Building Research Establishment Evidence - Thursday 17th February 2022 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:25 [Music] good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing

00:00:30 hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from dr sarah colwell of the bre so i'm going to ask dr colwell to come back in at this point thank you

00:00:49 good morning dr colwell good morning last lap

00:00:52 last lap are you ready to continue i am ready thank you very much good morning yes thank you yes good morning dr colwell now um one of the points we were discussing yesterday not long before we broke off was about the faq and you told

00:01:06 broke off was about the faq and you told us that by august september 2014 you and others at the bre had decided not to go down the faq route not to propose that to government and instead

00:01:17 propose that to government and instead wait for the revised version of adb yes yes

00:01:21 yes now

00:01:22 now uh in that period um so thinking back to august september 2014 when did you understand any revised version of the approved document would likely to be finalized

00:01:34 document would likely to be finalized at that point i

00:01:38 i don't recall that in detail as to to what that

00:01:42 what that that timeline of that process would be right you said it was dr smith informing you about this revision to adb did she give you any time frame within which this review of adb would

00:01:53 within which this review of adb would start or finish no it was a general discussion in the industry around that time that this was was imminently on it in in its way that that was the sort of the understanding that people were

00:02:04 the understanding that people were coming to that there was a revision due right one of the reasons i ask is were you aware

00:02:10 you aware at this point that adb had indeed been revised and a new edition was enforced from the 6th of april 2013 so there'd been quite a recent version of adb were you aware of that

00:02:21 you aware of that yes that there had been amendments that had been made at that time so how could you think that a a further addition might not be too far away my understanding was that there was

00:02:34 away my understanding was that there was more work to be done that was being led to to to discuss that right i see and help us with this um why does any further version of adb preclude an faq

00:02:47 further version of adb preclude an faq going out certainly on the big questions the big points that were being raised by industry why were there two you know why were they inconsistent with one another they weren't were they

00:02:59 one another they weren't were they i'd never been involved in an faq um

00:03:02 um previously so um my understanding of of how they worked was um

00:03:08 was um not not that clear um beyond understanding that it was a

00:03:15 it was a sort of a reference single point rather than a immediate major piece of um reinterpretation right so you didn't understand an faq the faq section of the department's

00:03:26 the faq section of the department's website could be used to flag important matters immediately or at least quickly given that reviews of the statutory guidance do tend to take some time no i didn't i didn't i didn't unders

00:03:38 didn't i didn't i didn't unders understand or had no appreciation that that was the the type of approach right i see now let's go back to what was happening with this you and the cwct now if we go to bre three zeros one six one zero one

00:03:52 to bre three zeros one six one zero one this is quite a long email chain we don't need to go through all of it it begins on the 7th of july 2014 so just a few days just five days after that cwct meeting we were looking at

00:04:04 meeting we were looking at all of this was forwarded to you we can see that at the top of the chain but just so you have the context if we look at the second email down at the

00:04:15 look at the second email down at the bottom of page three

00:04:20 so what we can see is that on the 7th of july

00:04:24 july sorry we can't quite see that yeah um

00:04:30 second email down on page three that's an email from yes so stuart taylor of win tech is writing to david metcalf

00:04:41 david metcalf of the cwct querying advice which had been given to carrera facades by alan keeler of the cwct about the use of their class b acantha panels over 18 meters

00:04:53 panels over 18 meters and we can see from stuart taylor's email that win tech have taken the view that wind as as wintec did early on following stuart taylor's call with you

00:05:04 following stuart taylor's call with you that the guidance in paragraph 12.7 of approved document b extended to external cladding panels generally and not just to insulation so that's the context to this

00:05:16 so that's the context to this and if we go up to the the next email on page three where we can see there david metcalf's

00:05:22 metcalf's response to stuart taylor i just want to read from the second paragraph where he says he says that based on what is currently written in adb it would appear that the carrera rain screen

00:05:34 appear that the carrera rain screen panels comply for use over 18 meters the panels achieve b s1 d0 in accordance with en13501 and our class naught and therefore would meet the requirements

00:05:46 therefore would meet the requirements for external surfaces given in clause 12 diagram 40 and then he goes on in the next paragraph clause 12.7 makes no reference to cladding panels etc and the current

00:05:57 to cladding panels etc and the current view

00:05:58 view is that

00:06:00 is that is that this does not apply to such materials where it gets confusing is that the discussions we had last week went a lot further and suggested that the materials referred to in clause 12.7

00:06:12 the materials referred to in clause 12.7 include panels and membranes etc we still do not know if this is the intention of that clause if it is it is very poorly written and misleading and needs clarifying asap

00:06:24 needs clarifying asap and then in the final paragraph he says i hope this is of some use i'm very sorry that i cannot give you a definitive answer the more we look into the file regulations the messier it becomes what is clear is that further

00:06:36 becomes what is clear is that further guidance is needed and i hope cwct will be able to ride this soon now

00:06:42 now david metcalfe alan keeler and stuart taylor had all attended the cwct fire group meeting we know that now did it become clear to you when you received this chain of emails

00:06:54 received this chain of emails that

00:06:55 that not only was approved document be unclear to some but also it was still not being accepted by people that clause 12.7 applied to

00:07:06 people that clause 12.7 applied to cladding panels did you realize that

00:07:14 at the time i wasn't making the connection that they were not taking on board would have been discussed right yes

00:07:20 yes because it also appears clear from this email that the cwct were continuing to advise industry that for buildings over 18 meters as long as the external cladding panels are

00:07:31 long as the external cladding panels are achieved a b or a national class nor that complied yes um

00:07:37 um i yeah without reading that again then that would appear to be yes yes and my question is did that not make the need for clarification a matter of some urgency given that that appeared to be

00:07:49 urgency given that that appeared to be the advice that a body like the cwct was carrying on giving to industry

00:07:59 uh given given the review with hindsight where we are now yes absolutely now

00:08:06 now going a bit further up on this chain to the bottom of page two we can see that stuart taylor forwards this email to you perhaps we could blow that up it is very tiny

00:08:17 that up it is very tiny um so on the 7th of july stuart taylor forwards the email to you and he writes there still appears to be great confusion regarding adb clause 12.7 in

00:08:28 confusion regarding adb clause 12.7 in the recent fire group meeting we briefly discussed the scope of clause 12.7 in particular whether it includes all components within the facade construction ie not just insulation products it has been wintek's

00:08:40 products it has been wintek's understanding for many years that all elements of the facade construction including rain screen panels etc should comply with 12.7 when the building has a story in excess of 18 meters above ground level following the fire group

00:08:52 ground level following the fire group meeting you stated that you would speak with brian martin regarding this topic with the intention of producing further clarification within the faq f and q section of the adb portal

00:09:03 f and q section of the adb portal in the meantime i'd be grateful if you would review the short email trail below and provide your interpretation regarding this matter do you see that yes i do

00:09:14 now do you remember ever replying to that email there's no record of any reply

00:09:19 reply um to that where you'd reviewed the emails below and given your opinion do you remember doing that no i don't the next email up in the chain we look at that is on the 6th of august

00:09:31 we look at that is on the 6th of august so a month later is again from stuart taylor who writes to

00:09:41 david metcalfe and he says this i've just spoken with sarah

00:09:46 sarah she has proposed that cwct win wintec and bre meet to discuss this issue further with the intention of formulating the wording for the proposed f and q section within the adb portal it

00:09:59 f and q section within the adb portal it is proposed that this wording is then presented to brian martin for his sign off sarah is currently away until september and it is suggested that we meet around the 8th or 9th of september

00:10:10 meet around the 8th or 9th of september a venue for the meeting is not yet set however we can meet at bre or cwct sarah also proposes that we can discuss any other questions queries regarding adb at this meeting do you see that yes

00:10:24 adb at this meeting do you see that yes so do you remember having a call with stuart taylor on the 6th of august at which you proposed a meeting between the cwct win tech and the bre i don't recall the call but if um as stewards recorded

00:10:36 the call but if um as stewards recorded an email to that then i would right and do you remember offering to discuss at the meeting as stuart taylor says in this last section of his email any other questions or queries regarding adb

00:10:49 or queries regarding adb no um it would be uh related to well

00:10:55 my recollection of anything around that time would have been with regard to the further developments relating from that cwct meeting right so you don't think you you offered to talk about any

00:11:06 think you you offered to talk about any other questions regarding adb he's mistaken about that is he i believe so right

00:11:11 right um now the rest of this email chain is taken up with arranging the meeting that stuart taylor said that you proposed and we look at the top of page two you said you'd be happy to meet on the

00:11:22 said you'd be happy to meet on the eighth of september we can see that yes just the eight still work at the bre and then going up to page one to the very top of the chain you have forward the entire chain

00:11:33 you have forward the entire chain to stephen howard on the second of september

00:11:36 september yes yes

00:11:38 yes yes and just to note none of this is dealt with in your witness statement is it we didn't get any of that in your statement

00:11:46 uh i i didn't uh before that email no right um let's go to the witness statement of alan keila now at cwct

00:11:57 alan keila now at cwct 40119

00:11:59 40119 at page seven and in paragraphs 25 and 26.

00:12:04 26. he says i attended a meeting with stuart taylor and sarah colwell at bre on the 8th of september 2014 there was also another member of staff from bre present but i cannot recall his name

00:12:15 but i cannot recall his name i cannot recall any details of the meeting my recollection is that it confirmed the need for dclg to provide confirmation of the intent of clause 12.7 and it was agreed that this would

00:12:26 12.7 and it was agreed that this would be done by means of an faq do you see that i do yes do you remember this meeting do you remember attending it i remember i remember the meeting taking place yes

00:12:37 i remember the meeting taking place yes and can you help us who at the bre attended because he believed that somebody else from bre as well as yourself was present i would uh having forwarded the email to

00:12:48 i would uh having forwarded the email to stephen howard i would imagine it would mean stephen right

00:12:52 right um

00:12:53 um and

00:12:55 and do you remember that it it that at that meeting it confirmed the need for dclg to provide confirmation of the intent of clause 12.7 it was uh to build on the uh discussions of how

00:13:07 to build on the uh discussions of how that um that route could be taken forward yes yes

00:13:13 now if we go to brief briefly to stuart taylor's notes of this meeting there at uh win 701 at page 40 we can see uh that there and the top part of the

00:13:25 uh that there and the top part of the page he's recorded that it was it was indeed stephen howard as well as yourself attending from the bre but also he's got tony baker there do you see that yes

00:13:35 that yes does that sound right to you that tony baker attended this meeting entirely possible yes and then towards the bottom of that page third paragraph up from the end we can see it says

00:13:47 see it says bre to prepare words for adb portal 12.7 clarification expand that a tested insulation cannot be used in a different system and be

00:13:58 be used in a different system and be approved do you see those words i do yes and do you remember discussing that at the meeting uh

00:14:07 i i don't i don't recall that no

00:14:11 does it sound right to you that at this meeting the bre agreed to prepare words for the adb portal including 12.7 clarification

00:14:22 i i can't recall the content to the meeting in detail if that is how the the finders from that were reported then that would be um their notes from that that that conversation yes right and you

00:14:33 that that conversation yes right and you don't disagree with those notes i don't i don't disagree because i have no uh recollection or evidence to say otherwise right so we know this meeting took place on the 8th of september how

00:14:44 took place on the 8th of september how does this fit with what you told us yesterday yesterday you said that by august

00:14:49 august or september the bre had decided that the faq route wasn't one they were going to pursue so had you already decided that when you met the cwct and win tech at this point

00:15:02 met the cwct and win tech at this point or was that decision taken after this meeting

00:15:06 meeting i as as

00:15:08 i as as i said yesterday we were

00:15:11 we were becoming aware that it was it was more than a single point response that the document needed and

00:15:21 and looking at where the the changes were going to be required it was going to be a larger piece of work around that the decision was taken around that that time of august september to look at

00:15:34 time of august september to look at whether that was better to to move to a full review of part 12. and

00:15:41 and part of the outcome of the meeting from this was clare it was clear that there was more required than just a simple faq question with a written answer it was a more detailed response that was needed

00:15:53 more detailed response that was needed yes but can you help me with my question which is had the bre decided that the faq faq route wasn't one they were going to pursue

00:16:02 to pursue before or after this meeting i think this fed into that me the the outcome of this meeting fed into that those sets of discussions right so are you saying you were already

00:16:13 you saying you were already what questioning within the bre whether this was an appropriate route we were we were debating that at this time yes right but what a final decision within the bre was taken after this meeting is

00:16:24 the bre was taken after this meeting is that your evidence that would that's my recollection yes right and and what shortly after this meeting

00:16:33 i think it it it came

00:16:38 it came as a result when when looking at trying to work again with what was being requested

00:16:43 requested um

00:16:44 um that this was was a route that was not proving to be um in our view addressing the the wider wider need right and where you candid

00:16:55 wider need right and where you candid with the cwct and wintec at this meeting by revealing to them that the bre had some concerns about this faq route i believe we were but i don't think we

00:17:06 believe we were but i don't think we were as i don't believe we were as explicit as to say we don't believe this is the route to take i think we were still

00:17:12 still looking at it as a as an option as part of that meeting and that as as i said yesterday i think that is my biggest uh on reflection that we perhaps didn't discuss it as openly

00:17:23 discuss it as openly in that context as we as we could or should have done right and you talked about a wider need which needed addressing what wider need were you thinking needed to be addressed going

00:17:34 thinking needed to be addressed going back to the original aims and objectives of the cwct meeting earlier in july right i see i mean would it be fair to say it looks from this

00:17:45 from this note though you at least you left uh

00:17:49 uh stuart taylor with the impression that you were going to go away and draft something yes i i would agree that we left him without opinion yes

00:17:58 yes now let's move on um on the 7th of october 2014 is it right that you attended a cwct members conference um

00:18:08 um i believe i believe i did in in october yes yes we believe that you gave a presentation at that conference it was at the science museum do you remember that

00:18:18 that i

00:18:18 i i've been advised that i was present i don't remember the event itself no right um if we go to met 30806

00:18:29 um if we go to met 30806 this is the cwctmagm

00:18:32 and members meeting and there's a list of members you're present in this list of members do you see speakers in fact at the top

00:18:43 at the top second email second name down sarah colwell bre so it looks that you actually spoke at this conference do you remember that i believe so yes i do do you remember what you spoke about uh if

00:18:55 you spoke about uh if it would have been large-scale testing right

00:18:58 right and do you remember attending the whole of the conference or just your presentation i believe i only attended my presentation right because if we look at alan keeler's presentation uh this is it see here we

00:19:10 presentation uh this is it see here we go cwct

00:19:11 go cwct five zero is 26 at page 13. this is a these are some slides that alan keeler gave on behalf of the cwct at that point and you can see the final bullet point

00:19:23 and you can see the final bullet point read cwct and bre are in the process are in process of obtaining clarification through faq section of building regulations website yes yes

00:19:36 building regulations website yes yes now um when you attended this conference did you tell uh mr keila that by this point the bre had decided that that wasn't an option they were

00:19:47 that that wasn't an option they were pursuing no i hadn't so we can see that mr keith is informing all the members and the attendees of this conference that that's uh that's happening yes

00:19:59 did you know that he was telling people at the conference that this was what was occurring

00:20:04 occurring i don't recall being president of his um presentation so right and why didn't you tell him at that point listen we've discussed it it's a it's a more complex piece of work

00:20:16 it's a more complex piece of work we're not gonna we're not gonna pursue this faq route why didn't you tell him that

00:20:25 was reflection i don't know i

00:20:28 i i think part partly

00:20:33 i wasn't um actively on the day-to-day working in that area any longer so it tended to come back in as a um

00:20:42 um as something that i was picking up and that's why i say with reflection i should have closed it out far more effectively than i did did anyone tell you not to tell the cwct

00:20:54 did anyone tell you not to tell the cwct no

00:20:55 no no i was never instructed it was merely my

00:21:03 lack of closure right let's go to another email chain cwct5040

00:21:10 there's an email chain here between you and david metcalf and we look in the first email at the chain at the very bottom of page one it's dated the 13th of march

00:21:21 it's dated the 13th of march 2015 now so we've jumped forward that was october 14 now we're in march 2015 and he writes um so it's right at the bottom of that page

00:21:32 so it's right at the bottom of that page so we need to go on onto the top of page two to see the email

00:21:38 the email he says um dear sarah around september last year alan keeler met with you and a couple of your colleagues to discuss some points that arose from our meeting in july in particular the issue around the use of combustible materials in the

00:21:51 the use of combustible materials in the facade and the wording of clause 12.7 of adb it was my understanding that you agreed to draft a note clarifying the intent of the clause which was to be sent to us for discussion

00:22:02 sent to us for discussion has any progress been made on this and then he says i have a cwct board and technical committee meeting on the 25th of march where i have to report on our activities so i would be grateful for a

00:22:13 activities so i would be grateful for a quick response do you see that yes i do and if we go up to the next email in the chain on page one we can see a brief response from you on the same day on the 13th of march

00:22:28 and you say it's right at the bottom of that page do you see that you say hi david yes a note has been drafted and revisited

00:22:37 revisited it is still draft hopefully it will be closed out soon kind regards sarah yes

00:22:45 yes now

00:22:46 now was that true was there a draft in existence that had been drafted and revisited and that you thought would be closed out soon the headline drafts that i discussed

00:22:58 the headline drafts that i discussed after that meeting in july existed um as headline knows and i hoped that they would

00:23:05 would they would move forward in some form so that there was something that the cwct could discuss yes but but how is that consistent with what you've told us that by august september

00:23:18 you've told us that by august september 2014 it had been decided within the bre that that was not a route you were going to go down and you were going to wait instead for the revisions to approve document b so i had made notes and comments

00:23:32 i had made notes and comments about the points that were being discussed in that requirement and

00:23:38 and i had hoped that we would circulate that as something that could form wider discussion for anything that went forward with the adb i see how do you discuss that with your colleagues in the bre

00:23:50 colleagues in the bre or was this just a private hope it was more of a private home i had i hadn't taken it forward beyond that it was just my set of notes around

00:24:01 around [Music]

00:24:02 [Music] the points that have been raised what i thought might be areas that could be be picked up and discussed right but it wasn't a

00:24:10 wasn't a a drafted

00:24:13 a drafted piece of

00:24:14 piece of text that could be used as an faq or an adb right so help us with this were you thinking at this point that you would be drafting an faq and putting that forward to the department for its

00:24:25 that forward to the department for its consideration i was not thinking we'd be drafting an faq no i thought i was drafting up some texts that could be used to assist in the redrafting of the adb

00:24:35 adb right well why not tell um mr metcalf that i i agree i'm that that email and and the following correspondence is not as clear as it could have been or should have

00:24:46 as it could have been or should have been well it's wholly misleading isn't it

00:24:49 it with hindsight yes it is yes i mean yesterday you said that there'd been a lapse on your part in not keeping the cwct informed of the thought processes

00:25:01 thought processes but this isn't just a lapse is it you've actually drafted an email that suggests that positive steps are happening and they would have reasonably thought that was about the faq yes

00:25:13 was about the faq yes yes on reflection that is that is what they would have reviewed yes did you um discuss your response to mr metcalf with anybody else at the bre before sending

00:25:24 anybody else at the bre before sending it no

00:25:25 it no did you talk to debbie smith about it no

00:25:35 and what did you mean when you said there's a note has been drafted and revisited what do you mean by that so

00:25:44 so i'd put original thoughts down at the time and i had revisited those

00:25:50 those following

00:25:51 following the

00:25:53 the various discussions that were ongoing and

00:25:58 and i hoped to send them something that would be my my collected thoughts on on on the points that they had raised

00:26:09 right i see but but what they wanted was something that could be raised with the department so that the department could clarify this definitively yes yes

00:26:22 clarify this definitively yes yes so

00:26:22 so some notes from you weren't going to take matters any further forward were they

00:26:27 they no they wouldn't have and you also knew from the very outset thinking back to brenda at today that the cwct itself was wondering whether it should be putting out guidance clarifying this area

00:26:40 out guidance clarifying this area can you see that the effect of what you're doing here is potentially meaning that they're not acting in that way because they're waiting for you to do it yes

00:26:50 do it yes on reflection i can i can see that yes

00:26:54 if we look at the next email up in the chain we can see

00:27:00 um sorry now before we go to that are you saying that you were drafting up text for the next review of of adb what without even speaking to brian

00:27:11 what without even speaking to brian martin about that no i was i was picking up the points that have been raised in the cwct to try to understand what the question they were asking

00:27:22 asking to understand what it was that they were trying to address right

00:27:27 right if we go up the next email say david metcalf

00:27:33 he says back to you on the 13th of march hi sarah thanks for getting back to me it was my understanding that we would have the opportunity to comment on the draft is that still your intention we are still receiving numerous

00:27:45 we are still receiving numerous inquiries from our members on the subject so it would be useful to see what's being proposed so that we can give the correct advice so they're absolutely relying on you aren't they to do something so they can go back to their members and give the

00:27:57 go back to their members and give the correct advice yes that that's the um the tone of the email yes yes and then at the top of the chain you respond again hi david yes we will

00:28:09 respond again hi david yes we will circulate yes yes again that's wholly misleading isn't it that

00:28:14 that that gives the the wrong impression based on the uh response that he's asked for yes

00:28:21 for yes now we've heard uh in oral evidence from david metcalf and we have the emails that there was just no response from you at all thereafter what we can see is that david metcalf

00:28:33 what we can see is that david metcalf chased for a response in writing from you on numerous dates he chased on the 18th of august 2015 on the 14th of october 2015

00:28:44 on the 14th of october 2015 on the 2nd of november 2015 on the 10th of november 2015 do you remember receiving these chasing emails from mr metcalfe

00:28:56 i don't recall explicitly that the dates when they received but yes i'm uh i'm aware they were there were chasers followed

00:29:04 followed so what what what were you thinking when you were getting these chasing emails and you were not getting back to him why was that and and how are you justifying that

00:29:15 how are you justifying that by yourself

00:29:18 at that point nothing further had moved forward from from my side and as i say on reflection i should have contacted him directly and explained to him what was what was going on and i didn't

00:29:29 on and i didn't right and again um did you talk to anybody else within the bre about this did you say oh i'm getting chased by david metcalf he needs an answer i can't give him an answer what should i do did

00:29:40 give him an answer what should i do did you ever talk to anybody else about it i would yes i i would probably have shared it with um with the team just to say this is still this is still ongoing

00:29:53 this is still this is still ongoing and as i say that is my my my reflection my biggest feeling is not going back to them saying this is the approach that we think needs to be taken it needs to go back through the department to the adb revision right do

00:30:04 department to the adb revision right do you remember asking debbie smith what you should do about this situation it would have been discarded i would have mentioned it to her yes right

00:30:13 right and what no one in the team said you better go back to him and respond i don't recall that no i i don't recall the conversation being in that in that way

00:30:24 in that in that way david metcalf says he also left you a number of voicemail messages but you never responded to those either do you remember receiving voicemail messages from him no i'm not aware of those

00:30:44 did you think to find out what advice the cwct or anyone else was giving on the interpretation of that paragraph in that period and that period where you weren't responding no

00:30:56 weren't responding no did you think about what the problems might be if they were carrying on giving advice that these panels could be used in circumstances where you knew that there

00:31:07 circumstances where you knew that there were problems with that no i didn't and why not why was that not something of concern to you

00:31:20 my um

00:31:24 my my um role my understanding was

00:31:30 was that

00:31:33 that these were discussions that

00:31:38 around interpretation were

00:31:42 were not

00:31:44 not um

00:31:45 um within that the scope of my um

00:31:50 um my day-to-day activities and

00:31:53 and i say with reflection looking back now i can see that they were relying or looking to us to provide that information i was

00:32:03 i was of the view that that information and that confirmation was arrested with mhclg so it wasn't something that i was um

00:32:14 so it wasn't something that i was um confirming what the wider

00:32:17 the wider applications of um this guidance in in industry was was um

00:32:24 um being being used or sought for right but you don't say that back to the cwct either do you you don't say actually i've looked i've reflected on this and and we simply can't give this guidance

00:32:35 and we simply can't give this guidance you must go to the department in

00:32:40 in in so insofar as the offer to assist and

00:32:45 and that that

00:32:47 that that back from the original meeting i thought it was clear that people understood it was mhclg who were the

00:32:54 were the um

00:32:58 the route for that but as i say on reflection and on review of these

00:33:03 of these uh documents in the passage of time then it is it would appear that they they were not looking at at it in that way well it's specifically minuted in the in the minutes of the meeting that it was

00:33:14 the minutes of the meeting that it was you that was tasked with speaking to brian martin about this faq yes yes and having had that conversation earlier in the year with them yeah that that was my understanding that that was their position

00:33:26 position um

00:33:28 um of uh custodianship of that of that information and that and that um uh interpretation yeah um were you ever instructed not to respond to the cwct no

00:33:42 did you ever discuss um with dr smith uh whether you should respond no do you remember her being aware

00:33:53 no do you remember her being aware though that you were being chased yes she was aware and what did she say when you spoke to her about it that was where the discussions that the

00:34:04 that was where the discussions that the scope of what was being asked for was such that it really needed to sit within the revision of the ad and not as an faq right so she didn't give you any advice about how to handle the message back to the cwct no

00:34:20 now we know that um are we going away from these emails for a moment um yes probably so because yeah i feel um

00:34:31 yes probably so because yeah i feel um that there's a point here that ought to be

00:34:33 be raised so that dr caldwell can deal with it um

00:34:36 it um dr coldwell one view of this succession of emails that we've been seeing

00:34:41 seeing one possible view is that you were deliberately stringing mr metcalfe for long i appreciate it as long as you could and then you got to the point where you simply ignored him what would you say about that no i i can fully

00:34:53 you say about that no i i can fully following that chain i can fully agree that that that is of course that that could be could be taken forward and that was that was not my intention though

00:35:05 but i i i fully i fully uh accept that on reflection i should have closed this down much earlier and much more effectively yeah all right thank you

00:35:19 was there any sense in which you were influenced by dr smith's reaction previously to the work uh that the cwct were proposing to do in this area you remember we looked at her

00:35:30 this area you remember we looked at her email which said we we don't want the fire safety mantle passing to the cwct did that in any way influence you in terms of not wanting to give them a definitive

00:35:41 not wanting to give them a definitive answer so that they could take the initiative and no i i don't believe that was the case

00:35:51 when you say i don't believe that was the case what why um

00:35:55 um i

00:35:56 i i worked i worked on uh developing and understanding based for the questions that they had raised in that meeting um and how that might

00:36:07 in that meeting um and how that might best be uh clarified and moved out so i had continued to work on that

00:36:16 right i see and just to be clear who made the final decision within the bre that it that no faq route was going to be pursued was that dr smith

00:36:27 that dr smith um

00:36:27 um i

00:36:29 i i believe that came as a conversation between dr smith and myself yes right but she's the senior yes did she take that final decision that the faq route was not one you were going to go down

00:36:40 was not one you were going to go down um

00:36:42 um it wasn't it was agreed it was agreed between us so yes in that sense yes right now you also had a meeting with the nhbc in

00:36:53 in november 2014. i just want to look briefly at that um

00:36:58 um on the 27th of november 2014 you together with steve manchester and stephen howard met with john lewis steve evans graham perrier and dave white from the nhbc

00:37:10 perrier and dave white from the nhbc at the bre in watford do you remember that meeting yes john lewis has made some notes of that meeting there are nhb 50829

00:37:21 there we have them at page two so these are perhaps we could just go back up and just

00:37:26 just orientate ourselves this is john lewis's uh summary of uh some meetings that he sent to steve evans it's an internal summary

00:37:35 summary by nhbc

00:37:37 by nhbc if we go back to page two

00:37:40 we can see a list of those present your present steve manchester steve howard and then nhbc people and then we can see at bullet points one and it goes over to the next page

00:37:53 and it goes over to the next page you and stephen howard explain various matters to the nhbc in relation to bs 8414 and classification to bl-135 do you remember that yes i want to just ask you a couple of

00:38:05 yes i want to just ask you a couple of points about this bullet point six on that page

00:38:10 that page um we can see it says sc sarah colwell stated that with regards to mechanical performance the key criteria are rate of fire spread and ongoing burning do you see that yes is that an accurate record

00:38:22 see that yes is that an accurate record of what you said

00:38:25 i'm sorry i couldn't reflect from 2014 as to whether that was what was

00:38:32 what was what was stated well tell us this is that your view that when you're looking at mechanical performance of these large-scale systems the key criteria are rate of fire spread and

00:38:44 criteria are rate of fire spread and ongoing burning no i see so you don't remember saying that or i don't think he would have said that

00:38:55 i think this the sentence is actually the the

00:38:58 the the um the key criteria in

00:39:01 in uh determining performance are mechanical performance rate of fire spread and ongoing burning right i see okay

00:39:09 okay let's go to point nine a in the notes which um are on page three

00:39:17 we can see it says this sarah caldwell clarified the following a the wording of paragraph 12.7 of adb includes all major components of a cladding system including the external

00:39:30 cladding system including the external finish do you see that yes now is that correct did you give that clarification if i was asked my opinion then i as i said previously mine's

00:39:41 said previously mine's my opinion of 12 7 was

00:39:46 that it included

00:39:50 the elements of the external wall construction well the phrase that's used here is said including the external finish and we were interested in that did you use the word finish

00:40:02 again i apologize this is a meeting a set of notes from meeting 14 i can't um recollect the the fine detail of that and that would not be

00:40:13 would not be my interpretation of that um as we've discussed

00:40:17 discussed over the last few days i believe the the final finish was as per diagram 40. yes well that's what i was going to put to you as you were saying yesterday that you thought everything had to be limited combustibility but the finish but the

00:40:29 combustibility but the finish but the coating but the paint but this wording here as recorded in these notes does give a different um impression yes yes

00:40:40 yes but you can't help us with how how that came to be or and you have no recollection of that meeting no i i have no recollection of the detail of that to that level of that

00:40:51 detail of that to that level of that meeting yeah but we can agree i think that you were providing this clarification of paragraph 12.7 to the nhbc in this meeting yes if i was asked if i was

00:41:02 meeting yes if i was asked if i was asked for my opinion of that then that would have been what i would have said yes you weren't saying only the department can tell you what it means you were giving a view on it yes it i would imagine given the way that the meetings would would have taken place it

00:41:14 meetings would would have taken place it would have been well what what is your view and that would have been well my view is

00:41:18 view is yes it would not be in the department's view because the department the only people that can give that view that would be my my view no i appreciate that but but clearly the nhbc thought it was something important that they wanted to

00:41:30 something important that they wanted to do to come and speak to you and stephen howard and others um to get clarification on these points yes the objective of the meeting was to discuss

00:41:41 discuss the

00:41:42 the testing to eight four one four and br 135 if that had come up as part of the conversation which it looks as though a number of points were then that is how that was that was reported back right

00:41:53 right and then if we look at the heading under the summary there's a heading action following the meeting that's underlined and if we look at the second paragraph there it says nhbc followed up its

00:42:04 there it says nhbc followed up its meeting with bre with an email copying closed with this email to dr sarah colwell clarifying what it feels is its position from a bc building

00:42:15 is its position from a bc building control point of view nhbc has drafted a revision

00:42:19 revision to the bca guidance note use of combustible cladding materials on residential buildings and requested sc to advise of any inaccuracies a response to this email is currently awaited do

00:42:30 to this email is currently awaited do you see that yes now

00:42:33 now um that's a reference uh we well we're pretty confident is the to bcaa technical guidance note 18 which i just want to ask you about now now in your witness statement i don't

00:42:44 now in your witness statement i don't think we need to turn it up but page 69 paragraph 446 you said that you weren't aware of the publication at the time and only became aware of it in late

00:42:55 time and only became aware of it in late 2015.

00:42:57 2015. um this is a meeting in november 2014 do you agree that it looks like you would have become aware of that guidance earlier than that

00:43:08 earlier than that i believe um that i

00:43:13 that i um

00:43:14 um became aware of the pub of the final published version in 15. not i i'm not i'm not aware of the um of of when that that that document was

00:43:25 of of when that that that document was published no right i see if we go to nhb403198

00:43:33 we can see there's an email it's a long email from john lewis to you on on the 4th of december 2014 it's a long email as i say and i'm not going to go through all of the detail of it but can you recall receiving this

00:43:45 it but can you recall receiving this email from john lewis

00:43:50 uh i

00:43:52 i if it was sent to me then yes i i i would have i would have received it right and would you have read it if if you'd received it from john lewis

00:44:02 i would have looked i would have looked at it in relation to commenting on 8414 and 501 i wouldn't have offered any comment or opinion back on the approved document elements of it

00:44:15 on the approved document elements of it right

00:44:16 right so um the section i wanted to ask you about first was um in the second paragraph there's a heading a pre-document being bold and if we pick it up in the second to

00:44:28 and if we pick it up in the second to last line of that paragraph you can see in the middle of the line it says we understand that for external walls over 18 metres in height adb section 12 gives guidance on two

00:44:40 section 12 gives guidance on two acceptable methods of assessing the envelope design and construction external surfaces should comply with diagram 40 and paragraphs 12 6 to 12 nine all insulation and filler materials

00:44:51 nine all insulation and filler materials should be class a two s three d two or better all cavity barriers and fire stopping guidance needs to be followed do you see that yes i do so they're setting out their understanding of the

00:45:02 setting out their understanding of the requirements of adb now

00:45:05 now it doesn't appear that john lewis had understood your view which was that the external surfaces should also comply with 12.7

00:45:14 with 12.7 and needed to be of limited combustibility does it

00:45:21 no it wouldn't appear to be so no did you go back and correct him no why not

00:45:28 why not because i didn't go back and comment on a text associated with the approved document

00:45:35 document but why not go back and say um well there is some debate within the industry about this there's some consternation we know it needs clarifying why not at least fill him in

00:45:47 why not at least fill him in about the what would have been going on with clause 12.7 so that at least they're in the picture about that

00:46:00 i didn't right

00:46:04 right um if we go to page two of this email and the third paragraph down in uh in bold um he asks another question i'm not going to read it all out but

00:46:16 i'm not going to read it all out but basically he says when reading the classification report do we treat all of these three criteria and you can see he means external fire spread internal fire spread and mechanical performance with equal

00:46:28 mechanical performance with equal importance or can the system be considered to achieve a pass if

00:46:33 if certain criteria have been satisfied now we can't see you ever responding to questions like this did you ever respond i don't believe i responded to that email no

00:46:44 email no again why not

00:47:06 in a lot of these cases we were not getting involved in writing industry

00:47:13 industry the the industry guidance around around these these points

00:47:22 and type the timelines to to go through to go through these um was probably missed in this particular case okay

00:47:33 okay um if we go to the third paragraph from the bottom of this email um we can see so it's the paragraph above the one in bold with a two there's a paragraph that reads to this

00:47:46 there's a paragraph that reads to this end the building control alliance a body set up with membership of both public sector and private sector building control professionals has updated its guidance document and then you can see um

00:47:58 and then you can see um he gives the name to incorporate guidance on this aspect of br135 yes yes and in the next paragraph we can see

00:48:08 see that he requests your comments on the document

00:48:12 document um if you look towards the end of that paragraph we can see he says and whilst we would welcome your comments on all of the document these are the paragraphs on which we'd most appreciate your feedback do you see that yes

00:48:24 do you see that yes and we'll see in a moment so he sends you a draft of the bca technical guidance note and asks you for comments now do you remember reading that draft note at the

00:48:35 remember reading that draft note at the time no

00:48:38 why wouldn't you have read that and looked at what the nhbc was saying about these kind of topics

00:48:54 so [Music]

00:49:04 there were numbers of industry guidance documents being

00:49:08 being um discussed and

00:49:12 and um

00:49:13 um to go through and review and comment on on all

00:49:20 was not something that we did right i mean was the bre concerned about appearing to lend its weight or authority to some of these industry documents

00:49:33 to some extent yes that that we couldn't to be independent to all and to support the numbers it was it was um it was a balance at times as to what

00:49:45 it was a balance at times as to what where where we we put the results and which

00:49:49 which areas we were able to help with right thank you we don't need to go to it but we know that john lewis emailed you again on the 10th of december 2013 chasing for a

00:50:00 10th of december 2013 chasing for a response to this email and it appears that you never responded is that right there was just never any response to this or the chaser email if there's there's no record then yeah

00:50:11 if there's there's no record then yeah that would be correct right i just want to look briefly at the draft of the guidance note he sends you it's at nhb403199

00:50:30 so here we can see we've got a draft of bca technical guidance note we can tell it's a draft because various things at the top haven't been completed if you look at the box guidance just below halfway down

00:50:43 the box guidance just below halfway down the page

00:50:45 the page there's a section that deals with buildings below 18 meters and then there's a heading the second heading that's underlined combustibility of cladding components in buildings exceeding 18 meters in height

00:50:58 exceeding 18 meters in height and we can see it reads where the building exceeds 18 meters in height paragraph 12.7 of adb 2 refers to the need for limited combustibility of all elements of a cladding system both above

00:51:10 elements of a cladding system both above and below 18 meters do you see that

00:51:17 yes and we know that in the final versions of this guidance um it it that became what was called option one i don't even remember reading that option one was that all elements

00:51:30 option one was that all elements of the cladding system needed to be limited combustibility now what i want to ask you is that's a pretty simple piece of guidance isn't it to give

00:51:40 to give why couldn't the bre uh work towards you know putting that in an faq or putting that out there more generally or proposing that to the department this didn't need to be

00:51:52 didn't need to be very complicated did it

00:51:56 i'd say i'm i'm i'm reading this document um as you're presenting it to me so um

00:52:05 i wouldn't i wouldn't want to comment more widely than whether that's addressing the scope or not i see let's move forward in time then there was a second cwct fire group meeting

00:52:18 was a second cwct fire group meeting held on the 17th of march 2016. let's turn up for the minute the minutes of that meeting they're at clg three zeros one nine four four zero

00:52:31 we can see on page one that you attended you're the fifth name down in those present

00:52:37 present as did brian martin stuart taylor of win tech david white from the nhbc alan keeler and david metcalf of the cwct and various others including representatives from kingspan and

00:52:49 representatives from kingspan and siderise

00:52:51 siderise and if we go to page two towards the bottom of the page there's a section

00:52:58 just bring up page two headed combustibility of material and we can see that reads approved document b clause 12.7 requires insulation and filler material in the

00:53:10 insulation and filler material in the external walls of tall buildings to be of limited combustibility bca

00:53:16 bca bca guidance note 18 extends this requirement to all material in the wall do you see that yes

00:53:25 yes now by this point march 2016 had you read bca technical guidance note 18

00:53:36 i i i i can't remember the dates by which of which those that that would have um would have been read

00:53:47 would have been read right

00:53:48 right we know there were two versions of that technical guidance note version naught that came out in june 2014 and version one that came out in june 2015. so it'd been out for some time prior to

00:54:00 so it'd been out for some time prior to this meeting on the 16th of uh sorry on the 17th of march 2016. do you remember being familiar with the content of it no i don't remember being familiar with

00:54:11 no i don't remember being familiar with the content of them right

00:54:14 right you were asked in your witness statement whether you agreed that bca technical guidance note extended the requirement to all material in the wall and your response was that you'd simply not considered that point at the time and

00:54:26 considered that point at the time and thereafter had no particular view does that remain your evidence yes

00:54:34 i see so you never formed a view about whether or not the wording used in bca technical guidance note 18 extended the requirement to all materials in the wall

00:54:45 requirement to all materials in the wall no

00:54:50 i see it it just seems a little odd that you hadn't formed a view of that at the time given we know you've been receiving inquiries about the meaning and scope of clause 12.7 since at least 2013

00:55:01 clause 12.7 since at least 2013 and we know you'd met with nhbc with wintec and the cwct on that subject you you tried to start drafting some outlines that might address this amongst

00:55:13 outlines that might address this amongst other points it seems very odd that that quite key piece of guidance wasn't something that came to your attention can you explain that

00:55:22 that i i didn't um i viewed it as a piece of industry guidance i didn't take it as a particular reference point

00:55:33 okay looking again at the minutes below that there's a paragraph that reads it was accepted that clause 12.7 was poorly written and open to interpretation

00:55:44 written and open to interpretation the title of the clause is also misleading and then the titles given insulation material slash products and this will be changed in the next revision of adb do you see that yes

00:55:57 revision of adb do you see that yes and over at the top of page three

00:56:01 it says the term filler material was intended to be a catch-all as it was not possible to list all the materials that should be covered by the claws in addition there were people arguing

00:56:12 in addition there were people arguing that certain materials used in a facade buildup such as expanded polystyrene in some instances were not there for their insulating properties but to pad out the facade and were therefore excluded from the claws do you see that yes

00:56:24 the claws do you see that yes now in your witness statement you tell us that you can't recall who it was that accepted that 12.7 was poorly written and open to interpretation or that the title of the clause was misleading

00:56:37 title of the clause was misleading and that you can't recall whether or not brian martin accepted those matters is that still the case that you can't recall

00:56:43 recall who said those things i don't i don't have direct recollection of who made those particular statements no right and you can't recall who it was that stated that filler material was

00:56:54 that stated that filler material was intended to be a catch-all i would have envisaged that was was brian

00:57:01 brian right yes

00:57:02 right yes i mean he in 2016 he was the department's principal construction professional with responsibility for adb he owned the document didn't he yes i mean um can you think of anybody else at

00:57:13 mean um can you think of anybody else at that meeting that would have accepted the matters that we saw accepted there about the lack of clarity or had provided information here about the background to the term filler

00:57:24 the background to the term filler material

00:57:26 material my expectation is that that would have would have been brian speaking to that point right

00:57:34 um did you understand that explanation being given at the meeting for the use of the term filler material that it was intended to be a catch-all as it was not possible to list all the materials that

00:57:45 possible to list all the materials that should be covered by the clause yes

00:57:49 yes did you consider that perhaps the words all materials might have been a better phrase as a catch-all if that's what was being proposed

00:58:01 yeah it was by that stage accepted that there was a need for

00:58:06 need for a review of what that wording looked like right did you think back to the drafting of paragraph 12.7 in 2005 when brian martin had circulated to draft text which proposed exactly that the use of the

00:58:19 proposed exactly that the use of the phrase all materials as opposed to using the word filler did you think back to that during this meeting no

00:58:29 right

00:58:32 now um if we just turn briefly to brian martin's witness statement clg 3019469 at page 49.

00:58:50 cl clg three zeros one nine four six nine

00:58:55 nine page forty nine

00:59:06 so at paragraph 138 in the last two lines of 138 we can see that brian martin's saying there that i undertook to change this

00:59:17 there that i undertook to change this misleading clause in the next revision of adb

00:59:21 of adb do you see that there sorry would it be possible to expand that slightly yeah so bottom of the page we're looking at paragraph 138 before the text that's in italics

00:59:33 before the text that's in italics we can see if we pick it up if we pick it up four lines up he says indeed at the meeting it was accepted as is recorded that paragraph 12.7 of adb was open to interpretation acting on

00:59:44 was open to interpretation acting on behalf of the department i undertook to change this misleading clause in the next revision of adb yes yes so um

00:59:54 so um did you agree with him at that point that the clause was misleading yes

01:00:02 you say in your witness statement this i don't think we need to go to it uh paragraph 656 on page 97 that it was apparent to you at this meeting that a clearer definition of the term filler was being thought but there wasn't any

01:00:15 was being thought but there wasn't any definition of filler was there in circulation at this point no

01:00:20 no did it occur to you at this stage so we're in in early 2016 that something might need to be done to clarify the meaning and scope of paragraphs 12.6 and 12.7

01:00:32 paragraphs 12.6 and 12.7 more urgently than just the next revision of approved document

01:00:40 b i think um given that the department had accepted

01:00:47 accepted the undertaking to move that forward they and they they were party to the to that urgency and therefore um won't go would move it forward

01:00:59 won't go would move it forward did you understand the department and in particular brian martin to consider the mata to be one of some urgency

01:01:09 i believe by that stage i believe they did because they had been in the in the debating point for for some time by that stage so

01:01:17 so i

01:01:19 i i felt they understood that the need to to do this with some degree of urgency yes

01:01:24 yes but

01:01:25 but just thinking back to the chronology you'd met with brian martin we know in january 2014 when you'd raised these issues with him and he said he was going to take it further we're now two years on from that over two years on what gave

01:01:38 on from that over two years on what gave you the impression they were going to do anything

01:01:41 anything as a matter of any urgency given they'd not taken any action in those two years i

01:01:47 i i had the sense from them from that particular meeting i i've

01:01:53 i i've and the undertaking to to to move that forward i i thought by that stage would be there would be their driver was there anything brian martin did or said

01:02:05 there anything brian martin did or said this time which led you to believe that he did consider the matter to be urgent

01:02:18 i think his um

01:02:22 his acceptance that that there was this this need for change was um yeah

01:02:30 sort of the route map for making that change happen right and did you consider it to be urgent i believe by that point that it was it was one of the

01:02:41 it was one of the key things that needed to be changed in the revision yes but did you consider it to be urgent not just a key change that needed to happen in a revision in the future did you consider it to be urgent

01:02:54 yes it needed to be changed and changed quickly yes yeah and and and yeah it needed to happen yes was there any discussion at this point about the faq route again did anybody say well

01:03:07 faq route again did anybody say well there's the faq route we could think about that again but did that get discussed again in 2016 no i believe it didn't i believe it it's it

01:03:17 it ceased to have a discussion right

01:03:20 right now by this time so march 2016 were you aware of the fires at the torch residential building in dubai in february 2015 and at the address downtown hotel

01:03:31 downtown hotel in december 2015. yes so two really significant fires had occurred in the uae in this period yes yes did you know that those involved acm pe yes

01:03:44 those involved acm pe yes in march 2016 were you still engaged in any work in the uae in relation to their regulatory codes or anything to do with external fire spread

01:03:55 external fire spread i can't recall exact dates as i sit here now but yes i would have been aware of that right let's look at an email bre 3047591

01:04:07 page two

01:04:17 there's an email um

01:04:20 um sent on the 3rd of january 2016 to pavlos

01:04:27 european aluminium and in paragraph two it's the one at the bottom of that page you say apologies but i can't make any of the suggested meeting dates as i'll be in the middle east in january and i'll leave in

01:04:38 east in january and i'll leave in february do you see that yes does that help you as to whether you were still working in the middle east on this topic in january 2016 i don't believe um i would have been

01:04:50 i don't believe um i would have been that january would meeting would have been in relation to um the the the large international ex exhibition that happens at that time

01:05:01 exhibition that happens at that time right

01:05:02 right but when you went out to the middle east did you discuss these um acm pe cladding fires with anybody during your trip uh i don't

01:05:11 don't know i don't believe the latter ones um were were subjects to to to discussion with um

01:05:19 with um any of the authorities out there at that time yeah

01:05:22 time yeah and you were aware weren't you of the fire at the am ajman towers in dubai on the 28th of march 2016 less than two weeks after this meeting of the cwct fire group

01:05:38 i'm sorry i don't recall the bill the specific building but yeah those types of fires were let's look at an email to help you clg one three eight

01:05:51 one three eight here's a discussion about that fire between martinship david crowder kira holland and brian martin now you're not copied into these emails but if we look at the top email in the chain

01:06:04 look at the top email in the chain martin ship writes to the others on the 29th of march 2016 uh he says i know smiley face and we can see it's about the am admin fire

01:06:16 see it's about the am admin fire huge blaze hits uae residential towers and then the second line he says sarah thinks it's burning debris landing on balconies do you see that yes so it would appear that you were aware of that

01:06:28 would appear that you were aware of that fire at the time did you know that that involved acmpe yes

01:06:33 yes and what about the fire at the selafa tower 75-story block in dubai marina in july 2016. were you aware of that fire

01:06:44 as i say i apologize if i don't recognize them by building by building name

01:06:51 did any of these cladding fires these further fires alert you to the need to provide clearer guidance to industry on this topic as a matter of some urgency

01:07:06 as i said i hadn't made i hadn't made the connection at that time to the extent to which acm was being used in the uk market right you tell us in your witness statement

01:07:17 you tell us in your witness statement this is page 104 paragraph 709 and you're being asked about this in the context of what was going on in 2016. you were asked when you understood that the next revision of the approved

01:07:29 the next revision of the approved document was to take place and you said you understood it would take place imminently what was it that had given you the impression that the next review of adb was imminent in 2016.

01:07:41 in 2016. brian's response to that meeting with cwct

01:07:45 cwct right

01:07:47 right and what was it about his response which led you to believe that it was imminent

01:07:56 my my impression at that time was that it was

01:08:00 it was um about to take place it was about to be announced it was about to be undertaken right were you aware that no consultation process had begun by march 2016

01:08:11 2016 [Applause] i was aware it hadn't been launched no a revised approved document could have been in reality many years away did you appreciate that at the time

01:08:23 i understood that was that would have was a possibility yes let's look at some some other emails um um and these are emails from january 2016. if we can go to blm

01:08:36 2016. if we can go to blm 5015

01:08:39 5015 this is an email chain between you and nick jenkins at the time of booth murray in january and february 2016 and i want to start with the bottom email in the chain

01:08:49 chain which is in the middle of page three it's an email sent to you by nick jenkins on the 20th of january 2016 and we can see the subject is use of acm

01:09:00 and we can see the subject is use of acm cladding panels on buildings exceeding 18 meters in height he says i hope this finds you well we haven't met however i understand that you might be the best person to help me

01:09:12 you might be the best person to help me with some clarification i'm seeking in relation to my understanding of the current uk regulations as they apply to wool constructions for buildings over 18 meters featuring rain screen panels formed from acms

01:09:24 formed from acms he goes on last week i attended a siderise bre facades conference on the topic of fire safety during the day i asked some questions of the panel relating to the permissible use of rain

01:09:35 relating to the permissible use of rain screen cladding panels formed from various grades of acm aluminium composite materials when used as part of multi-layered wall systems for buildings over 18 meters

01:09:46 over 18 meters there was some ambiguity in the answers provided by the panel um and then he goes on and explains why he thinks there's some ambiguity and he gives quite a detailed explanation of

01:09:57 gives quite a detailed explanation of the

01:09:57 the the the problems with the guidance and the different interpretations of it now

01:10:03 now just pausing there for a minute um did you attend that ciderise bre facades conference on the 16th of january 2016 no no i think we know your colleague

01:10:14 no no i think we know your colleague stephen howard did attend we've seen a video of him on the stage at that conference where nick jenkins was asking a key question about this

01:10:25 a key question about this did stephen howard come back to you after that conference and tell you about the concerns nick jenkins had raised no so you didn't get any feedback from stephen howard after that conference i'm

01:10:36 stephen howard after that conference i'm not aware i'm not aware of having a conversation about that from that conference no right i'm not going to read all the detail of his explanation of the guidance etc but i want to uh pick it up

01:10:49 i want to uh pick it up um

01:10:51 um just at two it's two paragraphs before the the end of this page there's a paragraph beginning in our experience

01:11:02 beginning in our experience it's about six lines up in that last very meaty part and he says this in our experience of supplying fabricated acm rain screen panels to specialist cladding

01:11:13 panels to specialist cladding contractors in the uk market we are rarely asked to provide such a2 rated acm materials the vast majority of acm panels we are asked to provide for

01:11:24 panels we are asked to provide for architectural application are either a luca bomb plus ally pollock fr or larsen fr products all of which are classified as b s one d naught in accordance with bsen13501

01:11:38 accordance with bsen13501 and thus whilst they can be classified as products that are hard to burn are not accepted as being of limited combustibility in accordance with table a7 appendix a of adb

01:11:49 a7 appendix a of adb and then he goes on in many instances it's not even the b1 s1 d-naught rated atm panels we are asked to supply but standard

01:12:01 asked to supply but standard polyethylene core material acm that burns quite efficiently what's more i'm aware of many tall residential buildings recently constructed in the uk

01:12:12 constructed in the uk where such panels are installed in combination with various foil faced rigid foam thermal insulation boards which are also not accepted by as being

01:12:23 which are also not accepted by as being of limited combustibility in accordance with table a7 appendix a of adb2 and then over the page he says

01:12:36 at the top paragraph as a responsible supplier booth murray eurocloud would like to put out a guidance note i would like to put a guidance note out to the market written specifically on routes to compliance in relation to the

01:12:47 routes to compliance in relation to the use of acm range screen cladding panels and associated thermal insulation products used as part of multi-layered built-up wall systems before we publish any such guidance we're ensuring that we

01:12:58 any such guidance we're ensuring that we have our facts straight with that in mind i would very much appreciate your thoughts on my understanding of the current regulations i look forward to hearing back from you now do you remember receiving this email

01:13:14 yes it's obviously come to me um

01:13:19 um did you read it when you received it

01:13:26 i i imagine yes i would would have read it let's go back a page to the bottom of page three where we can see that last paragraph what was your reaction to the news

01:13:39 what was your reaction to the news that standard pe called acm panels where the polyethylene core had been used and were being supplied for use on many tall residential

01:13:50 for use on many tall residential buildings

01:13:51 buildings recently

01:13:53 recently what was your reaction to that news

01:13:57 surprised

01:14:02 now given your knowledge about the dangers of this product dating all the way back to 2001 and your more recent work in the middle east

01:14:11 east surely your reaction was one of horror at this point yes i say i was surprised yes wasn't this a red alert situation that required urgent action on your part on

01:14:25 required urgent action on your part on the bre's part

01:14:29 as a result of it referred it to the department yes

01:14:34 what do you mean by that

01:14:37 that email was referred onto

01:14:41 uh mhclg to follow up in and in what terms did you forward it on

01:14:48 on has

01:14:49 has forwarded it on to or responded to nick saying you needed to talk to the department about this yes well we'll we'll come to that in a moment but help me with this forget the department

01:15:00 help me with this forget the department for a moment didn't you and the bre think at this point wow we need to do something urgently this is a very serious situation that's and referring to the department

01:15:12 that's and referring to the department as i said who had the position to to take action more widely was was my was my route with that

01:15:21 that why didn't you encourage nick jenkins to produce the guidance that he was referring to

01:15:28 because i wanted him to engage with the department that's why i said you need to talk to the department did you speak to brian martin did you pick up the phone to brian martin who you knew well

01:15:39 you knew well and and press him to do something at that point no i i forwarded that i forwarded nick to to brian and the assumption that the two would then

01:15:50 then work together to to address that it was it was my understanding and and has

01:15:57 and has has been that the the department would take that

01:16:00 take that that message forward and action if if and as required did you consider whether the bre itself or to put out a statement to industry alerting industry

01:16:11 alerting industry to the dangers associated with this product and the concerns that the bre had

01:16:17 had about using it on tall residential buildings

01:16:20 buildings no i didn't why not it was not a route that um

01:16:25 um bri had

01:16:27 bri had taken those circumstances we referred it to the department why don't we see presentations by the bre articles by the bre we know for example that david crowder he went out and he gave lots of

01:16:39 crowder he went out and he gave lots of presentations about the lack of house fire

01:16:42 fire to many different local authorities why don't we see anything from the bre about eight the dangers associated with acmpe particularly from this point onwards once

01:16:53 once you know for sure at this point that it is being used on tall buildings why don't we see that

01:17:04 we spoke where we were invited to speak um

01:17:11 those were the type of industry environments we we spoke in

01:17:18 but did anyone give any consideration to whether you want to start producing

01:17:23 producing guidance presentations um to industry as part of your ongoing work attending conference etc alerting people to the dangers posed by these acm

01:17:34 people to the dangers posed by these acm polyethylene panels particularly given your experience of these middle east fires

01:17:40 fires um

01:17:43 um no it was not a role i'd ever been involved in previously so it wasn't something i i

01:17:49 i i was

01:17:52 i was um

01:17:56 would have thought to to participate in now we can see um they said this email is dated the 20th of january 2016. there's no reply from you because if we

01:18:07 there's no reply from you because if we move to the next email up in the chain about halfway down page two we can see that nick jenkins sends a chaser email on the 1st of february 2016. yes

01:18:20 so he says hi sarah regarding my email i received an auto reply at the time from which i understand you returned to the office last tuesday could you please acknowledge receipt of my query and advise when i could expect to receive a

01:18:32 advise when i could expect to receive a response from the bre on the matter do you see that yes i do and he chases you again on the 9th of february if we go to the top of page 2 we can see on the 9th of february 2016

01:18:44 we can see on the 9th of february 2016 he chases you again hi sarah could you please advise when you expect to be able to review my query issued on the 20th of january apologies if you're not the right person in the bre to be dealing with this

01:18:56 yes and then at the bottom of page one we can see you do reply on the 9th of february 2016.

01:19:09 we go to the bottom of page one

01:19:13 we can see right at the bottom you say to him copying in stephen howard hi nick apologies for not replying sooner i had missed your previous correspondence i will follow try and look at the at it

01:19:25 will follow try and look at the at it this week and come back to you do you see that

01:19:28 see that yes

01:19:30 yes you copy stephen howard into that email had you discussed this correspondence with him by this time

01:19:39 because of stephen's role in this in in the passive group um at that point i copied him out in so he was aware of the correspondence yeah

01:19:50 was aware of the correspondence yeah given the terms of nick jenkins email why do you need to be chased to get back to him

01:19:56 to him i'd been out of the office and said i came back in working through my through my emails and picked that email up his chaser came in

01:20:07 in around

01:20:08 around around the time that i'm working through emails

01:20:11 emails if we go up to the next email in the chain

01:20:14 chain we can see that you write on the 12th of february 2016 dear nick further to my earlier earlier email

01:20:22 email we have now had a chance to look at your email and i would suggest that you contact brian martin at dclg you give his email address with regard to this request as they are the body with responsibility for this document and

01:20:34 responsibility for this document and therefore any interpretations associated with it do you see that yes so that was your response to nick jenkins wasn't it just

01:20:40 just simply to refer to the department nothing else no that's correct and then if we look at the email at the very top of page one we can see an internal email in which

01:20:51 we can see an internal email in which phil cook having been informed by nick jenkins that you've referred to the matter

01:20:54 matter writes this nick what a buck passing load of incompetence okay so we go through the dclg would you contact them for a response phil do you

01:21:05 contact them for a response phil do you see that yes do you disagree with that description given what we've just seen

01:21:16 given that mhcrg needed to be made aware of it and with the people able to provide the definitive guidance he was um seeking then that was

01:21:27 then that was the department with the appropriate people to address it i'm not quite sure why

01:21:32 why he felt that we would

01:21:35 we would um

01:21:36 um we would speak on behalf of the clg right so i think it sounds like you don't agree with that description of bre's conduct at this point

01:21:47 of bre's conduct at this point uh no

01:21:49 uh no in your email you said we have now had a chance to look at your email and can you help us with this who within the bre um had seen nick jenkins as correspondent was that just stephen

01:22:00 correspondent was that just stephen howard or anybody else would have been steve what about dr smith uh i don't i don't know whether she was aware of it no now if we go on with this correspondence

01:22:13 now if we go on with this correspondence mr chairman i'm aware of the time but i am

01:22:16 am very close to the end of my questions i've got one email string to go to and then some follow-up questions i'd like to finish it in one run if that's okay yes all right thank you if we go to clg 3031093

01:22:31 there are some later parts of this correspondence between nick jenkins and brian martin and if we look at page five

01:22:43 of this string towards the top of the page

01:22:48 sorry this is cld three zeros three one zero nine three

01:23:07 so here's page five and we can see that nick jenkins at the top of this page writes to brian martin on the 16th of february 2016. um he says hi brian i'm forwarding this

01:23:18 um he says hi brian i'm forwarding this query to you as recommended by sarah colwell of the bre as you will note from the correspondence below sarah advises the dclg or the body with responsibility for adb too this matter is currently the

01:23:29 for adb too this matter is currently the topic of much discussion in the construction industry and if one thing is evident that there is much confusion and misunderstanding your soonest review of the matter would therefore be most welcome

01:23:39 welcome and if we go down um to page 10 just to set this in context the email that mr jenkins originally sent to you is there a page 10.

01:23:51 sent to you is there a page 10. and then if we go back up to page four about half way up the page we can see that mr martin responds to nick jenkins and he copies you in

01:24:04 to nick jenkins and he copies you in to that response do you see that it's the 16th of february 2016 at 1709. so you and stephen howard are copied to what brian martin says he says hi nick it's for the designer

01:24:16 he says hi nick it's for the designer and the building control body to consider if requirement b4 has been met adb give guidance on this by saying that the external walls should not provide a medium for fire spread in tall buildings

01:24:27 medium for fire spread in tall buildings it then offers two approaches a set of rules or a full-scale test in the rules we deliberately added the word filler to address things that form part of the cladding system that are not insulation but could provide a medium

01:24:38 insulation but could provide a medium for fire spread i think the core of an acp panel could reasonably be considered to be a filler so unless the core material meets the rules then the ad suggests a full-scale

01:24:49 rules then the ad suggests a full-scale test

01:24:50 test however if the designer and building control body choose to do something else then that's up to them do you see that yes so we can see he's saying i think the core of an acm acp panel could

01:25:01 the core of an acm acp panel could reasonably be considered to be a filler what was your reaction to this response

01:25:13 uh it had

01:25:19 clarified the word filler in in that context um

01:25:24 um and

01:25:27 and as the

01:25:28 as the and and and that was their um their statement on that on that point but it's not a definitive answer is it it reasonably be considered he's not saying yep core of an acm panel

01:25:40 saying yep core of an acm panel absolutely caught by limited combustibility requirement you can't use that

01:25:45 that and that is very much the the style of um of brian's response in that

01:25:53 that in that email what do you mean it's the style of his response are you saying that that was typical of the style in which he would respond to these kind of queries i believe so he

01:26:05 i believe so he i can't speak for for for him in in the terms of how he writes but that is is typically the type of um

01:26:13 of um uh response i i had seen right um did it surprise you that he was giving this response which was

01:26:24 was not definitive about the position did that surprise you

01:26:29 i think i was used to seeing that style so probably didn't read anything beyond it right because at the cwct meeting just a month later there does appear to be a more

01:26:40 there does appear to be a more definitive answer being given in the minutes of that meeting where it said bca technical guidance no extends this requirement to all material in the wall when you were at that meeting did you

01:26:51 when you were at that meeting did you think to yourself well yes he's saying that now but just a month before he's given not a very definitive answer to nick jenkins did that occur to you no i didn't make that connection

01:27:04 i didn't make that connection if we go to the bottom of page three of these emails on the top of page four we can see nick jenkins tried again later that night um he writes back to brian martin again

01:27:15 um he writes back to brian martin again copying you in if you look at the bottom of page three he says um

01:27:25 sorry i think i can't quite see what's at the top of page four there i think there's a paragraph

01:27:36 no so i want the bottom of page three and the top of page four

01:27:45 yes here it is that was that was it sorry

01:27:48 sorry if we go back to what we had there he says hi brian manny thanks for your prompt response in light of the fires that have taken hold of a number of buildings clad in acm panels in recent years i also think

01:28:01 acm panels in recent years i also think that the core of acm panels should most definitely be considered as a filler some acm cores meet the rules of adb however the ones commonly used in the uk at present don't do you see that yes and

01:28:14 at present don't do you see that yes and it goes on to the best of my knowledge there have been no full-scale 8414 tests carried out to date on any wool constructions featuring any type of acm panel i'm aware that two manufacturers of acm have plans to have such tests

01:28:26 of acm have plans to have such tests carried out this however unfortunately means that no existing buildings in the uk over 18 meters tall that feature acm panels currently meet the b4 requirements there are many such

01:28:37 requirements there are many such buildings and their numbers are growing whilst i appreciate it is for the designer and building control body to consider if requirement b4 has been met i do think the current situation is of

01:28:48 i do think the current situation is of grave concern surely this justifies the requirement for a less ambiguous statement of the rules do you see that yes

01:28:57 yes do you remember noting nick jenkins's description of the situation as one of grave concern i

01:29:07 i um i know that he's re-emphasized it i noticed he was re-emphasizing the point to brian

01:29:13 to brian yes

01:29:14 yes did that did that strike you at the time as um heightening the urgency of the situation

01:29:25 i don't i don't recall having a particular response to it at that time i i read it as him restating what he had put in his earlier email right if we go up to the very top of this email chain we can see that brian martin

01:29:39 email chain we can see that brian martin his last reply um

01:29:44 contains

01:29:47 sorry no so i can see yeah that very top reply to nick jenkins again copying you in if you look at the second paragraph he says this you're right of course constructions complying with the rules of thumb

01:29:58 of thumb may well fail an 8414 test do you see that

01:30:07 yes now you told us yesterday you were surprised to see a similar statement by brian martin in an earlier email where he'd said that just because you followed the guidance in adb doesn't mean that you would

01:30:19 in adb doesn't mean that you would necessarily pass an 8414 test were you surprised to see that statement effectively being made again by brian martin here

01:30:30 yes

01:30:33 now following this exchange in february 2016 did you discuss this correspondence or any of the concerns that nick jenkins had raised in it with brian martin no i didn't

01:30:45 didn't did you do anything or speak to anybody about what you'd learned about the historic and ongoing use of acmp products in high-rise buildings from these emails uh no

01:30:56 uh no i didn't i didn't follow them up beyond the referring them to the department can you clarify why at no time before the grenfell tower fire was any formal

01:31:08 the grenfell tower fire was any formal clarification provided by the bre in response to the concerns which had been raised for example by the cwct and nick jenkins

01:31:19 yeah i can confirm that no formal statement was made can you explain why we see no correspondence whatsoever before the grenfell tower fire in which the bre warns the department about the grave

01:31:32 warns the department about the grave risks to life safety if action is not taken urgently to address the use of acm pe in the uk market no statement of that effect was made to

01:31:43 no statement of that effect was made to the department they were made aware of the concerns that we were made aware of can you explain why no such statement was made to industry by the bre itself

01:31:54 was made to industry by the bre itself statements of that nature were not um uh publicly uh made by bre they were referred to the department for them to take action on

01:32:05 take action on can you explain how that was professionally or ethically acceptable on your or the bre's part we believed that the department were best placed to make

01:32:17 department were best placed to make those statements to the widest market mr chairman i've come to the end of my pre-prepared question yes perhaps if we could have the usual morning break and then we can also sweep up any final

01:32:28 then we can also sweep up any final questions well we'll have the usual morning break at this point and

01:32:33 and for the benefit of anyone who's watching we'll say that any questions which may

01:32:38 which may occur to people and that they wish to submit for consideration not to be submitted within the morning break yes we won't have a separate break so we'll stop now and we'll resume please at 10

01:32:50 stop now and we'll resume please at 10 to 12.

01:32:52 to 12. and at that stage we'll see whether there are any more questions for you all right thank you very much thank you very much would you like to go to the usher please thank you

01:33:12 all right it's great thank you

01:56:37 would you ask dr coldwell to come back in please

01:56:50 all right dr coldwell well i'm sorry it took a little longer to get organized and i'd suggested but we'll now see if there are any more questions for you yes it's great yes just a few short questions thank you um first of all um

01:57:02 questions thank you um first of all um have you ever discussed the nick jenkins emails or the results of contract 1924 and particularly the acm pe results with mr martin at any time since the fire at

01:57:14 mr martin at any time since the fire at grenfell tower

01:57:24 no i don't believe i have right and we've been through a lot over the last well now four days um if you had the chance again what would you have done differently

01:57:35 what would you have done differently uh the

01:57:37 uh the as i

01:57:38 as i said previously the period in of reflection with the cwct activities from 2013 um absolutely would have would have um handled in a different way

01:57:49 handled in a different way right okay well thank you um and thank you dr colwill for coming and assisting us with our investigations we are very very grateful thank you thank you yes dr coldwell is right i should thank you on behalf of the panel as a whole for

01:58:01 behalf of the panel as a whole for coming to give us your evidence i'm sorry it took a long time and i know that it was difficult for you at times it's been very helpful to us to hear what you have to tell us so we are very grateful to you for

01:58:12 so we are very grateful to you for coming here to give your evidence and now you're free to go thank you very much thank you very much

01:58:31 thank you ms grange now we have another witness yes mr millet we'll be taking um dr debbie smith so we just need a few minutes uh we need a short break now for what we call housekeeping purposes and

01:58:42 what we call housekeeping purposes and uh you can ask the usher to come and get us as soon as you're ready we will thank you very much

02:07:13 yes mr miller yes mr chairman good morning good morning to you good morning australia and good morning to my sister fan who is listening in remotely and i call the next witness dr debbie smith please thank you

02:07:26 debbie smith please thank you [Music]

02:07:33 good morning dr smith i understand you're going to make the affirmation i am well the words are on the screen would you read them out please yes i do solemnly sincerely and truly

02:07:44 i do solemnly sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much please sit down make yourself comfortable

02:07:58 right yes mr miller when you're ready good afternoon miss smith and can i start by thanking you very much for attending the inquiry and assisting us with your evidence we're very grateful

02:08:09 with your evidence we're very grateful to you

02:08:11 to you if you have any difficulty understanding any of my questions that i'm going to put to you then please just say and i can either repeat the question or put it in a different way can i also ask you please to keep your

02:08:22 can i also ask you please to keep your your voice up so that the transcriber who sits to your right can hear what you're saying and get it down clearly on the transcript it also helps please not to nod or shake your head you have to

02:08:33 to nod or shake your head you have to say yes or no as the case may be we'll take the usual scheduled breaks but if you feel you need a break at any other time we can take a break thank you

02:08:42 thank you i'm going to start with your witness statement to the inquiry which is at bre405624 please that's the first page of it can you confirm that that is the first page of

02:08:54 confirm that that is the first page of your statement to the inquiry yes i can and if we go please to page 35 we can see a date and a signature 10th of july 2019 is that signature above that date

02:09:05 2019 is that signature above that date yours yes it is and have you read this witness statement recently yes i have and can you confirm that its contents are true

02:09:12 are true yes i can have you discussed this witness statement or the evidence that you're going to give today and over the next few days with anybody before coming here no i haven't i'm going to begin then with your

02:09:23 i'm going to begin then with your background your qualifications and your training can we look please at page two of your statement please paragraph three you can see there that you graduated from the university of birmingham in 1981 with an honours degree in

02:09:35 1981 with an honours degree in metallurgy and materials science yes yes and you also say that you obtained a phd in the same subjects for research entitled an examination of the dependence of the hydrogen solubility

02:09:47 dependence of the hydrogen solubility upon the structure and constitution of some palladium cerium solid solution alloys

02:09:53 alloys did that work relate to fire no it didn't

02:09:57 didn't a paragraph four you say that in 1984 you joined the bre and that which i think was then called the fire research station yes yes and i think it was a government organization at that stage wasn't it yes it was and your post was as a higher scientific

02:10:09 your post was as a higher scientific officer in the fire dynamics section yes correct before you joined did you have any uh teaching or learning experience or education in fire no i did not

02:10:20 no i did not so you learnt on the job yes yes you were then promoted i think in 1989 as you say in paragraph 6 to senior scientific officer in the fire dynamics section yes yes and then in

02:10:32 dynamics section yes yes and then in 1998 if we go to paragraph eight on page three you can see that you um became head of the computer simulation and reaction to fire team at the bre yes but now at that stage i think well by then

02:10:44 now at that stage i think well by then it's the bre had been privatized doesn't it

02:10:47 it yes yes in 1997. in 1997 yes uh and

02:10:53 uh and at that point had you had any uh training or education in fire fire dynamics

02:11:01 dynamics or

02:11:03 or fire testing yes i had spent my whole time at the fire research station being trained in fire dynamics and how to apply the experimental

02:11:14 how to apply the experimental methodologies etc you know in making the measurements who trained you it was several people professor jeff cox who has now retired from

02:11:27 who has now retired from bre

02:11:28 bre and i worked alongside other colleagues such as

02:11:31 such as richard chitty and dr suresh kumar yes and that was internal in-house training was it yes yes so you you never went out to obtain a formal

02:11:42 went out to obtain a formal qualification in fire fire engineering fire safety no i mean there at that time there were very few opportunities to do that that there were no universities really that were

02:11:53 no universities really that were offering that kind of qualification um

02:11:58 um i did attend external training courses um as they were available and conferences and seminars and workshops etc

02:12:08 etc i attended an experimental methods um

02:12:13 um training course at imperial college london for example so you know various points um depending on

02:12:22 on the the the work that i was undertaking then i did training that was appropriate to the role that i was doing now paragraph nine of your statement you tell us that in 2006 you became centre director for the

02:12:35 2006 you became centre director for the fire performance and suppression at the bre when those areas of business moved into bre certification limited yes yes and i think is it right at companies

02:12:46 and i think is it right at companies house it says that you were made a director of bre certification limited on the 29th of april 2004. yes that's what it says in company's house can you verify that i can't i would have

02:12:58 can you verify that i can't i would have to go back and look i mean if that's what it says at company's house that's probably correct leaving aside the specific date do you recall being made a director of bre certification limited at about

02:13:10 of bre certification limited at about that time yes yes and that was for a short period of time because there was then a reorganization and a restructuring and you became uh well i think you ceased to be

02:13:21 ceased to be in 2008. yes yes and why did you cease to become a director because of the reorganization and and so on that went on within bre

02:13:32 and and so on that went on within bre group at that time right um it was decided that um we or not we but that bre

02:13:39 bre global as it was then would have a much smaller board of directors um because it was too large and too

02:13:50 because it was too large and too unwieldy really for the size of the company and in 2010 you became centre director for fire sciences and building products

02:13:57 products correct uh and um did you

02:14:00 did you did you become a statutory director at that time no we don't think you did no no it's a it's a job title in effect and what was your role between march 2008 when you resigned as a director and

02:14:11 2008 when you resigned as a director and 2010 when he became centre director for fire sciences and building products um i continued as the center director for fire performance and suppression and in april 2016 he became managing

02:14:23 and in april 2016 he became managing director of bre global limited i think that's correct and then resign from that role in april 2020 is that right that's correct why did you resign um i took on a bre group role at that point

02:14:37 bre group role at that point for

02:14:37 for as director of sciences and professional development so it was not just for bre global it was for the group right

02:14:48 group right and and then obviously i suppose relevant to this i retired then in april 2021

02:14:58 2021 that was a retirement property so called was it yes right and are you now in retirement almost

02:15:07 almost what do you um well i'm i've obviously been dealing with um the grenfell inquiry and the provision of documents and and helping um bre with um providing

02:15:18 and and helping um bre with um providing that information in the period since april last year but other than that you are retired i am in the in the sense most people would understand it yes now looking at paragraph 11 please on the screen you say

02:15:29 the screen you say um

02:15:30 um there th and tracking through your career progression in 2010 your role was centre director for fire sciences and building products and in 2016 managing director of bre

02:15:41 and in 2016 managing director of bre global it's paragraph 13 and in

02:15:46 april 2016 you were named on an inaugural list of the uk's top 50 women in engineering published by the daily telegraph yes correct yes and

02:15:58 and you i think became a member is this right of the international forum of fire research directors in 2007 uh yes yes that's correct and what does that organization do

02:16:10 and what does that organization do um so

02:16:12 um so it's been in existence for a long time since 1991 i think yes and basically it's

02:16:20 it's an opportunity for the fire research directors of um similar research organizations from across the world to get together to discuss

02:16:35 issues that require research

02:16:38 research um

02:16:39 um work collaboratively if that's appropriate on particular topics right let's see

02:16:48 let's see uh are you still a member no

02:16:51 no when did you cease to become a member when i retired from vre and to your recollection were there members from the middle east uae dubai um no i don't

02:17:03 the middle east uae dubai um no i don't believe there were there may be now but at that time i don't believe there was anybody from that and did the work of that forum discuss major fires overseas of interest to the

02:17:15 major fires overseas of interest to the research community um to some degree to some degree now in 2008 you were nominated to the editorial board of the fire and materials journal correct who nominated

02:17:28 materials journal correct who nominated you

02:17:29 you um

02:17:31 um i don't know right are you presumably cool right are you still a member um no not now

02:17:40 and did your role in involve suggesting particular articles no

02:17:45 no right no i mean the the so that that journal is basically um a peer review journal um but it publishes articles that are submitted

02:17:57 it publishes articles that are submitted to it they're not invited articles they are you know articles from the research community that are submitted to it and then reviewed and unpublished now if you look at paragraph

02:18:09 unpublished now if you look at paragraph 15 of your statement you say uh on the screen in front of you that you've been a fellow of the institution of fire engineers since 2016.

02:18:20 since 2016. before that were you a a member of the institute of fire engineers no i wasn't how did you come to be a fellow did you did you apply or were you

02:18:31 did you did you apply or were you awarded the greater fellow by a special board resolution no i was invited to become

02:18:36 become a fellow by the board of the institution of fire engineers

02:18:45 now i want to ask you about the details of your role in your line management paragraph 32 of your um

02:18:54 um of

02:18:54 of your statement uh

02:18:58 uh well in fact let's take it more quickly than that sarah colwell in her statement explains that you were her line manager in the reaction to fire team from 1997 onwards is that correct

02:19:10 onwards is that correct um i think it would be 1998 but that was the head of um and in that role you had she puts it direct oversight of her work um in safari as yeah the line manager of sarah

02:19:23 safari as yeah the line manager of sarah yes yes and that was the case until you left in april 2021 um no no when did that stop um well we've we've been through various um

02:19:34 well we've we've been through various um iterations and reorganizations within um bre

02:19:39 bre um i can't remember the oh no it would have stopped in 2016 when i became the managing director of bre global i see who who became sarah colwell's line manager in 2016. um it

02:19:52 colwell's line manager in 2016. um it would have been dr julie briegler is that he pronounced it yes you've solved a controversy okay that's that's julie bregelick became her line manager at that date and when did julie brigillo

02:20:05 at that date and when did julie brigillo cease to be dr colwill's line manager um it would have been when julie left the business and

02:20:13 and which i think was probably

02:20:17 the beginning of 2021 around that sort of time i can't remember the exact date but now so far as dr williams dr corrine williams is

02:20:28 williams dr corrine williams is concerned

02:20:29 concerned is it right that you were also her line manager from 2002 to 2007. um yes that would have been when she was heading up the suppression yes area of activity she i think was the

02:20:42 yes area of activity she i think was the business area manager for the fire suppression team correct yes yeah now

02:20:47 now did you maintain direct oversight

02:20:50 oversight of both dr williams and dr colwell's activities um

02:20:56 um as far as i was their line managers however they did report to other people of course depending upon the the type of work that they were undertaking and the projects that they were undertaking so you know if you were working on

02:21:07 so you know if you were working on somebody else's project you would be accountable to that person right but generally speaking you would supervise and monitor the work done by doctors colwell and williams yes

02:21:18 doctors colwell and williams yes especially from a you know a performance point of view in terms of meeting kpis and business [Music]

02:21:28 [Music] plans and so on uh and did you meet them regularly

02:21:33 regularly yes yes how often um i can't recall exactly

02:21:37 exactly it would probably be monthly did you review their written work um

02:21:45 on occasions yes what occasions i mean it would not be all the time i mean if i i had reviewed many many reports during my time at bre i can't really

02:21:59 during my time at bre i can't really recall specific examples but you know obviously i have i have reviewed their their written work yes right what sort of occasions on what sort of occasions would you have calls

02:22:10 sort of occasions would you have calls to read their written work it might be a an output from a project um it

02:22:17 um it i would have obviously reviewed there there any written work that they produced in terms of um monthly reports on in terms of the the business

02:22:29 on in terms of the the business um

02:22:31 um and that would have been on a sort of regular basis now um ciara holland she says in her statement paragraph eight of her statement that she joined the bre on the 1st of october

02:22:43 she joined the bre on the 1st of october 2012 as a consultant in the fire investigation team or the fire investigation business group i think and worked on projects in the wider fire safety group as the need arose can you

02:22:54 safety group as the need arose can you confirm that um i can't confirm the date but i'll take that as read

02:23:01 she also says just taking it shortly that

02:23:09 you were the contract manager project director and qa for all fire safety related government research projects and ultimately approved bids and proposals and also approve many fire research

02:23:20 and also approve many fire research reports

02:23:21 reports um is that correct um there's a general description of your role yes i mean i didn't i didn't approve all research reports but i probably did

02:23:33 research reports but i probably did approve

02:23:35 approve um

02:23:36 um a number and also i probably didn't approve every single um

02:23:43 um proposal because obviously if i wasn't there when the the the deadline had to be

02:23:48 be met

02:23:49 met now she says in the same place it's paragraph 13 of her statement on page four just for the reference it's bre three zero four three eight two nine that she understood that the fire

02:24:01 she understood that the fire investigation team ultimately reported to you dr smith is that correct um

02:24:08 um well in so far as i was the managing director at that time that's when she's talking about is it yes well from october 1st of october 2012. um

02:24:23 yes i i from 2012

02:24:27 from 2012 yes i i would have been the um director with responsibility at that time yes yes were you a director with responsibility for the fire investigation team before october 2012

02:24:39 october 2012 um

02:24:44 i don't think no i don't think i was right so i reported into another member of the management team at bre now you can see that she refers uh

02:24:56 bre now you can see that she refers uh to in the third line of second and third line to the fire sciences and building products

02:25:02 products division

02:25:03 division um

02:25:05 um who's who else well what other teams sat within that that team

02:25:10 that team so there was the fire safety business group

02:25:14 group that was headed up by steve manchester there was the passive fire group which was headed up at that time by um steve and the howard

02:25:26 steve and the howard there was the suppression business group that was headed up by dr sarah colwell um

02:25:38 and do they all did that sit within the wider fire safety group or no no there was a fire safety business group

02:25:47 group right and that's steve manchester yes i see yes so those three as it were subgroups sat within the fire sciences and building products

02:25:56 now martin ship in his statement to the inquiry paragraph 79 page 15 says and i'm summarizing that

02:26:04 that from 2007

02:26:06 from 2007 or 2008 in fact we can look at it on the screen it's paragraph 79 yes bre-3047594

02:26:14 he says this from as i recollect around 2007 or 2008 until her retirement in 2021 debbie smith has been responsible for signing off any papers that are published i.e put into the public domain

02:26:25 published i.e put into the public domain this includes papers resulting from research for government which will be signed off once the government client has had an opportunity to comment on the draft is he correct in what he says there

02:26:40 it's around 2008 i think that is pretty much

02:26:43 much correct

02:26:46 correct what i would say was is that

02:26:50 is that any paper that was published externally also

02:26:55 also went through a final read by others within the bre group

02:27:02 group um

02:27:03 um [Music]

02:27:05 [Music] so that they were aware of what was going into the public domain and for example that that might and would tend to include the managing director of the company of the

02:27:15 the of bre global we're going to explore that a little bit and you say we went through a final read by others within the bre group does that mean that that even though you were signing something off there was somebody either equal to you as a peer

02:27:27 somebody either equal to you as a peer or senior to you supervising you who would review your sign-off um

02:27:33 um yes to some extent to what extent well i mean to the extent that they they read them i mean they didn't all read all of them

02:27:41 them um

02:27:42 um but they they saw them all so that they were aware of what was coming out and what was going on so can we take can we leave that like this then that when you signed off

02:27:54 when you signed off sometimes somebody would peer review your sign off or supervise it and sometimes they wouldn't

02:28:01 wouldn't yes that's correct now

02:28:03 now we'll look at some sections now from tom lennon's witness statement for the inquiry he wasn't he was at the bre from 1983

02:28:12 1983 uh

02:28:16 well he was principal consultant in the fire safety group wasn't he um well he is now yeah he is now yes do you know when he started what as principal consultant or no i don't know when he was promoted to

02:28:28 no i don't know when he was promoted to okay he says that he was um

02:28:32 um he was principal consultant in the fire safety group and you were the key account manager for probably all the government research projects that he worked on within the fire safety group of bre do you agree with that um that i

02:28:45 of bre do you agree with that um that i took over that role in 2008 when peter field retired from bre yes and what does a key what is a key account manager um well it it was somebody that was

02:28:56 um well it it was somebody that was defined within the proposal that went to the

02:29:01 the customer and basically the key account manager's role is to act or was to act as the key point of contact for any communications etc

02:29:12 for any communications etc any problems that might be occurring with projects um that they were the the person that the department had a point of contact

02:29:23 department had a point of contact i see it yeah he also says does tom lennon that you ran the bre trust research program very briefly if you can what was that okay so i mean i think i don't think i quite agree with

02:29:35 i think i don't think i quite agree with that i didn't run the bre trust research program but the bre trust received monies from any profits that bre made were gift

02:29:47 any profits that bre made were gift aided to the bre trust and then they spent that money on a variety of different activities for the public good

02:29:58 the public good and that included research it included some publications it also included funding

02:30:04 funding phd's at um partner universities where we'd set up university centers in i think at one point there were five of those

02:30:15 point there were five of those in the uk

02:30:17 in the uk and so it was all about sort of education training and um and improving sort of the knowledge base and the bre trust tended to fund

02:30:28 and the bre trust tended to fund research and they had a panel a research committee that were not employees of bre that would review all of the proposals that

02:30:38 that were submitted to them and then they would decide their priority and which ones they wanted to fund so you know my involvement and other colleagues

02:30:49 my involvement and other colleagues within bre was to basically facilitate the proposals from the teams to

02:30:56 to encourage them to put in bids um

02:31:00 um but i didn't you know i wasn't the decision maker in terms of whether they got funded or not and

02:31:08 and is it right that the bre trusts funding came

02:31:11 came from the profits generated by the business side of bre yes solely

02:31:18 solely anyway right were there any other sources of funding to the bre trust i don't know you don't know

02:31:26 and were was the bre business side involved at all in initiating and devising the research projects uh carried out by the bre trust well insofar as we would bid in and put

02:31:38 well insofar as we would bid in and put the proposals to the bre trust but you know every year far more proposals went in than there was money available to fund

02:31:50 was money available to fund so it was you know it really was the research committee's decision to review all of those and to decide where they wanted to place their money basically canada then

02:32:02 place their money basically canada then come back

02:32:03 come back to your career paragraph 11 of your own statement please page three you say that in june 2010 you were awarded an obe for services to fire safety that's right is it yes it is and

02:32:15 safety that's right is it yes it is and you go on in your statement at paragraph 14 on page 3 through to 19 we don't need to read it all out but to give an overview of your various appointments fellowships and member

02:32:27 appointments fellowships and member memberships of bsi committees and some aspects of the research work that you've you've carried out or been involved in and your published works over the period of your career

02:32:38 period of your career just in summary would you accept this

02:32:41 this characterization that you are a renowned expert

02:32:45 expert in the united kingdom in the field of fire safety you don't have to be modest um well i think i'm seen as a fire expert

02:32:56 well i think i'm seen as a fire expert i mean it's for others to judge if you're renowned or not isn't it let's see if i can get your reaction to something can we go please to m e t a four is one two eight five

02:33:07 four is one two eight five now um

02:33:10 now um it'll be obvious to you looking at the screen at the bottom what it is i'm asking you to look at and why uh it's uh an email of the 16th of june 2017 so two days after the grenfell

02:33:22 2017 so two days after the grenfell tower fire sent by pavlos vertavalis of european aluminium

02:33:27 aluminium and in the second paragraph of his email he says debbie smith is the god capital letters of fire in the uk and one of the few in europe definitely her opinion is

02:33:38 few in europe definitely her opinion is more than important now are you aware or were you aware at the time of the grenfell tower fire that this is how you were at least in some quarters regarded in the industry

02:33:50 in the industry no and i've never i don't recall ever meeting pavlos uh batter

02:33:56 batter dallas

02:33:58 dallas so i you know i mean you may not claim divinity for yourself but were you ever aware that you were revered to this extent no now let's turn then to some history um

02:34:10 now let's turn then to some history um 1997 as you i think confirmed uh the bre was privatized wasn't it yes in the dying days of the major administration correct yes what impact did the privatization have on your role

02:34:22 on your role on my role um so

02:34:26 so pre-privatisation a lot of the work that i did was

02:34:34 funded through something called the directors program which was very focused on more pre-normative type research that is

02:34:47 more pre-normative type research that is more fundamental type research perhaps is a better description to make it easier to understand rather than sort of the near-market type research for direct application so all of the

02:34:58 for direct application so all of the work that was done on the development and the validation of computational methods

02:35:06 methods um the application of computational fluid dynamics to fires and the [Music]

02:35:12 [Music] application of other types of modelling approaches that was pioneered at the fire research station was done and funded through that

02:35:23 that mechanism if you like and

02:35:27 and when i joined i mean part of my role was to

02:35:31 to develop

02:35:32 develop data

02:35:34 data from

02:35:35 from experimental programs that could be used to validate the

02:35:40 the computational models that that were being developed and um

02:35:46 and um yeah and and and basically to help then provide the data that would develop the um

02:35:55 um the the the sub models that needed to go in it because using a fundamental fluid dynamics model you can't model everything in first principles it's quite a specific and scientific answer to my

02:36:07 specific and scientific answer to my question i'm sorry something a little bit more sorry a little bit more economic um as a matter of common sense is it right the privatization meant that the bre then had to stand on its own two feet financially oh yes yes yeah of course

02:36:19 financially oh yes yes yeah of course and so therefore the source of government funds was cut off and can only be accessed by bidding for contracts

02:36:26 contracts yes um i mean the first five years after privatization and i don't know the full details of it but certainly as part of the privatization deal if you like with

02:36:37 the privatization deal if you like with with government the they

02:36:39 the they there was a guaranteed minimum level of funding to bre under the first framework and

02:36:48 and i mean it meant they could spend more than that but it meant they wouldn't go below a baseline minimum but that only existed for the first five years so it expired in what 2002 yes it would

02:37:00 so it expired in what 2002 yes it would have done and after that you then had to make your way in the world financially yes and any government funding had to be bid for yeah can we look at martin

02:37:11 bid for yeah can we look at martin ship's second statement to the inquiry bre three zeros four seven five nine four please page 12 paragraph 69 he says this

02:37:20 this publications were in my view also affected by privatization prior to privatization essentially all of the fire safety research we carried out was for government and most was quite quickly put into the public domain

02:37:31 quickly put into the public domain and he gives an example as i discussed further below fire investigation reports considered to be supporting the development of government policy were mostly not published following privatization the programme of

02:37:42 following privatization the programme of work for government diminished and also the process of putting findings into the public domain became more cumbersome since bre's legal interests had to be protected the research that was commissioned by non-government organizations i.e the private sector was

02:37:55 organizations i.e the private sector was for their own commercial purposes and seldom entered the public domain does what mr ship say that accord with your own experience um

02:38:06 um largely i'm not quite sure what he means by it became more cumbersome i mean obviously pre-privatization then

02:38:16 then her majesty's stationary office would have been the main route for publishing reports etc and obviously once we were privatised that was no longer available and there was a period of time where

02:38:28 and there was a period of time where outputs from government work i don't think the

02:38:32 think the department at that time which i think it was detr

02:38:37 was detr um quite knew how to deal with them it was it your own experience that the bre's fire safety research was made publicly available less quickly

02:38:49 was made publicly available less quickly uh and according to a more cumbersome process than before privatization

02:38:54 um i suppose that that there is an element of truth in that yes in the sense that um

02:39:02 um prior to privatization

02:39:07 i suppose there was more freedom to put research into journals

02:39:14 journals and peer-reviewed journals and so on without the oversight but clearly once we were privatized then everything that was going to be put into the public domain had to go through the department

02:39:25 domain had to go through the department so there was another tier of checking if you like yes i see and was that partly at least because the bre's legal interests had to be protected i don't know what he means

02:39:36 be protected i don't know what he means by that

02:39:38 by that uh was it also your experience that after privatization the program of fire safety research work for the government diminished yes yeah and if we go on to page 13 of his

02:39:50 and if we go on to page 13 of his statement please paragraph 71 he says in my opinion privatization has also impacted upon the investigation of real fires program beyond the reduction in financial value

02:40:02 beyond the reduction in financial value the project did and does depend very much on the cooperation and goodwill of fire and rescue service officers who notify us about significant fires arrange access for us and usually accompany us before privatization we as

02:40:15 accompany us before privatization we as civil servants were i believe seen by fire and rescue services as comrades in public service with a public service ethic and we felt the same after privatization we were in my view often perceived as just another

02:40:26 often perceived as just another commercial business bre staff who thought they were working for the public good and who before privatization necessarily did not need to consider whether projects were profitable now we're encouraged by the new owners of bre to always consider whether a

02:40:38 of bre to always consider whether a project would be profitable or at least cover its costs in order that bre could continue to operate as a viable organization now we will come back in due course dr

02:40:49 now we will come back in due course dr smith to some detailed questions about the investigation of real fast project but in general terms does what martin ship says there uh accord with your experience um

02:41:00 um yeah i mean i i had no direct experience of dealing with the fire and rescue service um officers that he refers to um so i mean uh obviously i i

02:41:12 so i mean uh obviously i i i can i you can't comment on that yeah i can see don on that point to to what his recollection is and what his um understanding is on that and in your experience did the bre investigate fewer

02:41:23 experience did the bre investigate fewer fires as a consequence of privatization um

02:41:28 um if the financial value of the contract that was let had reduced then inevitably yes they would have does that mean that the less money that was available to investigate the less you would investigate

02:41:40 the less you would investigate yes of course yes now we'll we'll look at a

02:41:44 at a section next of of peter field's statement

02:41:47 statement just briefly on peter field is it right he was senior to you and was at the bre from 1965 to 2007 those are the dates he gives yeah well he was senior to me i don't know when he joined i mean

02:41:58 don't know when he joined i mean obviously that was way before my joy indeed but i think you can confirm at least this much that he was director of fire and security in the years 2004 to 2007.

02:42:09 2007. yes yes now let's look at his statement please bre three zero four three seven one zero page ten page eleven paragraph ten please he says this

02:42:20 this uh

02:42:22 uh this paragraph

02:42:26 paragraph 54

02:42:27 54 uh i think we probably need the foot of page 10 actually just go to the bottom of page 10. uh yes

02:42:35 uh yes he says

02:42:37 he says that i have some recollection that immediately prior to or during the five-year guarantee the op the odpm stroke detr then doe official responsible for making the case for bre's funding for work in support of

02:42:49 for bre's funding for work in support of fire safety research and atb i believe this was anthony ferguson was not as successful in obtaining the level of funding that had previously been provided

02:42:57 provided in particular i seem to recall that the funding for fire research and investigations in support of adb was at some stage around three to four million pounds per financial year and

02:43:06 and over maybe four to five years this reduced to around 1.5 to 2 million pounds

02:43:12 pounds having said that i do not have a firm recollection of the exact dates or amounts and as noted above i do not recall being made aware of precisely how funding operated under the terms of the five-year guarantee

02:43:24 five-year guarantee including whether funding was always intended to taper off in successive years however i do know that the funding for this work did reduce significantly now again would you agree with what

02:43:35 now again would you agree with what he says there um insofar as i am aware yes because i like peter did not have any um direct involvement with the five-year guarantee i mean that was dealt with at bre

02:43:47 dealt with at bre um top

02:43:48 um top top management right in in as fewer centers as you can what did the

02:43:53 did the five-year guarantee uh involve okay so that's what i spoke about earlier that's what you told us about yes right well you were aware at any time during the five-year period that the official

02:44:04 the five-year period that the official who was responsible for making the case for bre's funding for work in support of the fire

02:44:10 the fire safety research and adb mr ferguson was not as successful in obtaining the level of funding that had previously been provided

02:44:18 provided i don't know you don't know you don't know why do you no i don't right do the figures that that um uh referred to here by mr field sound familiar to you at least they

02:44:29 sound familiar to you at least they sound approximately right right they don't sound way off right and

02:44:34 and was it the case that funding went to other organizations or was it the case that the funding for the research and investigations in support of approved document b particularly was yeah

02:44:47 and was less work in support of fire safety research and proof document be carried out across the board do you know post-privatization um

02:44:56 um i think it was yes yes if you look at page 11 paragraph 55 he says this

02:45:02 says this mr field

02:45:03 mr field i recall that the reduction in funding from government had three key implications for bre a the need to seek a larger proportion of its income from commercial sources in order to fully utilize staff whose capabilities have

02:45:15 utilize staff whose capabilities have been developed and maintained and whose costs had previously been covered by government funding b more limited financial resources which led to the loss of some staff and expertise see a particular impact on the resources

02:45:27 see a particular impact on the resources available to conduct bre's so-called blue skies research which was often undertaken to preempt future issues in terms of fire safety these activities could not easily be funded from commercial sources

02:45:39 commercial sources do you agree with what mr field says there in terms of the implications of a reduction in funding from from central government yes i do you do and were those matters ever matters that you yourself discussed with peter field

02:45:52 you yourself discussed with peter field um

02:45:54 um i'm sure i'm sure we must have discussed them at some point what about martin shipp did you discuss those matters with him yes i mean i think that these were issues that that were clear to people and and you know clearly

02:46:06 clear to people and and you know clearly with the loss of staff and expertise etc you know it was visible right it's perfectly visible so and what was the impact of the bre being compelled to seek a larger proportion of

02:46:17 compelled to seek a larger proportion of its income from commercial sources it did change the type of work that we could undertake because as peter has said there you know

02:46:28 because as peter has said there you know um

02:46:28 um [Music]

02:46:30 [Music] commercial bodies and organizations companies etc were

02:46:38 were never willing to fund like pre-normative fundamental type research work as a rule i mean that they were only interested in any research work that was

02:46:50 interested in any research work that was quite focused um and made it you know so it made it very much more more difficult the only way that you could do

02:47:00 could do some of this work was um

02:47:03 um through

02:47:05 through project um types like the partners in innovation and the partners in technology programmes where they were part funded um because i think as either martin or

02:47:17 um because i think as either martin or peter has said there the um

02:47:22 the um i don't know if it was peter that the um [Music]

02:47:28 [Music] that there was a reluctance for from commercial organizations to make the findings of their research generally available it is what you're saying can i just ask this when you were funded by

02:47:40 just ask this when you were funded by the government who

02:47:43 who was responsible for the direction of what one might call your blue skies research um it was still held the responsibility for that in the department in the government department

02:47:55 in the government department and

02:47:57 and again bids would have to be made to

02:48:01 to to the government department and the officials whoever they were there um

02:48:06 um to to consider if if they wanted to fund that or not so basically people in the bre uh proposed research projects yes to the government for consideration yes and

02:48:18 the government for consideration yes and funding yes and presumably even after privatization there was no reason in prince um well i mean you could suggest to government and here was a problem that

02:48:29 government and here was a problem that needed some yes and indeed would they like to fund it yes and indeed we did right um you know that continued for some for some time yeah where

02:48:41 some time yeah where um

02:48:43 um ideas

02:48:44 ideas for projects were put forward to government to consider whether they wanted to fund them or not i mean it suggests to me that the real problem was not necessarily privatization as such but

02:48:57 necessarily privatization as such but the government's willingness to fund what you call blue skies research yeah well peter calls it that well yes yeah that's really the problem wasn't it yes yes i think so yes all right thank you

02:49:09 yes i think so yes all right thank you and the obverse of that that commercial entities manufacturers for example were only interested were not interested in experiments for the benefit of

02:49:20 for the benefit of a better understanding of fire safety in the public interest but for the better to sell their products absolutely yes and that's not just manufacturers of course that could be other types of

02:49:31 course that could be other types of commercial entities can you give us an example um it might be work that was being done for a commercial retailer for example

02:49:42 a commercial retailer for example yes i see

02:49:43 yes i see now um

02:49:47 was there a time when there was research that you can recall that you or your team wanted to carry out

02:49:53 out or

02:49:55 or perhaps to explore fundamental issues or to preempt problems

02:49:59 problems in terms of fire safety but we're unable to do so because of a lack of funding but that's been a constant um line through

02:50:09 through [Music]

02:50:12 [Music] you know through through the path that we've been on right you know it's it's i say

02:50:17 i say all bids for research

02:50:21 research into funding opportunities are competitive and invariably some get funded and some don't

02:50:30 don't can we then look uh at peter field's statement please at the next page page 12 paragraph 56

02:50:45 uh

02:50:47 i'm sorry it put page 11 paragraph 56 and he says this um there were further major changes once the fire safety framework agreement was entered into in 20 in 2003 following the end of the

02:50:58 20 in 2003 following the end of the five-year guarantee the government began to tend to competitively for the research that it required in support of the building regulations subsequent management of contracts awarded was handled by intermediary contract

02:51:09 handled by intermediary contract managers

02:51:10 managers aea technology i remember feeling the privatization had now diminished further the close working relationship bre previously had with policy officers within government who were responsible

02:51:21 within government who were responsible for commissioning research in support of the building regulations i felt the involvement of aea technology as research management contractors added an unnecessary and costly middleman

02:51:32 unnecessary and costly middleman into an arrangement that had been working effectively for decades which did not add value for money and which introduced a new level of bureaucracy now

02:51:43 now did you yourself consider also that through competitive tendering and the introduction of this middleman aea technology as contract manager the built the bre and the building regulations policy

02:51:55 and the building regulations policy officer's close working relationship was undermined further diminished um

02:52:01 um i mean obviously i didn't have the same experience that peter did having been there for much longer and knowing how it worked through the years

02:52:12 knowing how it worked through the years but certainly yes there was a change in in the way that we um

02:52:17 um interacted yeah you wouldn't disagree with anything he said that um or would you well i don't know whether it was an unnecessary and costly middleman i mean it's not for me to comment on that did you consider

02:52:29 me to comment on that did you consider that there was some benefit to fire safety research by the addition of aea technology as management contractors um

02:52:36 um i mean the only i suppose advantage that that came with that was they produced a basically a portal where all of the documents and so on were all

02:52:49 all of the documents and so on were all archived so all of the outputs and reports and so on were archived on their database and in a way that made report approval and the management

02:53:01 approval and the management a little bit easier um in relation to the fire safety framework uh do you know when that came to an end um so there were three fire safety

02:53:12 um so there were three fire safety frameworks there was the initial five-year guarantee um to bre on privatization there was then a second framework that

02:53:23 there was then a second framework that was competitively tendered [Music]

02:53:27 [Music] in 2003

02:53:33 that then ran i think till 2007-2000

02:53:38 2007-2000 and then there was a third framework again that was competitively tendered but each each time they kind of evolved and they were slightly different from the previous one

02:53:51 the previous one and the third framework um when did that end um i think that must have ended um i think it was a four-year framework so it probably ended around 2011.

02:54:03 it probably ended around 2011. and what happened after that everything just became competitively tendered right any projects were put procured through the government procurement portal i see so you had no safety net effectively well we didn't

02:54:14 safety net effectively well we didn't have a safety net after 2002 right

02:54:18 right but you didn't have a as it were an off-take agreement a framework agreement under which you could continue to work no and i mean the as i say the frameworks evolved so the final framework

02:54:30 framework there were a number of contractors that were appointed to that framework and then when a project came up then all of those people that were appointed to the framework were invited

02:54:42 appointed to the framework were invited to bid for it so it was competitive and again competitive you see what i mean are you a fire safety man you were fire

02:54:52 i think you were the fire safety framework manager at times yes what can you just tell us when um so i took over i say when peter fields retired which was approximately the end

02:55:05 retired which was approximately the end of the second framework so i was the fire safety manager through the third framework

02:55:11 framework now i'm going to turn to a new topic mr chairman

02:55:14 chairman it's five to one but i can make a decent start on it but i might continue it yeah it is adb

02:55:19 it is adb um

02:55:20 um and some definitions i want to ask you about some particular definitions and fire classifications first i want to ask you about the background to national class naught

02:55:33 background to national class naught now

02:55:34 now we know i think correct correct us if we're wrong about this but the classification is achieved by combining particular results from two british standard tests bs 476 part six

02:55:46 bs 476 part six and bs476 part seven correct looking at seven first of all that's a surface spread of flame test isn't it correct

02:55:54 correct um and

02:55:56 um and what is your understanding of the origins of that test i don't know you don't know i mean i it way predates

02:56:08 i mean i it way predates my my involvement with joining the fire search station even but

02:56:14 but bre

02:56:16 bre and the fire research station to my knowledge were not involved heavily at the time that i joined anyway up until 2000 in fire testing

02:56:29 fire testing to bs 476 part 6 and 7. we didn't have any spread of flame apparatus or a fire propagation test would you

02:56:39 would you or do you know if you don't know tell me but it from the 1940s in fact it was a method of testing flame spread within corridors inside buildings yes it was for lining materials i know

02:56:51 yes it was for lining materials i know that yes yes yes yes internal materials internal lining materials yes thank you and do you agree that there have been no fundamental changes to the part 7 test

02:57:03 fundamental changes to the part 7 test since it was initially developed at some point during world war ii um that may be true i i i can't really comment on that i've not done a historic

02:57:14 comment on that i've not done a historic review of it back to 1940 so no do you know that the the reference scenario if i can put it that way

02:57:22 that way for that test is an internal fire yes yeah

02:57:26 yeah turning then to part six that tests fire propagation doesn't it yes and

02:57:32 and how would you define fire propagation in very very simple terms yeah i mean basically what the test is doing is it's measuring um temperature increase when exposed to an external radiant uh

02:57:44 when exposed to an external radiant uh an internal radiant panel within the box that the sample is exposed in so essentially you're measuring the contribution from that

02:57:56 that product that material that you've got mounted in the box to that imposed radiant heat flux and and the gas flame along the bottom as well yes

02:58:08 yes and do you have any understanding about the origins of that test no again

02:58:14 no again i don't and again do you agree that it was

02:58:17 was at least this much developed and intended to test fire propagation within a compartment that's my understanding yes

02:58:24 yes so both of those tests have internal fire as their reference scenario that's my understanding yes neither was designed or intended for an external cladding fire scenario correct

02:58:35 cladding fire scenario correct did there ever come a time during your your long career at the bre when you considered whether class naught as a classification based as it was on two tests

02:58:46 two tests from the 1940s and perhaps 50s was any longer an appropriate or safe test in the light of modern materials and modern methods of construction being used in external wall buildups as they were evolving

02:58:59 well my understanding to the background of this but obviously it wasn't at the time because i wasn't working in that area but you know my understanding is that

02:59:10 is that it was around 1988 when you know concerns were first raised around that which led to some large-scale experimental work being done which were reported in br135

02:59:25 done which were reported in br135 and from there on in you know there was a growing body of evidence that showed that you know a larger scale scenario based test more relevant to

02:59:36 based test more relevant to external fire performance was being pursued it's not yes i mean we may come to that but just focusing on my question did you ever ask

02:59:47 focusing on my question did you ever ask yourself at any any time during your career at the bre i wonder whether class not really is an appropriate classification for reaction to fire

02:59:59 classification for reaction to fire for an external wall panel given its origins

03:00:02 origins and its reference um

03:00:05 um not in that sense because other things were going on with a view to

03:00:12 to one which would have made the classo

03:00:17 classification and all of the other national classes redundant anyway and that's the european developments within the um [Music]

03:00:28 [Music] the publication of the european norms um

03:00:32 um and

03:00:34 and secondly the um the development of the large-scale test that that was going on for a number of years which ultimately became bsa414 of course and we will come to european norms after

03:00:45 and we will come to european norms after the break is that a convenient moment yes i think it is well i think dr smith is time we stopped for some lunch i know you've only just getting into your stride but if we don't stop now we might never get one okay so we'll do that um we'll

03:00:57 one okay so we'll do that um we'll resume please at two o'clock and as you started giving your evidence i can say to you as i have to everybody else please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it

03:01:08 your evidence or anything relating to it while you're out of the room okay all right thank you very much thank you like to go to the usher then please thank you

03:01:23 thank you 2 o'clock

03:01:35 you