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

Full transcript

00:00:23 would you ask dr smith to come back in please okay

00:00:37 all right dr smith yes thank you good thank you very much yes mr edith when you're ready yes mr chairman thank you dr smith and i'd like now to uh go back please to bre 3041882

00:00:50 go back please to bre 3041882 which we were looking at before page 23 table 8 under the heading render systems and you can see

00:00:58 can see under that section of this table that there are five tests and there are references there to phenolic insulation and polyurethane insulation at items one

00:01:09 and polyurethane insulation at items one and two respectively yes yes

00:01:14 do you know what the name of the polyurethane insulation product was no nor the manufacturer no does the same apply to the phenolic insulation product and its manufacturer yes it does looking

00:01:26 and its manufacturer yes it does looking further down the table under the heading composite panel systems there are references to poly isocyanuric cord panels and polyurethane cord panels at items one and two would you know the

00:01:38 at items one and two would you know the name of the polyisocyanate called panel and manufacturer no i don't sorry do you know why only the core of these panels is described in this table

00:01:50 described in this table um

00:01:50 um [Music]

00:01:53 [Music] what do you mean as opposed to supposed to wear the other products the

00:01:58 the okay so the fact it doesn't say steel steel faced well that's that's yeah that's that's actually right that's the point yes yes yeah yes do you know why it doesn't say so in the data do you know why the pir and pu are called

00:02:10 know why the pir and pu are called panels

00:02:11 panels don't say that they had steel

00:02:15 facings um no i don't although for those types of composite panel systems um

00:02:23 um [Music]

00:02:24 [Music] it was probably taken as read that they were all steel-faced why would that be because that's what they were that were available in the market to my understanding anyway

00:02:35 understanding anyway well um

00:02:39 right so you hadn't heard of aluminium foiled insulation not in terms of composite panel systems that are used on you know the outside of buildings i see

00:02:50 buildings i see this is under the rain render systems as opposed to rain screen under the composite panel systems sorry i thought that's the section we were talking about

00:03:00 under that yes under that system yes so composite panel systems your experience was that the panels were always steel yes i see

00:03:09 now neither of those panels achieved class naught in the testing did they

00:03:17 which one's the line one p-i-r and p-u-r chord panels under the composite i don't know if we stay with the test on page 23

00:03:28 if we stay with the test on page 23 you can see that both the test on the pir chord composite panel and the pur chord panel failed the full scale test because of flame penetration

00:03:39 flame penetration you can see that yes i can yes in the column did that concern you at the time um

00:03:50 well it was a i don't know whether it would have concerned me particularly other than it was

00:03:55 was additional data that we were collecting as part of this project right to guide the development of br135 what did those results tell you about the poly isocyanurate and the

00:04:07 the poly isocyanurate and the polyurethane cord products

00:04:12 um

00:04:18 well it basically gives you the the reason that they failed did it surprise you looking up the table at the rain screen system results that none of the rain screen systems tested

00:04:30 none of the rain screen systems tested past the full-scale test under what was then far note 9.

00:04:36 that yeah that's evident from the from the results as presented it is yes what i'm really seeking to understand is your reaction to it if you had one

00:04:48 were you surprised by that not necessarily um i say because this was all about setting pass and failure criteria for

00:04:59 right you know but for the large-scale test

00:05:04 test indeed but did you have a reaction did you have a a thought about what that might mean as opposed simply to seeing visually the word fail on the page well i mean from

00:05:15 word fail on the page well i mean from from bre's perspective and my own perspective i mean we wouldn't then be looking to say well we can't fail everything therefore we're going to change the criteria if that's what

00:05:26 change the criteria if that's what you're suggesting oh no not at all i was actually actually really just seeing if you could tell me rather the opposite whether you drew any conclusions about the fire safety of common products

00:05:39 um probably not at this particular stage no

00:05:42 no and

00:05:43 and is it the case that you yourself simply drew no conclusions of your own about the fire safety of common products um

00:05:53 um well i mean the the the data that's collected here is clearly showing sort of a range of performances and it's also showing you know the sensitivity of systems

00:06:04 sensitivity of systems um two factors such as fire barriers as well i mean because none of these had fire barriers in them so

00:06:12 so it's possible that if they were tested again with fire barriers in the relevant positions then you may well have got um

00:06:22 um well you would have got presumably an improved performance for some of the systems

00:06:26 systems um

00:06:28 um but you know this was seen as a data gathering exercise to inform the development of well the test method and then the br135

00:06:40 well the test method and then the br135 document and the classification criteria let me ask you about fire barriers we've touched on the fact that only two of the 14 systems tested included

00:06:51 14 systems tested included fire barriers and we saw from the bid document that one of the stated objectives of this contract was to understand the contribution of any fire stopping present within clatting systems you remember that

00:07:02 remember that yes um yes in the initial proposal yes did it change it's possible that it changed during the discussions because obviously as we also identified this morning the scope of the

00:07:13 identified this morning the scope of the systems tested was increased did it increase so

00:07:20 so as to remove the understanding of contribution of fire stopping

00:07:26 it probably evolved such that it was seen that those tested without fire barriers would give a worst-case type performance and

00:07:38 it was probably based on the discussions that would have been had at the time decided that it would be more beneficial to test a broader range of systems rather than doing

00:07:49 rather than doing half the number of systems with and without fire barriers oh i see did you yourself

00:07:56 yourself ever investigate internally within the bre why it was that despite the fact that the bid document stated in terms that one of the objectives of the contract was to understand the contribution of

00:08:07 was to understand the contribution of any far-stopping present in the cladding system

00:08:11 system in fact only two of the 14 tests in the end had fire stopping or cavity barriers in them

00:08:21 in them i don't recall at the time but i mean obviously to deviate from the proposal

00:08:27 proposal would only be done with the agreement of the

00:08:31 the um

00:08:32 um the department so

00:08:34 so it would have changed on the basis of discussion and direction from the department no i understand that but my question is did you ever find out the reason

00:08:44 reason for that i don't recall let's get back to the analysis report please um

00:08:49 please um at bre 3041882 this is the 19th of september 2002 report submitted to anthony bird page three paragraph seven

00:09:05 at the bottom of the page a full-scale test it says was the only method

00:09:11 method which satisfactorily assessed the system performance including detailing such as fire barriers and that's one of the conclusions of the bre from this project isn't it yes do you know how the

00:09:23 project isn't it yes do you know how the full-scale test method satisfactorily assessed detailing such as cam as fire barriers when only two of the full-scale tests actually contained any fire barriers well yes as we discussed

00:09:34 barriers well yes as we discussed earlier i mean it's the only methodology that you can incorporate that detail into anyway you cannot include fire barriers in any of the bench scale or

00:09:46 in any of the bench scale or intermediate scale tests

00:09:51 uh that's that's true but i don't think that quite grasp the essence of my question um my question is really about [Music]

00:10:02 [Music] how the full-scale test method on the basis that it did test

00:10:07 did test the efficacy of particular firefighters did so when only two of the full-scale tests actually contained cavity barriers

00:10:16 well obviously there was data there for those two

00:10:20 those two um scenarios with fire barriers in them i think mr miller's point is that if you only do two tests with fire barriers it's not a very large body of data to

00:10:33 it's not a very large body of data to determine whether the uh fire barriers really did much good yes there's i accept that point in relation to this test but there was a

00:10:44 test but there was a there was also all of the other work that had been done leading up to this

00:10:52 large scale test it is the conclusion at seven no more than in fact what you just told me

00:11:00 me which is that it's a statement of fact that bench and intermediate scale tests cannot by their nature assess the performance of cavity barriers in a full system because they're not full-scale tests

00:11:11 tests i'm saying no more than that i think that could very well be the communities so they're not actually tests capable of assessing the performance of cavity barriers per se um

00:11:22 um well of course they do as part of a system

00:11:25 system well that's the point yes if they're going to as part of a system then you need rather more than just two out of 14 to be able to form a view well it depends what conclusions you're then going to draw i guess from that test but

00:11:36 going to draw i guess from that test but if you if you want to um have a generic

00:11:41 a generic solution then you would need a lot more tests but if you're talking about a specific

00:11:48 specific type of

00:11:49 type of fire barrier and i think in this one they used um an intumescent type

00:11:57 type metal grid that inchimes is under the influence of heat

00:12:01 heat so the results for those tests would only be applicable to those particular fire barriers and i i don't think it's really saying very much more than that well why not

00:12:13 well why not run each test in each series with and then without fire barriers in order to form a conclusion well yeah in an ideal world that's what we would like to do why didn't you do it

00:12:25 we would like to do why didn't you do it because you can only do what the budget will enable you to do and you know you you're constrained by a fixed

00:12:35 fixed allocation of money and then it's a question of detailing the experimental program within the boundaries that you have available to you

00:12:46 that you have available to you financially if we were to repeat all 14 tests with and without barriers the

00:12:54 the project would have cost double the money and at the time the department wouldn't have had the budget i'm guessing to to have done that which is why the discussions took place

00:13:05 which is why the discussions took place with the project team and so on to vary the project and the scope of it and the scope of the materials etc during the course of the project didn't it didn't approve document b at

00:13:16 didn't it didn't approve document b at the time of this test require cavity barriers in the external wall yes it still does now i believe indeed but at the time it did and therefore why were you testing full-scale systems which by the absence of cavity barriers would not have complied well my

00:13:29 have complied well my my view is that this was looking at um basically the makeup of the external wall in in a worst case scenario and given the

00:13:40 worst case scenario and given the information that we've already discussed as well where you know some people get we're getting these details wrong or not including them which is obviously a matter for enforcement not a matter for

00:13:51 matter for enforcement not a matter for the regulations as such then

00:13:55 then it was looking at the worst case well weren't you interested in seeing how acm of the polyethylene core panel performed where

00:14:04 where uh

00:14:04 uh cavity barriers were present i don't recall what the discussions were around that at the time no but weren't you interested in knowing in an ideal world you'd be interested in looking at lots of different variations but you

00:14:17 lots of different variations but you know that's sometimes just not not feasible does it come to this that you had 14 tests of which only two had cavity barriers because you wanted to test a wide range

00:14:29 because you wanted to test a wide range of products but in doing so tested

00:14:35 tested 12 out of 14 in full-scale tests that would never have complied with the proof document b because of the absence of fire barriers yes but if you're setting then the

00:14:46 yes but if you're setting then the criteria based on those tests you you've got an inbuilt margin of safety

00:14:53 safety in the sense that a system that does comply

00:14:58 comply and does have cavity barriers you would expect to perform better ah but unless you've done a test dr smith but there is a body of evidence that led up to that

00:15:09 that led up to that you had no empirical evidence to form any conclusion that if you tested acm with a pe core it would perform better in a system with cavity barriers not than without not with that specific case

00:15:20 than without not with that specific case but there was generic an emerging body of evidence from other systems tested that that was indeed the case now i think you have told us uh and you

00:15:31 now i think you have told us uh and you say so in your statement paragraph 24 at page eight i don't think we need to go back to it we saw it i think last week that there had been a clear recognition that it wasn't possible to rely on for small

00:15:42 wasn't possible to rely on for small scale fire tests um producing data on individual elements as a means to try to predict and control fire performance that's that's in your statement

00:15:52 statement and my question on the back of that is did you consider at the time that the test program as carried out with only two of the 14 full systems containing cavity barriers

00:16:05 full systems containing cavity barriers was capable of informing questions regarding the influence of cavity barriers

00:16:11 barriers um well within the context that we've just discussed so yes yeah i think is the answer to my question

00:16:19 and what questions about cavity barriers did this testing program in the end inform

00:16:24 inform what did it answer what they tell you that basically by installing cavity barriers in a correct way then they can improve the

00:16:36 way then they can improve the performance in two cases out of 14 yes let's move on to some questions about intermediate and bench scale tests did you carry out or witness any of those

00:16:47 you carry out or witness any of those tests

00:16:48 tests not to my recollection though let's look at this document the analysis report please page 11

00:16:58 where we have the results under the heading part bs 476 part 6 and 7 and that's divided up into rain screen panels render systems and composite panels

00:17:10 and if you look at the overall heading it says this the results from bs476 part six and seven are presented in table two the results from these tests were not as expected

00:17:21 from these tests were not as expected with only four of the eleven products achieving class naught all the materials tested were believed to be class naught products when purchased for this project now we've established because you've told us that it was the bre who had

00:17:33 told us that it was the bre who had purchased the products using um

00:17:36 um from the market invoicing the department through aeat afterwards yes yes we yes we used a third-party contractor to do that on our behalf so

00:17:47 contractor to do that on our behalf so bre didn't go out and purchase the products

00:17:50 products because um

00:17:53 i mean

00:17:56 there's a danger if you like in doing that because people think well why did bre want some of our products done through 8080 as the middleman no no no through another third-party contractor

00:18:08 through another third-party contractor who i you asked me who it was this morning and i couldn't remember i didn't i didn't know i mean but that right so it's a different contractor it's a cladding type contractor who is familiar with

00:18:20 type contractor who is familiar with designing cladding systems etc and that's not aea technology was that fox designs

00:18:26 designs um

00:18:27 um it might be i i can't be sure right what was the basis just going back to the words on the page there for bre's belief that all of these products were class naught it's something we would

00:18:38 class naught it's something we would have asked them to go out and do to buy right

00:18:43 right but

00:18:45 but it says were believed to be class nor believed by the bre yes on the basis of what in the sense that the contractor would have

00:18:56 would have sought and asked for class o products

00:19:00 products and would have been um told that they were class o products right do you know whether the contractors saw any independent verification or certification of the class naught status of those

00:19:12 of the class naught status of those products i don't know right do you know whether whether the belief was based simply on the say-so of the manufacturers or some sort of other objective data yeah i don't know

00:19:25 data yeah i don't know was your expectation looking at that second sentence that those products would achieve class naught when tested under bs476 part 6

00:19:36 naught when tested under bs476 part 6 and 7 by the bre yes

00:19:39 yes if we look at table two on page 12 the next page please we can see the data which reflects those results in the last column on the right class naught and then there's a series of n's and y's nose and yeses

00:19:51 nose and yeses you see that yes and y is those which which did achieve class naught by testing an n for those which did not now if you uh look at the aluminium sheet

00:20:02 if you uh look at the aluminium sheet item three yes you can see that it gets a y in other words yes class north yes so

00:20:10 so that was one of those four panels that did achieve class naught now apart from being unexpected what did those class naught test results tell you

00:20:23 well that it appears that the market claims of some manufactured products were not as they ought to be yeah

00:20:34 yeah now um

00:20:36 now um i'd like to understand your thought processes when seeing this data did you think as one obvious possibility that seven out of 11 companies were misrepresenting their product

00:20:47 misrepresenting their product classifications

00:20:51 potentially that was that was a possibility yeah up to seven yes but yes that did occur to you did it yes

00:20:58 yes really

00:20:59 really did it occur to you because you were cynical or skeptical about

00:21:04 the familiarity of some of these manufacturers with the truth um no it was just the technical evidence as it was presented well the technical evidence as presented is that a class

00:21:16 evidence as presented is that a class naught product as told to your contractor or perhaps as even certified by a certifying body was not class naught when tested even though it was presented as class naught

00:21:27 though it was presented as class naught yeah i doubt any of these products would have been certificated or claimed to have right all right and you you said that one of the things that occurred to you was because uh of

00:21:38 uh of because manufacturers might misstate the classification yes

00:21:44 yes what i'm interested in is um

00:21:49 why they would do that to your knowledge why they would were you familiar as an experience of your own at the time that manufacturers would play fast and loose with the truth

00:22:01 would play fast and loose with the truth about whether or not their product no right but nonetheless it was something that occurred to you as you told us yes it was something that needed further consideration another possibility did this occur to

00:22:13 another possibility did this occur to you that there were very serious reproducibility issues with testing to bs 476 part six and seven

00:22:21 seven um

00:22:23 um no i don't believe that was a consideration you didn't no well if that's not the case in other words if you test a product to class naught it will always achieve class in all what other

00:22:35 all what other what other conclusion could you have drawn at the time other than that these manufacturers were lying to your agent well that's what i said it was something that needed further investigation or

00:22:46 that needed further investigation or consideration at least yes

00:22:50 yes and were you were you struck by the fact that a majority of suppliers of allegedly class naught products for your testing had misrepresented

00:23:01 had misrepresented the

00:23:02 the classification in that way

00:23:06 um well yes in the sense that it was a surprise to us did you think of taking that up with anybody in government and this is obviously in the report but did you did you actually yes i mean it

00:23:17 did you did you actually yes i mean it was a matter that that was in the report and it was a matter that that was raised i mean the the kind of response to that

00:23:28 was and has been for a long time and was carried on in more recent times as well that ultimately the claims that a

00:23:39 ultimately the claims that a manufacturer makes in the market are their responsibility and

00:23:46 and you know it's it they have to be able to justify those claims did you think of raising this matter with trading standards um no we wouldn't have done that directly i mean it's very possible that

00:23:58 directly i mean it's very possible that the government department would have done that

00:24:01 done that did you raise with anthony bird the possibility of his raising at the trading standards i'm sure there was some kind of discussion around that because i think also at the same time

00:24:12 because i think also at the same time the radar projects were going on around this sort of time as well and i think there was also

00:24:20 some results similar to this in the radar project that warrington were undertaking yeah that was in fact in the may of 2000 but you're right

00:24:32 in the may of 2000 but you're right about the results and we'll come back to that

00:24:35 that in due course let's go to page 19 uh and look at that please under the heading class naught

00:24:47 and it says the results from bs476 part six and seven tests were expected to confirm the class north performance of the products used in this project as the results show all the materials achieve the required performance levels in the

00:24:58 the required performance levels in the fire propagation test bs 476 part 6 but a significant number did not achieve the required surface spread of flame classifications there does not appear to be any one reason for this lack of performance

00:25:10 performance in other words no one particular reason for the failures to satisfy bs476 part 7 had been identified i think that's what it's telling us yes yes correct what was on the list of reasons

00:25:21 correct what was on the list of reasons from which no one factor could be picked out as the cause um no i no i don't i don't do you know what possibilities have been thought through as to why it was that they

00:25:32 through as to why it was that they routinely failed i mean i guess um people would have considered things such as the surface coatings the colours of the coatings thickness of coatings

00:25:46 the coatings thickness of coatings and finishes do you remember what your reaction to these results was when you first learned of them

00:25:53 of them yes surprise right do you remember whether anybody else in the bre was surprised um

00:25:59 um yeah i'd imagine um the project team was surprised it was it would have been them that would have brought it to to my attention do you remember what anthony bird's reaction within the department was or anybody

00:26:10 within the department was or anybody else in the department i i don't recall but i say i do know that there was an ongoing kind of discussion around this based on the earlier radar results as well and was

00:26:22 earlier radar results as well and was brian martin involved in those discussions about these surprising results

00:26:25 results um

00:26:27 um i don't recall but i would imagine he was yes do you remember sharing the idea or the notion with brian martin that some or all of these manufacturers had misrepresented

00:26:39 had misrepresented the class naught status of these products

00:26:45 i don't remember explicitly that

00:26:52 did you have any reason to consider that this situation where uh

00:26:58 uh so many as a high proportion had failed class nor might might be replicated across the market more generally

00:27:08 generally well that's why it was um necessary for it to be given further consideration did you actually to the best of your recollection tell the department in terms

00:27:20 tell the department in terms that your

00:27:22 that your suspicions i think this is a fair way of encompassing what you've told us were that manufacturers were routinely misstating the class naught status

00:27:34 the class naught status of

00:27:36 of products for which class naught had been claimed

00:27:41 probably in broad terms yes i mean i wouldn't couch it in terms of manufacturers in general i think you would have to caveat that with some manufacturers

00:27:52 caveat that with some manufacturers because i'm sure equally there were manufacturers that you know

00:27:58 you know were playing everything by the book and their products and so on were properly supported by

00:28:09 properly supported by their performance but 7 out of 11 is a very substantial majority isn't it yeah from the small sample that we we looked at indeed

00:28:20 at indeed but

00:28:21 but but look

00:28:22 but look looking at the small sample of the data set nonetheless i would suggest to you i think sufficient for you to be able to draw at least the provisional conclusion

00:28:33 least the provisional conclusion uh that the market if not riddled uh with misrepresentations about class naught was was sufficiently uh full of them to warrant serious concern there appeared to be something

00:28:45 concern there appeared to be something that needed further consideration yes and that so far as you can recall was

00:28:51 was something warranting consideration that the government knew is this right to be considered yes [Applause] can i then ask you about the acm test

00:29:04 can i then ask you about the acm test again

00:29:05 again and go to back to page 11

00:29:10 just to link it up with class naught we go back to page 11 you can see the second paragraph under heading rain screen panels and it says there the aluminium cladding panels achieved a class naught

00:29:22 panels achieved a class naught performance when tested to be s476 part six and seven both their performance in the fire propagation test and the surface spread of flame tests showed they fully met the requirement of this classification

00:29:33 classification now

00:29:34 now given the disaster given the test performance of the full system using acm as the cladding panel which others at bre have told us were shocking and you've seen the figures

00:29:46 and you've seen the figures did that result from the bs 476 test surprise you um

00:29:53 um i don't recall but um no i don't recall what i thought at the time in in relation to that i mean obviously this is a factual run through then

00:30:04 then test type by test type of the results that were achieved against those particular test methods but it's did it not strike you at the time that here you

00:30:16 strike you at the time that here you have

00:30:17 have a bs

00:30:19 a bs far note 9 sorry a bs as it became but far note 9 full system test with acm cloudy with the polyethylene core that performs in the way it did with flames reaching the

00:30:31 with flames reaching the above the top of the rig

00:30:35 before five minutes before before six minutes on the one hand and having to be terminated early but on the other those panels when tested under bs476

00:30:47 those panels when tested under bs476 part six and seven pass with flying colors now put putting those two together did that juxtaposition not surprise you well it probably did at the time but i i don't recall firsthand

00:30:59 time but i i don't recall firsthand right you know what i thought back then or did it simply confirm your own historic negative views about the utility and the reliability of small-scale tests yes it would certainly have um

00:31:11 yes it would certainly have um that that would have been one of the the issues yes right now let's go down to page 14 then same document and to the final paragraph under the heading rain screen panels there you can

00:31:22 heading rain screen panels there you can see it on the screen and there is and there you have the results obtained from the single burning item test summarized yes

00:31:30 yes yes you can see that uh in the final paragraph uh because you have figra and smogra and thr results um and it says

00:31:44 uh the aluminium system generated high rates of fire growth and in both cases was extinguished early due to excessive temperatures and fire growth this is reflected in the indicative

00:31:55 reflected in the indicative classification of d s two d naught yes and on page 19 if we just go to that penultimate paragraph of the page

00:32:08 under rain screen

00:32:12 the penultimate paragraph there says the aluminium sheeting system achieved the poorest classification of both tests although it was the only system to achieve class naught in the british standard tests and there it is there's

00:32:24 standard tests and there it is there's the juxtaposition in clear terms yes did that result surprise you or concern you in any way

00:32:32 um i think it was a clear indication

00:32:37 of of the sorts of performances or the performance that we were getting in relation to that test do you remember whether any discussions with the department ensued as a result of that conclusion particularly set in the

00:32:48 conclusion particularly set in the context of the other parts of these conclusions i've been showing yeah i mean i don't know what discussions took place with the project team [Music]

00:32:58 [Music] but it would have been i'm sure part of the discussion that then led to the drafting and was incorporated within the thinking around the criteria in br135

00:33:09 in br135 in your own mind were you clear if not before this time that certainly by this time as a result of these tests that

00:33:17 that there ought to be very grave concerns about

00:33:21 about any regulatory system which continued to permit class naught external rain screen panels to be used as a standard for fire performance on high-rise buildings it was certainly

00:33:32 high-rise buildings it was certainly pointing in that direction yes well it was it was pointing in that direction i think you'd arrived at the at the destination okay yes yes yes

00:33:43 yes yes and specifically you knew that a panel might achieve class naught but also only achieve class d when tested under the euro norms yes so you knew from this is this right that

00:33:55 so you knew from this is this right that when a builder or if a builder in the uk opted for a class naught rain screen panel let's assume it a genuinely achieved class naught then that product might only achieve a

00:34:06 then that product might only achieve a class d under the euro norms

00:34:09 yes i think that you know you you had

00:34:14 from the radar um projects it was very clear that

00:34:22 because you're moving from sort of one methodology to a completely different methodology you will get some materials products

00:34:34 materials products that

00:34:36 that translate

00:34:37 translate in terms of performance with the between the national and the european classes but then you will get outliers as well you will get some that will do better

00:34:49 will do better and some that will do worse and

00:34:52 and um

00:34:53 um this is clearly yeah an indication that moving across to the european system is or was more beneficial

00:35:04 or was more beneficial in terms of the safety levels in the main

00:35:07 main right than you you know using the national

00:35:10 national classification systems if you say more beneficial in terms of safety levels and just explore the way you've just put it

00:35:21 explore the way you've just put it two questions first do you accept on this data

00:35:25 this data that a pe called aluminium product would not have been deemed suitable for use on any building above 18 meters if evaluated only based on the euro

00:35:36 if evaluated only based on the euro class test and diagram 40. correct yes but if evaluated based on the national classification system alone class naught in this case

00:35:47 in this case the pe called aluminium product was considered suitable for use on buildings over 18 meters yes

00:35:56 did you therefore have cause to consider at this point where the class naught was an appropriate and safe metric for external surfaces of high-rise buildings particularly in light of

00:36:07 light of these test results well i don't recall exactly what the discussion would have been at that time as i say the main focus of this was around

00:36:18 around the

00:36:19 the development of the large-scale test method

00:36:23 method and it was anticipated but that was going to

00:36:28 be the way forward for buildings above 18 meters

00:36:31 18 meters at this time yes and we'll come in due course to looking at radar and the transition period yes but just focusing on class naught for the moment did you consider at this stage of the

00:36:43 did you consider at this stage of the project

00:36:44 project or indeed at any time afterwards in light of these results that the national reaction to fire classifications ought to be withdrawn for or

00:36:54 for or from use in relation to the external wall of high-rise buildings um i mean i think it was generally understood that

00:37:05 they would ultimately be removed and i think the only thing that was up for debate is what was the point at which the national classes would be removed

00:37:16 the national classes would be removed and obviously that that became that that was a decision that was a government decision based on other factors

00:37:28 did you have a discussion at this time with anthony bird or anybody else in the department about removing class naught in light of this test program um

00:37:40 um i don't recall i mean certainly at this particular time the european test standards were not embodied within the approved document anyway i think

00:37:52 the approved document anyway i think they've just come in in fact um okay so i mean you may be right but there's a 2002 amendment whether it was before or after september i'm not sure i'm standing here able to tell you but

00:38:03 i'm standing here able to tell you but it certainly it certainly pace dates the discussions uh about the radar report yes i mean it was the radar reports that led to the um incorporation of the european norms

00:38:15 um incorporation of the european norms in the in the approved document yes and my question coming back to it is in a sense leaving aside the discussions of the radar report and the harmonization project which we're going to come to

00:38:27 to come to what was were the results of this test not the clearest flag that

00:38:32 that even though class naught might be withdrawn at some point

00:38:38 now was the time to do it

00:38:42 um i mean that wasn't a decision for for me to be taking i mean we were presenting the data and the results for others to to discuss and take forward

00:38:54 to discuss and take forward did you expect government to act on it and accelerate the time at which class naught was withdrawn based on these results um i well i don't know

00:39:06 i well i don't know in terms of accelerate i mean we understood that

00:39:12 there was a commitment to do that i'm not sure we understood exactly what the timeline for that was so i wouldn't necessarily be looking in terms of accelerating that what was the commitment

00:39:24 what was the commitment you've just described to remove class naught that you understood at the time well under the construction products directive there was

00:39:35 directive there was a

00:39:36 a requirement based upon member states of the european union to adopt the european norms

00:39:46 norms in preference to any national classifications any work on national classifications was halted at the point that the european tests were under development so it

00:39:59 tests were under development so it wasn't possible to update the national standards from that point on

00:40:05 point on and the reason being that you know they would then become redundant over the you know when the the new european norms were published and they needed to then be um

00:40:17 published and they needed to then be um the brit the national standards would have to be withdrawn over what time frame we'll come to see some documents on this later but at this time just getting your evidence on this september 2002 what was the commitment

00:40:28 september 2002 what was the commitment what was the time horizon by which class naught would be scrapped um

00:40:34 um well they weren't developed beyond well from about 19 late 1990s

00:40:45 late 1990s the national standards september 2002 if you'd asked anthony bird when are we going to scrap class north

00:40:52 north what would have told you saw it at the time well i think prior to the publication of the european supplement everybody expected that to happen in 2002

00:41:05 expected that to happen in 2002 right but that didn't happen in 2002 as i said earlier for other reasons

00:41:13 now i just want to ask you one or two questions about the iag can we go to bre zero four five please

00:41:26 and now this is uh i think we'll take this quickly um looking at the front cover of this document this is the generic data supporting the revision of br135 dated june

00:41:36 june 2002

00:41:38 2002 which was prepared by the bre for the industry advisory group yes yes and also the joint working group of bsi technical committees and you can see that it's dated the 26th of june 2002

00:41:49 that it's dated the 26th of june 2002 and therefore it's before the reports the analysis report and the closing report of the 1924 testing program isn't it just in chronic chronological terms um probably yes right well it's what you

00:42:00 um probably yes right well it's what you say yes the just pausing there did you put this document together um no i wouldn't have done

00:42:07 done do you know who did um the project team would have done it so i guess um sarah colwell and brian martin predominantly was it approved by the department before it was presented to the ira yes it would have been right

00:42:18 to the ira yes it would have been right and who approved it on behalf of the department would that have been anthony byrd uh probably yes and what was the role of the bsi committee and the iag in this project um

00:42:30 um in in

00:42:31 in in the

00:42:32 the odpm project the research project well the the revision of br135 right so um the iag

00:42:40 the iag was there i think as we've already discussed to provide input to the project to act as a steering group

00:42:48 group to

00:42:49 to [Music]

00:42:50 [Music] provide their real world knowledge etc and to guide the the program um and to provide feedback and comments

00:43:01 um and to provide feedback and comments in terms of their understanding and anything that wasn't clear etc um and

00:43:07 um and the joint working group i guess this was presented to them to assist them in the development of the british standard development was this document released more widely

00:43:19 was this document released more widely as part of the consultation on the revisions of br135 i don't know can we go to page three please we can see there a list of the systems tested

00:43:30 a list of the systems tested ventilated cavity systems and render systems

00:43:33 systems yes and if we go to page five

00:43:38 there's a table of generic test data for the ventilated cavity and render systems you see that yes and under that table you can see the pe called aluminium panels are at item

00:43:49 called aluminium panels are at item three

00:43:50 three you see it says aluminium yes yes uh and uh you've got the fail there and the page eight they're described as aluminium-based cladding panels

00:44:01 cladding panels yes see that yes on the system three aluminium based cladding panels why were they described like that do you know no i don't on one view they're misleading not all that is a

00:44:12 they're misleading not all that is a misleading description isn't it because it doesn't identify the presence of a polyethylene core yes i don't know why they weren't defined as we saw earlier right did it occur to you at the time

00:44:23 right did it occur to you at the time that that description uh might lead a reader to conclude that the cladding described was pure aluminium not not a composite at all

00:44:32 all i don't recall i mean i think if i had um

00:44:36 um i've been looking at this then it's something i might have raised i i don't know

00:44:42 know at any rate uh well do you know whether any members of the iag other than government or the bsi joint committee were actually told that the panels tested were acm with the

00:44:53 that the panels tested were acm with the polyethylene core um well usually typically in these types of projects the iag would have some physical meetings as well and you know it's

00:45:05 and you know it's usual that powerpoint presentations and so on would be given

00:45:11 be given and there would be discussion around some of these things so i would have thought they would have known but you don't know because you weren't i

00:45:19 weren't i i don't know for sure of course i don't know do you know whether anybody on the iag or the bsi committee raised any concerns

00:45:26 concerns in respect of the performance of the aluminium-based cladding panels tested at full scale or intermediate or bench no i don't you don't

00:45:41 can we then move to the conclusions and recommendations in the analysis report of the 19th of september 2002 it's a bre 3041882 page 24

00:45:54 3041882 page 24 back to that document

00:45:57 and if you look at that conclusions and recommendations in fact i think it's right that there are no actual recommendations in this section are there

00:46:08 there are conclusions but not recommendations yeah i mean without reading them all in detail but i i take your i'll take your analysis yeah um

00:46:18 um but if we go back three days to twenty sixteenth of september twenty two thousand and two at the closing report at bre three zeros four one eight nine five page thirteen

00:46:30 four one eight nine five page thirteen let's look at that this is um paragraph five at the foot of the screen um it says this the aluminium sheet product satisfied class naught requirements but in the full scale intermediate scale and single burning

00:46:42 intermediate scale and single burning item tests proved to be one of the worst performing products as the current guidance and approved document b asks for class naught performance in diagram 40 these issues may require further consideration

00:46:54 consideration and this goes over ground we've covered before

00:46:57 before but the fact that the aluminium sheet as the acmpe

00:47:00 the acmpe as is again described here satisfied the requirements of the approved document but nonetheless resulted in a catastrophic full-scale fire before six minutes

00:47:09 minutes may require further consideration that's all you put all this document said yes

00:47:16 i mean did you intend or did the bre intend

00:47:20 intend that this

00:47:21 that this result be an urgent red flag for immediate consideration and action or simply a mild indication that the government might like to have a think about this in its own sweet time

00:47:32 sweet time i don't recall at the time i understand the way that you're interpreting that but i mean the fact that it's there we would expect that to um

00:47:42 um to act as the flag for the department to decide what they then wanted to do from from there on is that right yes so this oblique uh rather

00:47:54 uh rather loose

00:47:55 loose recommendation these issues may require further consideration you thought that was enough to spell out to the government that that the use of acm panels over 18 meters presented an immediate and

00:48:07 meters presented an immediate and present risk to life did you that they needed to consider the issues associated with all of this yes you see dr smith what you don't do in this report is to spell out

00:48:19 this report is to spell out in big letters to anthony bird that unless the government does something now about acm panels over 18 meters people will die

00:48:29 will die i mean that's clear isn't it

00:48:35 well it's not put in those terms i mean you won't find i don't think any bre report that ever speaks in those terms because our role is one to present the technical evidence and the technical

00:48:47 technical evidence and the technical facts and the data and then to signal what we think needs to be considered and then it's up to the department with their statutory committees or whatever to

00:48:59 statutory committees or whatever to decide

00:49:01 decide what they consider and what they want to do going forwards isn't there an intermediate step between the data and government policy

00:49:13 and government policy and that is to apply a human interpretation on the data convert it into foreseeable human consequences

00:49:24 foreseeable human consequences and then spell those out to the government so that government can enact proper policy rather than leaving it to government to grab about in the data well

00:49:35 well i mean all i can say is what i've already said and i mean you won't find i don't think in any bre report

00:49:44 report views expressed quite in the terms that you're expressing them now it was always based on you know the sec the technical scientific evidence and then issuing a flag as to the issues

00:49:59 then issuing a flag as to the issues that they should be reflecting on and also i mean that this is the report that is in writing there there were meetings and discussions that would have

00:50:10 meetings and discussions that would have been had as the project progressed around these factors as well so you know this none of this would come as a surprise to them when they first read this

00:50:22 this it might be suggested that what is missing apart from what mr miller suggested is a clear assessment of the significance of the data

00:50:34 data you give the government the data yes you say you think about this data but you don't give them any assistance on assessing its significance

00:50:45 assistance on assessing its significance do you think that was a an omission

00:50:53 and by by that do you mean in in terms of

00:50:57 of the life safety the significance in terms of it you i can understand why you may have not thought it was a bre's role to um play up

00:51:08 play up the human aspect if you like of this because you're there to do a scientific job but you could might not be regarded as an uh

00:51:17 uh impermissible step for the bre to take to say the data we've got on these panels

00:51:25 panels uh indicates that they are highly uh

00:51:28 uh combustible and liable to create significant fire i'm not putting this very well but you see what i mean in other words to spell out what the data are telling you

00:51:40 out what the data are telling you albeit in

00:51:42 albeit in scientific terms yes um i understand what you're saying and

00:51:49 and perhaps that could have come through in the closing report i mean it's i think it's self-evident that

00:51:58 that those conclusions were drawn in the previous reports in terms of you know that this hasn't performed well it well it's performed badly in in these

00:52:10 it well it's performed badly in in these contexts

00:52:12 contexts um

00:52:13 um so i think the information for me is all there

00:52:16 there but maybe what this doesn't do is perhaps

00:52:19 perhaps pull it all together in quite the way that you're suggesting yeah i asked a question because you told us this morning

00:52:26 morning that uh the results of the test indicated to you uh that this material should never be allowed on the high-rise building i'm not sure that i would have

00:52:38 i'm not sure that i would have derived that assessment from what's written in paragraph five do you think you would have done um well i say that and that was said in the context of the large-scale test

00:52:50 the context of the large-scale test method and the br-135 criteria that we were developing that would in our view then slam the door shut on the use of these types of products on buildings over 18 meters

00:53:04 all right yeah so you know it was all part of

00:53:10 that that journey really all right thank you very much

00:53:17 it's right i think isn't it that the reports and the data from this project have never before this inquiry began

00:53:27 began uh

00:53:29 uh have been released into the public domain

00:53:31 domain um

00:53:33 um i'm not entirely sure to be honest i mean obviously you saw the document that was circulated to vsi and the iag i don't know if this was reduced

00:53:45 this was reduced was any of this was presented in for the 2006 revision of adb as part of the consultation then

00:53:55 then the bre never disseminated information for example about the testing carried out on an aluminium composite material well we wouldn't do that directly anyway i mean as part of if it was part of the

00:54:07 i mean as part of if it was part of the consultation package that would be done by

00:54:10 by the the department they they generally pull together a package of technical evidence for people to review to consider the proposed

00:54:22 amendments think it's right though isn't it that the bre didn't itself take it upon itself to disseminate information the information in these reports no i mean bre

00:54:33 mean bre as a general rule is not

00:54:36 is not permitted to do so without the full agreement of the department anyway because we're bound by confidentiality in all of the frameworks and the contracts that we undertake for them so we can only

00:54:48 them so we can only publish or disseminate anything if we're permitted to do so since privatisation do you know whether anybody in government made a positive decision that

00:54:59 government made a positive decision that the reports and data from this work should not be disseminated outside government and the bre i don't know have you yourself ever considered whether these reports and data should be

00:55:10 whether these reports and data should be released into the public domain because of what they signify i i don't recall at the time i say i can't remember if they were released as part of the consultation package

00:55:22 part of the consultation package do you recall at any time giving any consideration before

00:55:26 before the grenfell tower fire to revisiting this test data or alternatively at least to the need to warn industry and others about the potential dangers of using aluminium

00:55:39 potential dangers of using aluminium composite material with a polyethylene core above 18 meters no i don't i mean as far as i think i was concerned and potentially other colleagues in bre

00:55:51 other colleagues in bre once the amendments to approve document b were made in the 2006 revision

00:56:00 revision it was

00:56:03 it was considered that as i said that that had closed the door on these types of products being used above 18 meters and therefore um

00:56:13 um you know that job was completed did you really think for the time being did you really think that you know of course and we'll come to it in detail no doubt later on but just picking up on that answer and of course the 2006 amendments

00:56:24 answer and of course the 2006 amendments continued to contain class naught in diagram 40 didn't they as the linear route

00:56:29 route to compliance for external walls for above

00:56:34 for above for above 18 meters

00:56:38 not you couldn't just use class naught in in isolation no not my interpretation anyway because there are restrictions placed on the um insulation

00:56:49 the um insulation right as well okay we'll come back to that in due course but after the uae fires in 2013 or the dubai fires in 2014 or 15

00:56:58 or 15 did you

00:56:59 did you think again about revisiting this test data

00:57:03 data me personally no i did not i can remember having some discussions with colleagues around the time of at least one or two of the dubai fires

00:57:15 at least one or two of the dubai fires and just um asking the question now we are sure that this isn't happening in the uk and can't happen in the uk aren't we um and

00:57:26 happen in the uk aren't we um and you know being satisfied that yes we weren't through um our fire investigation project seeing similar sorts of materials on on buildings and b that the um

00:57:39 b that the um the bs8414 system incorp including the the br 135 classification was being um

00:57:50 classification was being um was being utilized and

00:57:53 and to that end you know we've never been either presented with to my knowledge prior to grenfell um a bs-8414 test that involved a polyethylene called acm on

00:58:08 a polyethylene called acm on on a bs8414 test so do we take it from that answer that

00:58:14 that your

00:58:15 your view was that it wasn't necessary to look at these test reports in the light of the uae or dubai fires and it couldn't happen here simply because acm of the polyethylene core wasn't was not used in the uk built

00:58:27 wasn't was not used in the uk built environment that's correct is that a fact that that was my view right it's not a fact it's not a fact as we know now but um did you have time

00:58:39 um did you have time that was my view

00:58:42 did you ever advise the government to release these results

00:58:47 i don't know whether what the discussion was around that no

00:58:53 and we know that the bre never as it were blew the whistle and put the results out themselves or issue a public health warning

00:59:01 warning to clients about the dangers of acm panels

00:59:05 panels just just help me why was that because that wasn't soon as our role to do that

00:59:10 do that as i said earlier you know we were bound by confidentiality we couldn't just decide

00:59:16 decide um

00:59:18 um on our own that we were going to release results that others had paid for into the public domain

00:59:30 let's turn then to something we've been discussing before the radar 2 consultation on harmonization and i'd like to go back in time a little bit if i made dr smith and look at the

00:59:43 bit if i made dr smith and look at the position at the beginning of 2001 and your own involvement in that project first i think it's right isn't it that radar stands for research on approved document

00:59:54 document b and revision doesn't it i don't know right i mean not

01:00:04 the acronym um now i'm summarizing please tell me if this is right or wrong as a result of the european construction product

01:00:11 product products directive the department had needed to consider amendments and updates to approve document b in order to allow for the use of european fire test methods

01:00:22 european fire test methods that's right yes right and the radar research project was initiated to help me to assist the department to understand how the new european methods and classification system should be implemented into uk

01:00:33 system should be implemented into uk regulations and guidance that's my understanding yes and to explore the impact of doing that yes uh that's my understanding yes and radar was research carried out by

01:00:44 and radar was research carried out by warrings and fire um commissioned by the department yes that's correct as i understand again taking it shortly do you agree that radar one was about fire resistance

01:00:55 radar one was about fire resistance radar 2 was about reaction to fire and radar 3 was about roofs and roofing products that's my understanding yes and the focus of the research was on is this right comparing the classifications

01:01:06 right comparing the classifications achieved by various products when tested under the euro class system as against the classifications achieved by the same products under the national class system

01:01:17 class system and uh and and seeing what happened that's my understanding yes now the product of the warrington fires radar 2 research on reaction to fire were two reports i think published in may 2000

01:01:31 reports i think published in may 2000 and i'll just show them to you part one is clg

01:01:35 is clg 50950 let's just pop that up please

01:01:43 clg five zero is nine five zero

01:01:55 no that's five nine zero nine i need five i need nine five zero please clg five zero is nine five zero

01:02:11 and that was my fault i'm sorry um that's the first page if we go to page two

01:02:20 and you can see that um this is um

01:02:25 um or bears the title correlation of uk reaction to fire classes for building products with euro classes and guidance on revision of approved document b part 1 uk and european test data and comparisons

01:02:37 european test data and comparisons between classification systems and you can see at the bottom right hand corner it bears the date of the 23rd of may 2000 and if we go to clg 50951 please

01:02:49 50951 please we can find part two

01:02:54 and that bears the date of the 26th of may 2000 as you can see from the bottom right hand corner and its title is proposals for the european supplement to approve document b now i've shown you both of those just as

01:03:05 now i've shown you both of those just as their first pages but were you familiar with these reports when they were published um yes i would have been i would have had a copy sent to me i'm sure and the radar project was a pii or partners in

01:03:17 project was a pii or partners in innovation project wasn't it uh yes it says so there yes yes and that meant they think that 50 of the funding for the project came from the department and 50 from industry um yes usually yes yeah

01:03:29 50 from industry um yes usually yes yeah do you know what in which industry partners contributed to the funding for the radar 2 project no i don't i don't no it's right also i think that radar 2 was steered by an iag in an industry

01:03:41 was steered by an iag in an industry advisory group wasn't it um i would imagine so yes right and i think warrington fire was the lead partner yes it was warrington project with the industry partners yes yes

01:03:55 industry partners yes yes and other members were representatives from within industry so manufacturing of all kinds of construction um i would think so yes and it was likely to be trade associations i would imagine

01:04:07 to be trade associations i would imagine now if we go to the first of these reports that is 950

01:04:17 page three we can see

01:04:21 that there's a table at the foot of the page

01:04:24 page under the heading organization of project

01:04:27 project and you can see that from the detr we've got a edwards m payne and d smith

01:04:36 and we can go over the page there you can see who the many the manufacturers and bodies are if you go over the page and they're various individuals

01:04:47 they're various individuals um going back to page three the d smith that i've just pointed out to you though is that you uh yes it would have been well i don't know why i was listed as dtr because obviously i i never worked for detr so

01:05:01 obviously i i never worked for detr so well i was going to ask you that yeah but i mean is it an indication of your closeness of working with the etr at least in respect of this project

01:05:11 um

01:05:14 i don't know no i don't know why i was put down there as dtr

01:05:20 as dtr um your role i think was as a as a coordinator because it says so that you're in the coordinators column right um is it right that among a number of other contracts

01:05:31 that among a number of other contracts in 2001 the bre and the department entered into a framework contract entitled european harmonization of fire standards and representation on bsi regarding smoke control

01:05:44 regarding smoke control um

01:05:46 um probably i i would have to see it too that was the title and what the scope of it was right well that's that's because on smoke control right

01:05:57 right in 2001 i think you were also a member of brac weren't you building regulations advisory committee part b working party um i was never a member of brac you were never a member of bragg

01:06:10 never a member of bragg uh

01:06:12 uh do you remember drafting or contributing to the drafting of the european supplement to approve document b which was considered by the part b working party um i probably did assist yes on that

01:06:25 i probably did assist yes on that and who drafted it it would have been based on

01:06:27 based on [Music]

01:06:29 [Music] on the outcome of the radar project and who drafted it i don't recall did you advise brax part b working party at meetings

01:06:41 at meetings um i would have presented right potentially and you know in the way that that would have

01:06:50 have worked is you know you give a presentation as to potentially the um outcomes from the radar project and

01:06:59 and um the correlations that that had been developed and then you know it would be a question and answer session and then the um the working party would

01:07:10 working party would agree or disagree and documents would be progressed accordingly can we go to clg 401051

01:07:21 this is a

01:07:24 a report of a meeting of the part b working party between brac and the scots equivalent bisac

01:07:31 bisac which was held on the 28th of february 2001 as you can see and under the background you can see in the second sentence it says the principle objective of the meeting was

01:07:42 principle objective of the meeting was to consider the issues surrounding the harmonization of fire tests across europe and how the guidance and approved document be and the provisions of the scottish building standards may need to be revised to reflect the proposed harmonized system it was intended to

01:07:54 harmonized system it was intended to bring together the salient issues for brac and bisac as well as for the uk regulators preparing for harmonization i see that yes and then if you go to paragraph two uh under summary of

01:08:05 paragraph two uh under summary of preceding salient issues it says this significant contributions to the meeting were made by dr debbie smith of bre frs and dr paul stollard of the scottish executive

01:08:16 executive uh what was your role there in making significant contributions yeah i don't recall

01:08:22 recall first hand but looking at this as i said

01:08:26 as i said prior to seeing this i probably gave a powerpoint presentation or the like based on the status at that point i don't know if the radar project was

01:08:37 don't know if the radar project was finished or whether it whether they were still ongoing um as to where they were at and what they were starting to um to show if we go to paragraph five same page a

01:08:49 if we go to paragraph five same page a little lower down we need to scroll down to that you can see that the report notes um as follows the comparative standard and i think this is you and dr stollard

01:09:00 and i think this is you and dr stollard explaining the comparative standard of en tests against the current national standards was discussed in general and it was agreed that the harmonized fire resistance tests were generally at least as good as the current tests

01:09:11 as good as the current tests however after discussing the radar ii project such conclusion was not reached with regard to the reaction to fire tests as the test methods are significantly different

01:09:22 significantly different dr smith advised that the proposed tests are more quantitative as they rely on measuring heat release rather than measuring by eye it was noted some products do better under this method

01:09:33 products do better under this method some do worse now can we take it that what i've just shown you there from the note of this meeting is an accurate record of what you said um in all probability yes yeah i mean you

01:09:45 in all probability yes yeah i mean you can't you don't have a reason to dispute it something there now no all these years later if we go to paragraph seven

01:09:52 seven a little bit lower down you say this dr smith gave a presentation on the draft european supplement to approve document b which resulted in detailed discussion of a number of issues both technical and procedural there was general support of

01:10:04 procedural there was general support of the document although some points were identified as being in need of further clarification can you remember what the issues were that were discussed in details as a result of your presentation

01:10:17 result of your presentation no i'm sorry i don't can you remember what the points were that were identified as being in need of clarification no

01:10:25 no i don't know do you remember whether any changes were made to the document as a result of the discussions that took place

01:10:31 place invariably they would have been because that's the whole point of these meetings you know you you present something you take feedback and then the feedback has to be addressed accordingly

01:10:42 accordingly or all the guidance is given at the at the meeting that you know it needs to to do this or it needs to say that or this needs to be clarified and it's dealt with there and then at

01:10:54 and it's dealt with there and then at the meeting right [Music]

01:10:58 [Music] let's go to the radar 2 report itself at clg

01:11:02 clg 50951 which is the part 2 report

01:11:10 i showed you the front page 26th of may 2000

01:11:18 and if we go in that document please to page 4

01:11:23 you can see there's a table table two and that shows the transpositions of uk class naught to euro classes and then there's a table three transpositions of uk class one to euro

01:11:35 transpositions of uk class one to euro classes and then so on classes two and three to euro classes and if we look at the bottom of table two can you see

01:11:46 two can you see um did you have three class naught levels uh which transpose uh to c d and e

01:11:56 c d and e and if you look at the product identifications on the on the right hand side you can see that there are four products

01:12:03 products which although they class they test the class naught under the national classification [Music]

01:12:09 [Music] uh full below b and in the case of d there are two products you see that yes i can

01:12:18 if you go to figure one on page fifteen

01:12:23 you can see a key page 15.

01:12:29 here is figure 1 which is attached to the back of this report and we can start with the key and if the key could be blown up please at the bottom right of the screen

01:12:43 i just want to go through with you how this worked you can see some seven product types yes yes so wood has a like a little roundel

01:12:55 like a little roundel paints have a cross in a ring plastics

01:12:58 plastics mineral wool wall coverings cellular plastics which have a little box with a dot in it and board and sheet you see that yes

01:13:09 who devised that set of categories do you know

01:13:12 you know no

01:13:14 no it would have been warrington i'm sure right

01:13:17 right do you know into which category aluminium composite panels sat

01:13:23 sat no i don't now we we know from elsewhere in this report that there were 64 products chosen and tested for the purposes of this exercise

01:13:34 for the purposes of this exercise weren't there um

01:13:37 um yeah i don't know right yes do you know whether any acm panels were selected um i no i don't not not without um

01:13:49 um i no i don't not not without um reviewing all of this and the same question composite do you know whether any composite panels were selected uh no i don't do you remember whether anybody turned

01:14:00 do you remember whether anybody turned their minds to acm or any other composite panel forming the rain screen product at the time of this exercise um no i don't

01:14:12 time of this exercise um no i don't do you consider or did you consider at the time perhaps that the data in this table was representative of the range of products actually available on the market at this time

01:14:22 um i don't recall

01:14:26 um i mean my role in this was very much um arm's length um

01:14:34 um obviously you know warrington were carrying out the research under contract to the department so i would have just been the recipient really of

01:14:44 really of of information i i wouldn't have had a particular

01:14:51 knowledge inside knowledge of of what they were doing

01:14:55 doing if we scroll back out and pan back out so that we can see how this table worked i just want to see if i can follow it through with you and we'll come back to it in due course but

01:15:07 but does it work like this that um you take

01:15:10 you take class naught at the bottom on the bottom axis and you you trace it through put on a product by a product basis and you see which euro norm you meet

01:15:20 meet yes that seems to be the case so for exam and you can tell which products they are by reference to the key yes um yes

01:15:30 yes so looking at class naught you can find which project which class nor products are a one there's one of them yes which is mineral wool yes and that's the x and

01:15:42 is mineral wool yes and that's the x and then if you go up there's um i think nine which are a2 yes and you can see there's a combination of mineral wool uh paint

01:15:53 uh paint etc you see that and then yes b is a larger range of products and then above that c d and e and you could tell which products meet which yes and just looking at that again you can

01:16:04 and just looking at that again you can see the four products which meet c d and e

01:16:08 c d and e yes but which are also class nord yes of which two

01:16:14 two are boxes with a dot cellular plastics yes

01:16:17 yes um

01:16:19 um yes one is wood which is e and one which is a box with an x in it yes which is a wall covering yes yes

01:16:28 yes yes so that's how it works good um now um let's then well perhaps we should break at this point i'm going to go on into some detail here but um mr chairman it's probably a good convenient moment i think so right i think we better have a

01:16:40 think so right i think we better have a break before we get too deeply enriched and always um we'll stop now then we'll resume please at 25 to 4. okay and same as before please don't talk to anyone about your evidence when you're out of

01:16:51 about your evidence when you're out of the room thank you all right thank you very much 25 to 4 please

01:35:32 would you ask dr smith to come back in please

01:35:45 all right dr smith yes thank you good thank you yes mr miller yes thank you mr chairman um dr smith can we now please go to clg 407308

01:35:58 and we'll come we'll come back we'll flip i think back and forth from the radar report to this document now this is a

01:36:05 is a minute of a meeting of the part b working party uh held on the 10th of may 2001

01:36:11 2001 at which you were present yes and you can see your name and anthony byrd's name there as those as one of those present yes and um if you uh look up down at paragraph 1.3 you can see

01:36:24 up down at paragraph 1.3 you can see that it says dr debbie smith from bre stroke frs is presenting he's presently serving the working party and brings her expertise on fire testing and european harmonization to the group is that a

01:36:35 harmonization to the group is that a fair description of your role in this meeting yes yes so i wasn't a permanent member of the working party i was just called in to provide input as needed

01:36:47 called in to provide input as needed and you had expertise on fire testing and european harmonization uh yes yes let's go to page seven and you can see heading on that page radar to reaction

01:36:58 heading on that page radar to reaction to fire uh and above it uh below it there is a paragraph 5.7 and uh starting with the second sentence in that paragraph it says this dr smith

01:37:09 in that paragraph it says this dr smith explained that one problem was that there was an uneven distribution of products submitted for testing since pii is 50 industry led industry sent in the products that it wanted to send in there

01:37:20 products that it wanted to send in there is a natural reluctance by industry to put in poor performing products in simple terms does that mean that the data set in table two of the radar report which

01:37:31 table two of the radar report which we've just been looking at is unrepresentative of the market or is skewed in some way um

01:37:39 um potentially that's potent well that's potentially what that's saying i mean obviously

01:37:43 obviously my report back on this would have been based on the information that had been imparted by warrington in their running of the project um

01:37:54 um [Music]

01:37:55 [Music] so

01:37:56 so i can only you know go by what this says yes yes

01:38:00 yes yes did you factor in that potential for bias into your own work um

01:38:09 well insofar as we had a data set and and whatever the data set was um

01:38:17 um i mean i would have to go back and look to see where the concerns were around that being you know the potential for that causing bias did you factor that potential for bias

01:38:29 did you factor that potential for bias into your own work and your own i'm sure there would have been some consideration of it and potentially some discussion of that with uh with warrington as to the to understand the background to that but it's difficult to

01:38:41 background to that but it's difficult to recollect that now yes does it

01:38:45 does it follow from your identification here of that potential for bias that although table two records the majority of class naught products tested as having achieved class b

01:38:56 tested as having achieved class b in reality there might be many products not submitted for testing but nevertheless available on the market in the united kingdom perhaps in common use

01:39:07 use um that wouldn't or might not have been able to achieve a rating of class b

01:39:14 i think that's probably unlikely in in actual fact because i think a lot of the industry were surprised to some extent they didn't have a huge amount of

01:39:25 extent they didn't have a huge amount of experience with the european norms at this particular time that the radar project was going on so the extent to which

01:39:36 they could have interfered in effect with the distribution of products they submitted was to some degree

01:39:47 was to some degree limited anyway i mean that in the next paragraph there's reference to the aluminium foil faced insulations and i think my recollection of that is that came as

01:39:58 recollection of that is that came as quite a surprise to that sector of the industry that they performed significantly worse in the en

01:40:09 significantly worse in the en test standards than they did in the bs you're making a criticism here as i i think it can be read what would you have liked to have seen as a scientist which

01:40:20 liked to have seen as a scientist which would have provided an even distribution of products

01:40:25 what else what other products would you like to see

01:40:33 i i can't answer that right now i don't i don't remember the details if you like of all of the 60 products that that were tested i mean you'd need to go back and look at that i'd have to try and refresh my memory

01:40:45 i'd have to try and refresh my memory somehow to to remember all of this can you go back please to the radar report

01:40:53 report um clg five zeros nine five one page four table two

01:41:00 and and just look with me at the

01:41:05 results

01:41:09 sorry just wait for it to come up yeah table two

01:41:13 table two we looked at this before you can see the class naught but also c d and e results there for those four products yes and looking at those four products can you tell us what work had

01:41:25 products can you tell us what work had been done

01:41:26 been done to work out how commonly used the class naught products at the bottom of this table achieving those c d and e results were in the uk um i don't know

01:41:38 um i don't know do you know whether any work had been done to work out how commonly used those products were no i don't so for all you knew

01:41:45 knew product ref 1.03 which achieved an e could have been a market leader above 18 meters

01:41:57 i don't know no

01:41:59 no but that's the point um i'm asking you why you don't know my question is did anybody ever did you ever

01:42:07 ever ask yourself that question i wonder how commonly used these three or four types of product or four products are in the united kingdom i mean i i don't recollect that

01:42:20 recollect that i say that the project was very closely run by warrington in conjunction and discussion with the industry and the trade associations that provided the materials and i think there

01:42:32 provided the materials and i think there was probably a general expectation that the trade associations would do a certain amount of that normalization to ensure that they had a representative

01:42:45 to ensure that they had a representative selection of the products that were they were representing um

01:42:51 um but

01:42:52 but yeah i i can't answer that i can't remember

01:42:57 remember the details of the discussions that took place around this that i was parted to what were these products do you know no i don't without you know i sat here now i couldn't i couldn't help

01:43:08 sat here now i couldn't i couldn't help you with that did you in your work advising the working party ever questioned the methodology of using this bell curve type of approach to transposition

01:43:20 transposition without knowing about frequency of use um

01:43:28 no i don't think we did in quite in the way that you're suggesting i mean the the main um goal of this

01:43:37 of this was obviously the removal of barriers to trade it was intended to [Music]

01:43:46 well it wasn't intended it was a legal requirement that any barriers to trade were removed and that the european classes were adopted and you know it wasn't

01:43:58 and you know it wasn't um

01:44:00 um the same kind of treatment had to be applied across the the the um the data sets that that were provided

01:44:12 were provided i think the answer to my question is no you didn't question that methodology can i ask

01:44:19 can i ask can you tell us why that hadn't occurred to you

01:44:23 to you um i don't recall the discussions that we'd had around all of this at the time but yes it would have been we would have discussed the best approach and how to best go about this

01:44:35 did anybody to your knowledge whether in may 2000 or may 2001

01:44:41 may 2001 the radar reports and then this this this meeting consider whether the data set used to transpose national classes to euro classes was fairly representative of what was on

01:44:52 was fairly representative of what was on the market in the united kingdom at the time

01:44:56 i'm sure there would have been discussion of that with warrington and and their project team

01:45:03 team do you know what consideration was given uh to

01:45:08 uh to the possibility that this was an unrepresentative test by the iag or the working party or by the department um

01:45:18 um i don't know what no i don't know what discussions took place outside of that of course now at the time that you and the part b working party were considering the radar

01:45:29 working party were considering the radar two reports in may 2001 i think it's right isn't it that the guidance in approved document b contained only one suggested restriction

01:45:40 contained only one suggested restriction for the use of clatting panels on the external face of buildings above 18 meters and that was that such panels should meet the provisions of diagram 40 and therefore national class naught

01:45:51 national class naught yes i think that's right

01:45:56 and in 2001 as we've already seen i think you were by now aware that the fire at nasally heights in 1991 had spread up the entire external face of the building despite the fact that the cladding panels used

01:46:08 the fact that the cladding panels used had a cheap last naught um yes

01:46:12 yes yes and aware of dr connelly's testing work in 1994 and his conclusions that glass not panels could permit extensive and potentially unlimited uh vertical external fire spread

01:46:24 external fire spread yes

01:46:25 yes and also

01:46:26 and also as we've covered i think repeatedly now the fact that class naught is a a measurement of reaction to fire couldn't or at least couldn't alone give an accurate indication of the true fire hazard of a clouding system

01:46:39 hazard of a clouding system yes that you needed the large-scale methodology yes and also aware in 2001 of the select committee's recommendation that the class naught requirement in the approved documents

01:46:50 approved documents in relation to external services of high-rise buildings should be substituted and replaced by a full-scale test of external clouding systems in what became bsa414

01:47:02 bsa414 yes yes

01:47:04 yes yes and by now i think you were aware weren't you that that recommendation had not been followed by government um bs8414 wasn't published until 2002.

01:47:15 bs8414 wasn't published until 2002. that's correct so it wasn't available at this point but but aware that the recommendation that that test fire note 9 which then became the s8414

01:47:26 which then became the s8414 should should be substituted in place of class naught um that was the recommendation from the um

01:47:37 um the the select committee yes yes and you knew by this time may 2001 that that recommendation had not been followed by the department um

01:47:48 well yes in so far as the approved document said what the approved document said yeah so that that's that's the background in essence and you knew all those things and in the light of that then let's just move on through the

01:47:59 then let's just move on through the document can we go to page five of the um

01:48:04 of the um of

01:48:05 of the radar report

01:48:09 and and

01:48:14 that notes in this end of the first paragraph under three transposition options the following

01:48:21 following for other products their position in the classification matrix is dependent upon a number of factors which may need to be examined on an individual product basis these factors include a the fundamental difference in uk and ec testing systems

01:48:34 difference in uk and ec testing systems especially the use of overall flame spread for uk classification compared to the rate of heat release during the early stages of flame attack in the sbi test for euro classification

01:48:49 uh was that something is that recording something that you said at the meeting do you think um

01:48:57 um i have i i don't know where that came from

01:49:00 from no i can't answer that and if we look at the last

01:49:03 the last paragraph on the page it says

01:49:08 it says this in the second line and it's a question is there any correlation between the i1 index in bs 476 part 6 and figure

01:49:19 index in bs 476 part 6 and figure in the sbi test now

01:49:24 now it's not clear whether that question is actually answered in this document do you know whether that question was ever answered

01:49:32 answered in the course of this working party's work

01:49:34 work um

01:49:37 yeah i don't think there was a direct correlation between part six and figure if we go

01:49:44 if we go to table seven on page seven

01:49:48 just help me with this table seven there is the heat release contributions of uk class one products and you can see um in the column you've got a uk class

01:50:01 um in the column you've got a uk class one product the ec class uh which has four b's and then five c's below the

01:50:10 below the the the horizontal line then you've got bs 476 part six i and i i1 and i those are the indices there and then the figure

01:50:20 figure heat release rates yes it's right isn't it i think that i1 and figra are measuring different things yes absolutely yes and i1

01:50:30 and i1 is an average of three sub-indices measured as fire propagation isn't it yes yeah

01:50:35 yes yeah and therefore it's only part of part of one of the two tests for class north yes yes whereas figra is a fire index growth rate measured in watts per second isn't it correct and again that's

01:50:46 second isn't it correct and again that's only one element of the sbi test which itself is only one element of the euro classification isn't it correct so the fact that the correlation was not 100 and in any event was only one part of each of the tests

01:50:58 was only one part of each of the tests wasn't it

01:51:00 wasn't it yes that's correct yes so the degree of overlap is is small i don't want to use a a word more extravagant than that but it's pretty pretty limited

01:51:11 pretty limited what in terms of the correlation between the two yes yes yeah i would agree and i think you also agree that the test methods and setups were completely different as between these two tests

01:51:23 different as between these two tests absolutely for example do you agree with this that 476 part 6 was set up so that the core of a composite panel never sees the heat source

01:51:32 source unless you burn through the outer layer absolutely so is this right you accept any correlation made no allowance for the differences in size of sample the position and

01:51:43 size of sample the position and direction of the heat or flame source or the way in which the sample was held in place or any detailing or returns well they were completely different completely different

01:51:54 completely different you know the extent in the single burning item test for example you have to include joints and a representative fixing method

01:52:06 a representative fixing method which it's not possible to do that in the part 6 and the part 7 tests so

01:52:12 so you know it's comparing an apple with an orange they're both items of fruit but they are different yes

01:52:22 yes yes

01:52:23 yes against that background and indeed in the light of that analogy did your analysis of the results in table 2 of the radar 2 report which we've seen with the euro classes ranging

01:52:34 we've seen with the euro classes ranging between a1 and e with class naught remaining cause you any concerns in relation to class the class naught classification as a measurement uh for the o of fire reactions in on the

01:52:48 uh for the o of fire reactions in on the external surfaces of high-rise buildings so what what we attempted to do was

01:52:58 increase the the the performance requirement if you like so here i mean you you'll see that the class one

01:53:07 class one um products and some of the class o products have achieved euro class c we did not include euro class c in the same safety level provision

01:53:21 which was one of the proposals from the radar 2 project

01:53:28 yes we'll cut i think come back to the class c question in them in a moment but

01:53:35 were you not concerned by the

01:53:38 by the complete difference between the two tests and the very small degree of overlap in correlation terms between them

01:53:44 them um

01:53:45 um about the adequacy or safety of the transposition process um

01:53:54 well i mean the the transposition process was one that was required in law it had to be um done

01:54:04 um done that there was no option because that had been signed up to by

01:54:10 by various governments in terms of the european

01:54:14 european trade

01:54:17 discussions around the construction products directive and what the uk set out to do was to do this in a responsible manner by testing a range of different products

01:54:32 by testing a range of different products and you know trying to do that i say as safely as possible by um [Music]

01:54:42 [Music] you know ensuring that the lev that the um

01:54:46 um european equivalents were giving a at least an equal or better um

01:54:54 um reaction to fire performance or fire resistance performance indeed um

01:55:00 um and i have to say i mean the uk went way beyond what any other european country did

01:55:06 did maybe it did or maybe it didn't but did you not think that given what you knew and given the limits of the data set 64 products that the transposition was likely to be something of a blunt instrument given

01:55:17 something of a blunt instrument given the complete differences between the two test

01:55:20 test regimes

01:55:22 regimes well i don't know how else this could have been done well let me suggest that the only way of achieving true and safe transposition in other words knowing whether a class

01:55:34 in other words knowing whether a class nor product achieved class b was to subject every product to both tests but that's not a realistic proposition i would suggest i mean it's not for me to say but

01:55:46 say but obviously to explore with the department um you know somebody has to carry out that work and has to um fund that work and

01:55:57 fund that work and you know

01:55:58 you know that's that's an enormous task given that in an admittedly small data set two out of the seven class naught products did not achieve class b

01:56:13 that's not a negligible number is it

01:56:18 sorry i'm i'm not following your point well you have a small data set 64 products tested yes and and you've got seven class naught products that don't achieve class b sorry two out of the seven

01:56:29 seven don't achieve class b right so they achieved class c presumably yeah so that but that percentage was not negligible was it something like 28 percent

01:56:40 percent that's not a negligible proportion of mismatches

01:56:48 um and

01:56:52 and well my point is this my question is this you knew that there was a real risk that a product could achieve class naught but not achieve class b if tested um there were some outliers but there were a large group where

01:57:05 were a large group where they either achieved better performance or they did achieve class b and how was the risk presented by those outliers assessed

01:57:16 um it was flagged it was clear that there were outliers you know it was reported in in the radar

01:57:27 you know it was reported in in the radar results to the department

01:57:32 was any error factor built into the transposition process to cater for the 28

01:57:37 28 of outliers um you call them outliers but i mean two out of seven yeah but i mean that they were when you look at the whole grouping for class o um

01:57:48 um in so far as i mean we couldn't alter the classification limits there's no scope to vary those um

01:57:57 um [Music]

01:57:58 [Music] you know you basically had to come up with some kind of correlation and i sat here now don't know how else you could have done that

01:58:09 could have done that you can't ever i'm sorry sorry unfinished yeah i was just going to say you know given that the two the two regimes are completely different you know you're never going to get 100

01:58:21 you know you're never going to get 100 percent correlation

01:58:25 you're just not i i you're probably not the person to ask this question anyway but there was presumably a transition period wasn't there

01:58:34 there yes there was um

01:58:37 um i can't remember it was probably about two years something like that we could have decided at the beginning of the transition period just to adopt the european classification system and give

01:58:48 european classification system and give industry two years to get their products tested um yes i guess we could but i'd have to check exactly what the transition period was did that ever come up in discussions um i think yes it did come up and i

01:59:00 um i think yes it did come up and i think it was also complicated by the fact that each of the harmonized product standards had their own transition periods as well so where you had

01:59:12 so where you had you know product families

01:59:16 families [Music]

01:59:18 [Music] they had to follow their own transition periods

01:59:21 periods which could be up to i think 36 months so every every product category was following a different timeline their start point was different

01:59:34 start point was different so

01:59:35 so you know it's an immensely complicated landscape really around all of that

01:59:44 we're going to come to the transition periods

01:59:47 periods uh shortly i think um can we go back to the radar 2 report uh at clg 50 is 951 page six please

01:59:58 uh at clg 50 is 951 page six please table six

02:00:01 top of the page possible option for transposition of classes to reaction to fire performance and you can see there's the basic uh table there with class naught showing b or better and there are three

02:00:13 showing b or better and there are three ticks

02:00:14 ticks and there's some handwriting there do you know whose handwriting that is no i don't

02:00:20 don't it's not yours is it no it isn't

02:00:24 so is it right that despite the data in table two that we've seen with the four products achieving class naught but only achieving classes

02:00:35 naught but only achieving classes c

02:00:36 c uh d and e and in two cases d uh

02:00:42 uh the proposal here was to equate class naught with euro class b

02:00:47 uh yes that appears to be the case and so what what how are they out you call them outliers how were those four products treated were they ignored

02:00:59 products treated were they ignored or was an error factor built into the work in order to cater for their presence um

02:01:05 um well it wasn't possible to build in an error factor because we couldn't alter the classification limit so you got the class that you got when you tested according to the

02:01:17 you tested according to the the ens

02:01:19 the ens now you've told us that to your knowledge there was no investigation of the

02:01:23 the frequency of use of those four products which had not achieved class i don't know b

02:01:28 know b i don't know because i don't know what they were so there may have been with warrington but i don't recall that do you know from your own knowledge uh how

02:01:38 uh how those four products were were left and how would they be catered for in this harmonization program would they just be ignored yeah i don't know you don't know

02:01:49 don't know if we go to page eight please in the top of the page a little c you see this

02:01:56 under little c it says any reference to class naught being equivalent to euro class a two would severely restrict the market choice in terms of materials for specifiers and clients this applies to

02:02:07 specifiers and clients this applies to virtually all organic containing materials in germany and france the authorities have a single classification ieb1 or m1 thus euro class b could be a cross-border compromise which is

02:02:19 cross-border compromise which is supported by the high product density obtained at the class naught to clark euro class b transposition point uh now

02:02:29 uh now the the the high product density that's referred to there is that

02:02:36 is that a reference to the cluster of products that we saw in figure one with the table i would imagine it is right

02:02:47 right now when it says here any reference to class north being equivalent to euro class a2 would severely restrict the market choice was there a view

02:02:58 was there a view that only very few products achieving class naught would be capable of achieving euro class a2 i don't know exactly what the motivation for that comment was but that is one

02:03:09 for that comment was but that is one possible

02:03:11 possible reason for saying that yes and causing a severe restriction of choice at the end of any period of coexistence of the two classification mesh methods

02:03:23 two classification mesh methods it was

02:03:25 it was was that what was thought might happen if class naught would achieve was required to achieve euro class a2 that's what that suggests with the potential disruption of the market yes

02:03:39 does this mean that any reference to class naught being equivalent to or required to be class a2 would have been likely to have met with resistance from industry

02:03:48 industry um

02:03:49 um yes i believe that is what that would have done and if pushed through caused loss to the uk construction industry potentially yes

02:04:00 but it would also not mean that if the class naught was made to be equivalent to class 2 a2 that would mean that at the end of any period of

02:04:09 period of transition buildings over 18 meters would be clad in materials that performed better in a fire

02:04:18 um yes

02:04:22 quite apart from the potential disruption to industry can you tell us what were the views of others uh in particular the department anthony bird in particular about safety

02:04:36 i don't know i mean you'd have to ask i mean from your perspective and doing the best you can to recall was the balancing exercise being conducted by government so far as you

02:04:48 conducted by government so far as you could see it being conducted between on the one hand the need to avoid the risk of market distortion and on the other the need to ensure that fire safety standards were maintained

02:04:59 fire safety standards were maintained um i think that's fair that there was a yeah there was a compromise it was a compromise and was that discussed during any of the meetings of this working party that you attended um

02:05:12 i don't recall and do you know how government went about achieving that compromise or balancing public safety as against industry choice no i don't

02:05:24 no i don't if we go back to the meeting note uh please of the 10th of may 2001 at clg 407308

02:05:36 let's go down let's go back to the first page and look at paragraph 1.3 we looked at this before

02:05:45 and you told us that you were the expert there on fire testing and european harmonization what at the time was your expertise in respect of european harmonization um

02:05:59 so i think i had been at that point in attendance at some of the european discussions of

02:06:09 of the official laboratories group as it was called which was working in the years up to 2000 and

02:06:21 in the years up to 2000 and around 2000 2001 on the development of the single burning item test and the classification limits

02:06:33 associated with those tests and that was all directed by the european

02:06:41 european standing committee on construction who then had their own subgroup which was the fire regulators group so they in effect controlled and directed the work of the

02:06:53 controlled and directed the work of the official laboratories group in in developing the new um it was mainly the single burning item test because the other like reaction to fire tests were already published as

02:07:08 iso standards so they were picked up and adopted and then republished as european norms as well

02:07:16 well if we go to page two of this document please next in paragraph 3.3 we can see that anthony bird outlined the main aim of the cpd he says which was to break down technical

02:07:27 which was to break down technical barriers to trade between member states of the eu it is not the purpose of the directive to harmonize building regulations and then he goes on to say in the fourth line there what the cpd will do is to

02:07:38 line there what the cpd will do is to harmonize methods of fire testing i.e reaction to fire and fire resistance the cpd will have a huge impact it will affect how products are tested labeled and moved around europe and

02:07:49 and moved around europe and manufacturers are beginning to realize this

02:07:52 this would you agree that the extent of the impact on manufacturers in practical terms

02:07:57 terms would depend to a large extent on decisions made by the department in particular about transposition and equivalence between the two systems um yes and i mean i think what he's

02:08:08 um yes and i mean i think what he's referring to here is um

02:08:10 um [Music]

02:08:12 [Music] that by following the new um testing regime reaction to fire and fire resistance um

02:08:20 um those products that have been tested and classified according to the ens would then be able to move freely throughout europe they would not then have to test in each country that they were sold into

02:08:34 in each country that they were sold into so i think that's really what he's saying there in that last sentence that's a positive thing but was there also not a negative thing that manufacturers are beginning to realize that their products needed to be um

02:08:46 that their products needed to be um tested under the or at least tested as an equivalent under the um uh the built the cpd

02:08:55 cpd otherwise they couldn't move their products that's absolutely right yes yeah they would have to have the new european norms and the classification to benefit from that yes and this would depend on decisions made by the department about transposition

02:09:06 department about transposition equivalence and the transition period presumably um

02:09:14 well the department had to do it did you advise on the transition period um

02:09:23 um no no because that was all set out in the european legislation as i understood it let's make let's scroll down in the minutes then to page seven and look at paragraph 5.8

02:09:37 you're recorded there

02:09:40 page seven

02:09:46 5.8 um

02:09:49 um you'll record it there is saying this debbie smith went on to point out that a direct equivalence between uk classes and euro classes was not possible problems arise as radar 2 is based on a small data set and certain

02:10:00 based on a small data set and certain products such as aluminium foil-faced insulation products are problematic concern was also expressed that that in the radar 2 proposal the uk class 2 had been equated with euro class

02:10:12 class 2 had been equated with euro class c together with uk class 1 this could be seen as lowering standards dr smith reassured the members that in the draft european supplement they had not done this uk class 2 is equated more readily

02:10:23 this uk class 2 is equated more readily to euro class d members agree that we must not be seen to be lowering standards do you remember what was the basis for your view that direct equivalence between the two systems of classification was not possible

02:10:35 classification was not possible um

02:10:37 um it was based on the fact that the test methodologies are completely different yeah as we've discussed yes yeah and what was meant by direct equivalence um as opposed to what

02:10:54 they're not they're not measuring the same

02:10:57 same properties what sort of equivalence would in your view at the time have been possible um if you'd got two test methodologies that were both based on heat release rate for example then

02:11:09 on heat release rate for example then you might have been able to have demonstrated an equivalence but they weren't and by whom was it agreed at the meeting as is said that we must not be seen to be lowering

02:11:20 we must not be seen to be lowering standards

02:11:21 standards i don't recall was any consideration actually given to what to whatever the importance of perception might have been standards were actually being levered by the method of transposition you were

02:11:32 the method of transposition you were considering um i i don't know i don't i don't recall that did i mean if anybody had objected i think it would have been recorded probably so this suggests that

02:11:45 recorded probably so this suggests that nobody

02:11:47 nobody raised any um concerns now do you remember that your own recommendation was that national class naught should be scrapped and replaced with euro class c

02:11:59 and replaced with euro class c you remember that b with you're a class b well

02:12:03 well let's see how we go on this um can we go to page nine please of this uh document and look at paragraph 6.8

02:12:15 at 6.8 it says requirement b4 external fire spread is to remain unchanged dr smith explained that the current diagram 40 in adb 2000 on the restricted use of materials based

02:12:26 on the restricted use of materials based on bs476 part 6 performance can no longer be used and we must agree what is what to put in its place

02:12:33 its place dr smith suggested replacing the performance requirement index i not more than 20 with class c

02:12:41 on roofs no guidance yet possible etc and then at the last line therefore for the time being the current national test methods and classification systems are to prevail were you proposing that class

02:12:52 to prevail were you proposing that class naught be replaced by class c in diagram 40.

02:12:57 i don't understand the context of this reading this now i don't know why

02:13:05 why it would be said it can no longer be used

02:13:09 used in

02:13:10 in 2000

02:13:15 i'm sorry i don't i don't recall the context of this this doesn't make much sense reading this now well i was wondering i wonder whether you could help with it now let me ask

02:13:26 let me ask you um

02:13:30 you um this

02:13:31 this was this possibly a reference to

02:13:36 to the part of the building in diagram 40 that dealt with the the exterior below 18 meters

02:13:45 um

02:13:48 i mean it may have been but as i say i don't know why it would we would be talking about bs476 can no longer be used

02:13:58 used it certainly looks from this that you were recommending that

02:14:07 class naught be scrapped because class naught depends on passing part six as well as part seven yes i mean i i wouldn't like to read too much into this because i say i can't understand the context of this as i read

02:14:19 understand the context of this as i read it now

02:14:26 let me see if i can help because i don't want there to be confusion about this i i think you may need to see the then extant diagram 40. now this is of course may 2001

02:14:38 2001 if we go please two clg one

02:14:43 five zeros twelve

02:14:49 that's approved document b two 2000 edition if we go to page 90

02:15:00 you can see that there is a diagram there is diagram 14 that was i'm going to assume dr smith that this was diagram 40 under discussion in may 2001 at this meeting

02:15:12 discussion in may 2001 at this meeting um yes i guess it would have been yes now we can see class naught there for the dark shaded part of the building yes but then we see under the the lighter shaded the medium shaded building in the

02:15:24 shaded the medium shaded building in the box on the right hand side index i

02:15:30 i not more than 20 and that relates to the part of the building under 18 meters doesn't it yes it does

02:15:37 it does can you help us therefore going back to um the minutes that we were looking at what you were referring to no still i still don't understand why

02:15:48 no still i still don't understand why it's saying that that can't be used and we have to decide what we have to replace it with

02:15:54 right now um so you can't help no i was it your view that class naught should be replaced scrapped and replaced immediately or at the end at least of a period of

02:16:06 or at the end at least of a period of transition um

02:16:09 um well it's my understanding that that is indeed what would happen right

02:16:15 and at the time of this meeting it was envisaged was it that there would be a period of transition do you know whether it had been decided um i don't know at that meeting at the time of that meeting whether it had been but

02:16:27 of that meeting whether it had been but yes that there would have been a transition period can you remember how long that transition period was to be at that time i don't remember exactly i mean i i do recollect various time periods being

02:16:39 recollect various time periods being spoken about two years but then as i say in the context of the harmonized standards that then became 36 months so you know things were

02:16:50 so you know things were quite complicated and often interfered with by decisions that were taken you know by the european commission as well

02:16:57 well now going back to this question of replacement with class c it's right i think isn't it that replacing class naught with a2 would have been the most restrictive and caused the most disruption to industry but a replacement with class c would have been

02:17:09 with class c would have been significantly less restrictive and less burden to some to industry wouldn't it um what instead of class oh you mean yes yes

02:17:17 yes do you know what whether there was a response to your suggestion as recorded here

02:17:22 here um no i don't did people agree or disagree do you remember if it's not recorded in in the minutes i i don't know i don't have any tell me the collection i'm sorry sorry

02:17:33 tell me the collection i'm sorry sorry can we then go back to the minute at page 11

02:17:36 page 11 paragraph 620

02:17:40 and it says there on page 15 an amended diagram 40 needs to be produced and anthony ferguson questioned the last line of the final paragraph which states index i normal than 20 should be

02:17:51 index i normal than 20 should be replaced by class c debbie smith could not recall exactly where the figure came from and remarked there was a general lack of data as i say that that appears to be a discussion about the content of the draft european supplement to the

02:18:03 draft european supplement to the approved document is that right um

02:18:07 um yes it probably is because it says on page 15 yeah

02:18:12 yeah exactly do you know why that section needed to be amended to read class c do you think your proposal has been accepted at this stage no i don't know

02:18:26 and you can't help about any of this no i can't did you undertake any investigations that you

02:18:35 that you undertook to investigate where it says action bre to investigate this information i'm sure we would have done at the time do you know what those investigations involved or revealed um no i don't

02:18:49 involved or revealed um no i don't going back to the idea of equivalence and your own view that a direct equivalence between the two systems was not possible as we've seen and as you've confirmed

02:18:56 confirmed today

02:18:58 today if you look at paragraph 5.8 okay back to

02:19:02 to that please in this document page 7 you can see that you say there

02:19:09 um

02:19:12 in the third and fourth lines certain products such as aluminium foil-faced insulation products are problematic yes

02:19:20 yes now let's just focus on that let's look please back at the radar 2 report please at clg

02:19:27 at clg 50951 page 9.

02:19:35 paragraph four point five clg five zeros nine five one page nine paragraph four point five cellular plastic sector and let's look together with me at a

02:19:49 and let's look together with me at a in a

02:19:50 in a it says this in the short report in part one ref three which accompanied the presentation of the data on the comparisons between the euro class system and the uk fire assessment procedures two conclusions were drawn concerning cellular plastics products

02:20:03 concerning cellular plastics products these were one for the product group as a whole no correlation was obtained between the euro class system and the uk system two for steel and plasterboard-faced products there was a good correlation with the uk class

02:20:14 good correlation with the uk class naught values corresponding to a euro class b

02:20:18 class b i'm just focusing on the first paragraph of that

02:20:21 of that no correlation for the whole group um

02:20:25 um were you surprised or concerned by that

02:20:28 um well i guess that's what gave rise to my comment that you've just um shown in the in the notes that that it was problematic yes uh and if we look at the second point

02:20:39 uh and if we look at the second point for steel and plasterboard faced products it looks from the discussion below it that that wasn't limited to homogenous products but did include composite panels with a cellular plastic core

02:20:50 core yes uh yes that appears to be the case yes but they could only achieve class b because of the combustible component i think that's right isn't it because of the um

02:20:59 the um the surface that

02:21:04 you say because of the surface in fact isn't it because of the combustible component

02:21:10 i think we're probably talking across purposes

02:21:13 purposes but they they achieved class naught because of the steel face or the plasterboard phase in indeed yes but they could only achieve class b because of the combustible component

02:21:26 we couldn't achieve a2 or a1 oh correct yes sorry we're talking yeah yes

02:21:32 but whether they achieved class b or not wouldn't depend on the fire performance of the facing product would it

02:21:40 um well obviously the performance is dependent upon the whole the whole product that's submitted to the test in the euro test yes did you assume that all facing material

02:21:52 did you assume that all facing material would behave the same did i assume yeah no

02:21:56 no because the reason i ask is a steel and plasterboard is not the same as aluminium is it because aluminium might deform and fall off yes

02:22:03 yes if we look at b products four stroke zero five and 412 which also give class naught on the uk system

02:22:10 system give respectively classes euro classes c and d in the european assessment both of these products have a relatively thin aluminium foil face flexible foam laminates respectively based on

02:22:22 laminates respectively based on polyisocyanurate and phenolic foam with these products it was observed that in the sbi test the aluminium foil facing was penetrated such that the underlying foam was then available to

02:22:33 underlying foam was then available to contribute to the rate of heat release calculation whereas in the uk bs 476 part 6 the heat release found in that test was not sufficient to displace the classification away from the ucla class

02:22:46 classification away from the ucla class naught

02:22:47 naught clearly the introduction of a simple replacement of uk class naught by a euro class b requirement in any regulatory procedure would discriminate against products 405 and

02:22:58 discriminate against products 405 and 412 against the practical experience of their acceptability in the uk market for class naught applications now

02:23:06 now i just want to understand that just to simplifying it just is this is this right warrington had concluded that some cellular plastic products

02:23:17 products composite products achieve class naught but not class b is this right because the heat release rate satisfied part six but didn't meet the figure levels

02:23:28 but didn't meet the figure levels required in the sbi test to meet class b but only classes c or d um

02:23:35 um in principle yes that's yeah that's it but in summary but requiring those products now to meet class b would effectively limit their market and discriminate them against

02:23:46 market and discriminate them against them um yes that's what that's saying had you previously been aware that although several of the products which achieve class not in the uk national classification system achieve class b in the euro in the euro

02:23:58 achieve class b in the euro in the euro system

02:24:00 system foil faced poly isocyanurate and phenolic foam insulation products got class naught but only d and c respectively in the euro system um not prior to this right

02:24:12 euro system um not prior to this right were you surprised by that result um surprised

02:24:18 surprised um

02:24:19 um well

02:24:21 well it was a data point so i don't think i was surprised or not surprised

02:24:26 surprised um it was significant there wasn't it um

02:24:31 um yes but i suppose in the way not surprising because the fire exposure in the single burning item test is

02:24:40 sufficiently is harsher in the sense that you have flames directly impinging upon the surface of the um

02:24:48 the um product that's being tested not surprising to you um

02:24:54 um from what you could tell did anthony bird understand that did government understand yes i believe so i think anthony was present in these discussions

02:25:05 present in these discussions now focusing on the final sentence that i've read out to you i'll read it again

02:25:12 about what we want the last two sentences there i think um

02:25:16 um and focusing on the penultimate sentence not sufficient to displace the classification away from class naught and then then it goes on clearly the introduction of a simple replacement of the uk class north by euro class b

02:25:28 the uk class north by euro class b requirement in any regulatory procedure would discriminate against products 405 and 412

02:25:35 and 412 against the practical experience of their acceptability in the uk market for class naught applications what did you understand the report to mean by the words discriminate against there

02:25:50 it would mean that those products if if we went with the transposition of where the requirements are class o you require euro class b

02:26:02 you require euro class b it would mean that products that had previously been class o and had been used in a range of applications could no longer be used

02:26:16 did you consider that it was important to avoid discriminating against foil face pir and pf

02:26:25 and pf uh phenolic foam polymer foam insulation products regardless of their comparatively poor reaction to fire performance when assessed under the euro class system no and um within the context of you know

02:26:39 no and um within the context of you know the internal linings etc then um

02:26:42 um say the the equivalence is class o and class

02:26:46 class b what was the problem with discriminating against products that when tested under the euro class system performed inadequately

02:26:58 sorry said that could you please repeat that what was the problem with discriminating against products which when tested under the euro-class regime performed inadequately

02:27:09 performed inadequately um from my perspective there wasn't one no it was

02:27:15 no it was from can you tell us about whether there was one from the government's perspective um

02:27:22 um that is where

02:27:26 well obviously they will need to speak for themselves but yes i mean the the the premise of the introduction of the construction products directive and the

02:27:36 and the framework that they they set out and was required within europe was to remove barriers of trade not to necessarily remove products from

02:27:47 not to necessarily remove products from the market

02:27:50 from your knowledge was the rationale in that last sentence there

02:27:55 there namely the potential for discrimination against those two products

02:28:02 a factor in the continued retention of the national classes and particular national class naught i don't know was there any discussion about this

02:28:13 was there any discussion about this about whether it might be beneficial to fire safety to restrict the

02:28:18 the uh use of those products on the basis that although they achieved class naught they didn't achieve class b

02:28:26 class b um

02:28:28 um not within that context i don't believe only in so far as

02:28:35 there was a progression towards the adoption of the european classifications and you know with the expectation that the national classes would

02:28:46 classes would disappear

02:28:49 disappear mr german it's uh thank you mr chairman it's 4 30 we ask deep into this topic but we're not going to finish this somewhere about halfway across the pond on it we're not going to finish it this evening well the risk

02:29:01 finish it this evening well the risk the document's gone from the screen do you think we could have the um document back up please at the risk of trespassing on your questioning for tomorrow um what if you can help me with this

02:29:13 um what if you can help me with this um do you see the sentence in subparagraph b which has been underlined in manuscript yes um which refers to the practical experience of their acceptability in the

02:29:26 experience of their acceptability in the uk market for class naught applications do you recall any discussion about the what practical experience is being referred to

02:29:38 experience is being referred to no i'm sorry i don't um

02:29:42 um i mean that may well have come oh this is warrington report no i mean it would have been based on warrington's understanding and knowledge i mean i asked the question because i'm

02:29:55 i mean i asked the question because i'm a little uncertain what practical experience one would get unless there was a fire yes i i i'm sorry i don't know right thank you well if you do have any further thoughts you can follow it up

02:30:06 further thoughts you can follow it up tomorrow thank you mr chairman no thank you i think that's i think it's time we stop for the day dr smith so we'll break there we'll resume please at 10 o'clock tomorrow and um as i said before many times

02:30:19 and um as i said before many times please don't talk to anyone about your evidence

02:30:22 evidence or anything related to it over the break all right yes thank you very much thank you

02:30:37 and uh before we

02:30:40 before we write can i just say thank you to our stand-in stenographer and document manager who performs it's in an exemplary manner today thank you both very much yes thank you very much um

02:30:51 much um thank you mr millet well 10 o'clock tomorrow then please thank you very much mr chairman

02:31:27 you