that he in government could really understand the effect on real human lives in real

02:45:51 the effect on real human lives in real buildings i don't think there was ever any doubt in my mind that that was fully conveyed and the the department sort of didn't understand i think the department were very aware

02:46:05 they were very aware now on the basis of you know the the research outcomes now you told us in your evidence just a few moments ago that this test told you that this

02:46:17 that this test told you that this product should never ever be used on a tall building correct

02:46:23 correct and that was your conclusion and the bre's conclusion was it from that test result

02:46:28 result yes

02:46:29 yes do you remember yourself or anybody at the bre conveying that information in those terms or in like terms to government

02:46:41 to government um in in

02:46:43 um in in the broad sense yes that would have been conveyed

02:46:46 conveyed in the sense that you know in the discussions about where the criteria would sit and were adopted therefore in br135 those parameters are set to ensure that

02:47:01 those parameters are set to ensure that materials and systems of this type and indeed some of the others that also

02:47:08 also didn't perform well would not be acceptable within the context of the large-scale test method did anybody at the bre or in government

02:47:19 did anybody at the bre or in government consider

02:47:20 consider alerting industry or local authorities or building control or the nhbc or building owners to this result and its obvious danger to life i

02:47:31 result and its obvious danger to life i don't

02:47:32 don't know you don't know how could i take it the bre didn't no we would not have done it would have been i mean we would convey the results and the data etc to the department

02:47:45 and the data etc to the department and then they would decide what to do with those data and results and whether to discuss it in a wider sense um

02:47:53 um [Music]

02:47:55 [Music] so that that's the way that that that would be handled and did work can we be just clear about one thing then that in your evidence to the inquiry is is it

02:48:06 your evidence to the inquiry is is it that from the middle of september 2002 to the best of your recollection the government was in no doubt at all that acm panels with a pe core

02:48:18 that acm panels with a pe core should never ever be used above 18 meters

02:48:22 meters um

02:48:25 well i can't say whether they took that all on board or not i i mean you'll have to ask the department themselves as to what they actually

02:48:38 what their views were i can't speak on behalf of what individuals view i'm asking you to speak on your own behalf and on behalf of the bre my question i'll put it again

02:48:49 my question i'll put it again is it your evidence that from the middle of september 2002 to the best of your recollection as you saw it

02:48:57 saw it the government was in no doubt at all that acm panels with a polyethylene core should never ever be used above 18 meters well i say i

02:49:08 meters well i say i the bit that i can't accept is that the government had taken the view that they should not be used i mean i i don't know that all i can say as far as i can

02:49:19 know that all i can say as far as i can go is that the results were reported within the context of the outputs from this project and it was very clear what the results

02:49:30 and it was very clear what the results of those

02:49:32 of those tests were including acm but there were some other systems as well and that information was there and there had been to my knowledge discussions around

02:49:43 around those results and what they meant and how to set the criteria there for mbr 135 going forwards let me ask you this do you know if any

02:49:54 let me ask you this do you know if any steps were taken to draw the government's attention to this particular result or was it simply left for it to find out for itself by reading the details of the report

02:50:05 details of the report well all the way through these projects i mean there would be meetings progress report meetings with um you know departmental representatives

02:50:16 um you know departmental representatives and

02:50:17 and you know you would have some fairly detailed presentations and feedback during those which go beyond what was actually reported in in the reports so

02:50:29 reported in in the reports so i'm you know i have a high degree of expectation that that would have all been discussed during the the the progress of the project basically

02:50:41 the progress of the project basically thank you

02:50:42 thank you let me just try this a slightly different way casting your mind back to september 2002 as as best you recall it were you in any doubt in your mind

02:50:54 were you in any doubt in your mind that the government understood so far as you could you you knew the date that acm panels with a polyethylene core should never ever be

02:51:06 polyethylene core should never ever be used above 18 meters

02:51:09 um can't speak for them but you can speak for you no i can speak for myself and i would say within the context of the work under being undertaken in relation to um fire note 9 at the time

02:51:27 the answer is yes within that context of 509 yes yeah so the extent to which they were prepared to accept fire note 9 as being representative did this test performance of what was or

02:51:41 did this test performance of what was or what was said i think to be at least a class product make you think about whether class naught was an appropriate classification for the surface material or a product above 18 meters

02:51:54 above 18 meters i don't recall thinking about that specifically at the time i mean that wasn't the primary objective of this

02:52:03 of this project

02:52:06 [Music] so i i don't recall thinking about that at the time i can't i can't recall

02:52:16 did it occur to you that the fact that a product achieved class naught such as this product was no guide at all to whether it would meet the functional requirement before

02:52:34 [Music] whether it was a class o or not class naught um

02:52:43 yes i mean in so far as i think we the whole purpose of doing this project

02:52:50 project and doing the development work on fire note 9 was for that very reason to look at the performance of the system as a whole

02:53:02 the performance of the system as a whole rather than looking at the performance of the individual elements within the system which you know had with um raymond connelly's work had previously

02:53:13 raymond connelly's work had previously shown was not you know a reliable means for looking at the whole the whole makeup of the external system well quite so and that's why i asked the question

02:53:24 question if nothing else this test result would have told you is this right that class naught had now been empirically proved

02:53:33 proved to be an utterly unreliable guide at least in respect of this class naught project to whether it would meet the functional requirement before one um if used in absolute isolation yes if

02:53:45 um if used in absolute isolation yes if used in absolute isolation yes if you just relied on on on that test alone which of course at the time was the linear route to compliance with adb

02:53:57 linear route to compliance with adb wasn't it um

02:54:01 yeah i can't recollect top of my head but probably yes mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you very much when it's time we stop for lunch dr

02:54:12 when it's time we stop for lunch dr smith we'll break off there we'll resume please at two o'clock and uh as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're away from the room thank you very much thank you

02:54:30 thank you mr miller two o'clock please

02:54:42 you